People v. Majingcar
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondents Edgar Majingcar y Yabut and Christopher Ryan Llaguno y Matos were charged with violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165). Specifically, Criminal Case No. 2016-0774 alleged the sale of 0.056 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), while Criminal Case No. 2016-0775 alleged possession of 0.309 grams of the same dangerous drug. Upon arraignment, both respondents pleaded not guilty to the charges. Procedural History: The respondents sought to plead guilty to a lesser offense, violation of Section 12, Article II of RA 9165, pursuant to A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC. The prosecution initially objected to the plea bargain for Criminal Case No. 2016-0774, proposing instead a plea to Section 5 with the penalty for Section 11(3). However, the prosecution did not object to the plea bargain for Criminal Case No. 2016-0775. The trial court, in a resolution dated August 6, 2018, allowed the plea bargain for both cases and declared certain DOJ circulars and an RPO order unconstitutional. After the prosecution's motion for reconsideration was denied, the respondents were re-arraigned and pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of violation of Section 12, Article II of RA 9165 in both cases. The trial court subsequently rendered judgment, sentencing each respondent to imprisonment and fines. The People of the Philippines appealed to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari. The Petition: The People of the Philippines seeks to set aside the Court of Appeals' decision which dismissed their petition for certiorari on grounds of late filing and lack of merit. The People argues that their petition was filed within the reglementary period and that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's grant of the plea bargain in Criminal Case No. 2016-0774, as it was done without the prosecutor's consent, constituting grave abuse of discretion. Furthermore, the People contend that the trial court gravely abused its discretion by motu proprio declaring DOJ Circular No. 27 unconstitutional. The People pray for the remand of Criminal Case No. 2016-0774 to the trial court for further proceedings, while seeking affirmation of the Court of Appeals' decision regarding Criminal Case No. 2016-0775.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in declaring that the People initiated the petition for certiorari out of time. Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in affirming the grant of respondents' proposal to plead guilty to the lesser offense of violation of Section 12, Article II of RA 9165 in Criminal Case Nos. 2016-0774 and 2016-0775. Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in affirming the unconstitutionality of DOJ Circular Nos. 027 and 061 and RPO Order No. 027-E-18, as decreed by the trial court. Whether the People's challenge against the verdict of conviction violates respondents' right against double jeopardy.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing and setting aside the Court of Appeals' Decision and Resolution insofar as Criminal Case No. 2016-0774 is concerned. The case was remanded to the Regional Trial Court for further proceedings. For Criminal Case No. 2016-0775, the Court of Appeals' Decision and Resolution were affirmed, and the respondents were found guilty of violation of Section 12, Republic Act No. 9165, with the imposed sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the petition for certiorari: The Court held that the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in declaring the petition for certiorari filed by the People out of time. The sixty-day period for filing the petition should be reckoned from September 18, 2018, the date the prosecutor received notice of the trial court's judgment of conviction, not from the date of re-arraignment. Therefore, the petition filed on November 16, 2018, was well within the reglementary period which expired on November 17, 2018. The Court emphasized that interlocutory orders cannot be subjects of certiorari, and the proper remedy is a challenge against the final judgment on the merits. The Court also noted exceptions to the requirement of filing a motion for reconsideration as a prerequisite to a petition for certiorari, such as when the issues have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court or when public interest is involved. On the plea bargain in Criminal Case No. 2016-0775 and 2016-0774: The Court found no error in the Court of Appeals upholding the respondents' plea to a lesser offense of violation of Section 12, Article II of RA 9165 in Criminal Case No. 2016-0775, as the prosecution had interposed no objection to this proposal. The acceptance of such a proposal rests upon the sound discretion of the court. Thus, the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in approving this proposal. However, the Court ruled that the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in affirming the grant of respondents' proposal to plead guilty to the lesser offense of violation of Section 12, Article II of RA 9165 in Criminal Case No. 2016-0774, without the consent of the prosecution. Section 2, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court explicitly requires the consent of the prosecutor for an accused to plead guilty to a lesser offense. In drug cases, the prosecutor's consent is the operative act that vests discretion upon the court. Since the prosecution vehemently opposed the plea bargain in this case, the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion and in gross ignorance of the law when it approved the proposal. This approval encroached upon the prosecutor's direction and control over the prosecution. On the declaration of unconstitutionality of DOJ Circulars: The Court agreed with the People that the trial court gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it motu proprio declared DOJ Circular No. 27 unconstitutional. The requisites for judicial review were absent, including an actual case or justiciable controversy, ripeness for adjudication, proper party challenging the act, and the issue of constitutionality being raised at the earliest opportunity and being the litis mota. The Court reiterated its ruling in Sayre v. Xenos that DOJ Circular No. 27 does not infringe upon the Court's rule-making power and merely serves as an internal guideline for prosecutors. On double jeopardy: The Court held that the respondents' right against double jeopardy has not been violated. Section 7(c) of Rule 117 of the Rules of Court provides that a conviction for a lesser offense is not a bar to another prosecution for a graver offense if the plea of guilty to the lesser offense was made without the consent of the prosecutor. Since the plea bargain in Criminal Case No. 2016-0774 was made without the prosecutor's consent, respondents can still be prosecuted for the original charge of violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165.
Main Doctrine
The trial court commits grave abuse of discretion when it allows an accused to plead guilty to a lesser offense, in violation of Section 2, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court, without the consent of the prosecution, particularly in drug cases where the prosecutor's consent is the operative act vesting discretion upon the court. Furthermore, a trial court acts with gross ignorance of the law when it motu proprio declares a Department of Justice (DOJ) circular unconstitutional without the requisites for judicial review.