Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CRIMINAL CASE NO.

Plaintiff, xxxxxxxxxxx
-versus-

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, For: Violation of Sec. 11

Accused. Art II of RA 9165

X----------------------------------------X

ORDER

Accused xxxxxxxxx stands charged with violation of Sec. 11 of Art. II of

Republic Act No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002;
for violation of Sec. 11, illegally possessing Shabu, a dangerous drug, with the
quantity of xxxxxx of shabu. The accused manifested that he would like to plea
bargain by pleading guilty to the lesser offense for violation of Sec. 11 to Sec.
12, supra.

The Court directed the accused xxxxxxxxxxx to submit himself in any

DOH accredited treatment and Rehabilitation Center as a condition sine qua non
to his plea bargaining proposal. Dr. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx of
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx submitted a drug dependency examination (DDE)
report stating thereof his diagnosis and recommendation, to wit:

Impression: No Substance Use Disorder.

Recommendation: Present evaluation reveals the

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx is mentally fit. He has no symptoms of
substance use disorder. No drug rehabilitation is recommended.

The Court required the prosecution to comment on the motion to plea

bargain of the accused. The prosecution interposed their continuing objection to
the motion to plea bargain. The Court thus rules on the motion as well as the
opposition to it.

Plea bargaining is already allowed in drugs cases pursuant to the ruling of

the Supreme Court in Estipona v. Lobrigo (G.R. No. 226679, 15 August 2017)
which declared Sec. 23 of R.A. No. 9165 unconstitutional. Subsequently, the
Supreme Court issued A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC, 20 April 2018, which adopted the
plea bargaining framework proposed by the Philippine Judges Association.

Page 1 of 3
 In the SC-approved framework, plea bargaining is allowed for offenses
involving Sec. 5, Art. 11, RA 9165 provided that the quantity involved is less
than 1 gram for Shabu or less than 10 grams for Marijuana. Plea bargaining is
also allowed for offenses involving Sec. 11, supra, wherein the quantity involved
is less than 5 grams for Shabu or less than 300 grams for Marijuana. In both
offenses, the lesser offense to which the accused may plead guilty is a violation
of Sec. 12, supra, which carries the penalty of imprisonment from 6 months & 1
day to 4 years and fine from PhP10,000.00 to PhP50,000.00

As a rule and by jurisprudence, the consent of the prosecutor and the

offended party — or in case of public crimes wherein there is no offended party,
the consent of the arresting officer — is required. The consent requirement is
not, however, a mechanism to countermand the discretionary power of the court
to grant or approve plea bargaining. It is rather an opportunity given to the
prosecution to challenge the proposed plea bargaining if it would detract the
court from its duty to administer justice in a manner consistent with the objective
for the enactment of the penal law violated. As Crespo v. Mogul (G.R. No. L-
53373, 30 June 1987) instructs, once a complaint or information is filed in Court
any disposition of the case as to its dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the
accused rests in the sound discretion of the Court. The power to exercise such
judicial discretion is exclusive and is not shared by the prosecutor or the
arresting officer.

Sec. 2 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 articulates the

purposes for the enactment the anti-illegal drugs law to be the following:

a) To safeguard x x x the well-being of the citizenry particularly

the youth from the harmful effects of dangerous drugs;

b) To pursue an intensive and unrelenting campaign against

trafficking and the use of dangerous drugs and similar
substances;

c) To provide effective mechanism or measure to re-integrate into

society individuals who have fallen victims to drug abuse or drug
dependence through treatment and rehabilitation.

The plea bargain framework crafted by the Philippine Judges Association

and adopted by the Supreme Court precisely adheres to the foregoing purposes
for the enactment of R.A. No. 9165. It makes drug dependency examination
(DDE) a mandatory requirement for plea bargaining, and depending on its
results, rehabilitation or counseling is an imposed condition of the plea
bargaining.

Page 2 of 3
 The Court finds that the opposition (or objection) of the prosecutor to the
approval of the plea bargaining proposal does not show that such approval would
negate the purposes for which RA No. 9165 was enacted. On the contrary, the
approval of the plea bargaining would achieve the two-fold purpose of the law;
vindicate public order with the conviction of the accused, and give him a chance
to be rehabilitated and re-integrated into the society as a productive individual.

WHEREFORE, over the objection of the prosecution, the Court finds the
plea bargaining proposal to be in accord with the rationale of the law and the
wisdom of A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC. Consequently, the plea bargaining is
approved.

SO ORDERED.

Done this xx day of xxxx 2023 at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Philippines.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Presiding Judge

Page 3 of 3