Cereza v. Suarez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Carlos Cereza, Roger Estolonillo, Raymundo Lopez, Yolanda Pascual, Merly Ann Montes, and May Ann Villa (Cereza, et al.) were charged with violation of Section 13, in relation to Section 11 of Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) for allegedly possessing 0.07 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride. Procedural History: Cereza, et al. pleaded not guilty. Subsequently, they filed a Motion to Withdraw Plea, seeking to plead guilty to the lesser offense under Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, in accordance with A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC (Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases). The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 259, of Parañaque City, granted their motion, allowing them to plead guilty to the lesser offense under Section 11, Paragraph 3 of R.A. No. 9165, applying DOJ Circular No. 027, which prescribed a penalty of imprisonment of 12 years and one day to 20 years and a fine of P300,000.00 to P400,000.00. The RTC denied their subsequent motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Cereza, et al. filed a Petition for Certiorari assailing the RTC Orders, arguing that DOJ Circular No. 027 encroached upon the Supreme Court's rule-making power and violated their right to privacy and against self-incrimination, and that they should have been allowed to plead to Section 12 as per A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC.
Issue(s)
Whether DOJ Circular No. 027 of the Department of Justice is unconstitutional for encroaching upon the rule-making power of the Supreme Court. Whether petitioners are entitled to plea bargain pursuant to A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC. Whether the drug dependency assessment under DOJ Circular No. 027 is unconstitutional for violating the constitutional right of the accused to privacy and self-incrimination. Whether the public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it allowed the petitioners to plead guilty to Section 11(3) of Republic Act No. 9165 instead of Section 12 of Republic Act No. 9165, which is favorable to the petitioners.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the assailed Orders and remanded the case to the court of origin for proper evaluation of the plea bargaining proposal based on the Montierro guidelines.
Ratio Decidendi
On the constitutionality of DOJ Circular No. 027 and its encroachment on the Supreme Court's rule-making power: The Court held that DOJ Circular No. 027 does not encroach upon the rule-making power of the Supreme Court. It clarified that A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC serves as a framework and guide, but plea bargaining still requires mutual agreement of the parties and court approval. DOJ Circular No. 027 acts as an internal guideline for prosecutors before they give consent to plea bargains, falling within the executive department's power to enforce laws. The Court reiterated that prosecutors have control over criminal prosecutions and their discretion, guided by DOJ circulars, must be respected, provided it aligns with the Court's framework. The Court emphasized that plea bargaining requires the prosecutor's consent, as stated in Section 2, Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. On entitlement to plea bargain pursuant to A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC: The Court noted that while Section 13 of R.A. No. 9165 was not initially included in A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC, a subsequent Resolution on June 4, 2019, included it. This amendment, being procedural, has retroactive application. However, this does not nullify DOJ Circular No. 027. The Court stressed that A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC is a framework, not an iron-clad procedure. The RTC's allowance of plea bargaining to Section 11(3) instead of Section 12, based on DOJ Circular No. 027, was deemed improper without proper assessment. On the constitutionality of the drug dependency assessment: The Court found that the requirement of a drug dependency assessment does not violate the right to privacy or against self-incrimination. The Montierro guidelines mandate such assessments upon receipt of a plea bargaining proposal. The Court reasoned that the results of the drug dependency test aid trial courts in assessing the character of the accused, which is a factor in granting or denying plea bargains. Furthermore, the Court had previously recognized the conduct of drug tests for persons apprehended for violations under Article II of R.A. No. 9165 in Dela Cruz v. People, indicating that such tests are permissible under the law. On grave abuse of discretion: The Court ruled that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion by allowing the plea bargain to Section 11(3) without a proper assessment of the petitioners' qualifications and the evidence on record, as required by the Montierro guidelines. The RTC relied solely on DOJ Circular No. 027, which is insufficient. The Court emphasized that trial courts must exercise sound discretion, considering the evidence and the character of the accused, and cannot automatically approve a plea bargain based solely on prosecutorial consent or internal DOJ guidelines. Therefore, the case was remanded for proper evaluation.
Main Doctrine
While DOJ Circular No. 027 provides internal guidelines for prosecutors regarding plea bargaining in drug cases, trial courts must exercise sound discretion in granting or denying such proposals, considering the Montierro guidelines, and cannot solely rely on the circular. The Court may overrule prosecutorial objections if not based on evidence.