People v. Reyes
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Darwin Reyes y Cabornay was charged in two separate Informations with violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Specifically, he was accused of possessing 0.118 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) and selling 0.066 grams of the same dangerous drug. Upon arraignment, Reyes pleaded not guilty to both charges. Procedural History: During trial, Reyes moved to plead guilty to a lesser offense in the sale charge, specifically Section 12 of Article II of RA 9165 (illegal possession of drug paraphernalia), instead of Section 5 (illegal sale). The prosecution objected, citing DOJ Circular No. 027. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the motion, convicted Reyes of the lesser offense, and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty, but declared him ineligible to apply for probation. Reyes moved for reconsideration of the probation ineligibility, which the RTC denied. Consequently, Reyes filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The Petition: The Court of Appeals granted Reyes' petition, annulling the RTC's order disqualifying him from applying for probation and modifying the RTC's original order by deleting the pronouncement of ineligibility. The CA directed Reyes to file his application for probation. The People of the Philippines, through the Solicitor General, filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari, assailing the CA's decision and resolution, arguing that the CA erred in ruling that Reyes is eligible to apply for probation. The People contend that Reyes' conviction for the lesser offense was void due to non-compliance with DOJ Circular No. 027.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that respondent is eligible to apply for probation. Whether the plea bargain entered into by the respondent was valid despite not being in writing.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Court affirmed the CA Decision and Resolution, holding that respondent Darwin Reyes is eligible to apply for probation. The RTC's pronouncement disqualifying him from probation was deleted, and he was given fifteen (15) days from notice to file his application for probation.
Ratio Decidendi
On the eligibility for probation: The Court reiterated that Section 24, Article II of RA 9165 prohibits those convicted for drug trafficking or pushing under Section 5 from availing of probation. However, this prohibition does not apply when an accused, originally charged with Section 5, is subsequently convicted of a lesser offense through a plea bargain. In such cases, eligibility for probation is determined by the offense to which the accused is ultimately found guilty, not the original charge. The RTC convicted respondent of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia (Section 12), a lesser offense, after a plea bargain. Therefore, the CA correctly ruled that respondent is eligible to apply for probation. On the validity of the plea bargain: The Court acknowledged that the plea bargaining offer was made orally, which contravenes the requirement under DOJ Circular No. 027 and DOJ Circular No. 018, as well as the Court's own clarificatory guidelines, that such offers must be in writing. However, the Court applied liberality pro hac vice due to several factors: the late stage of the proceedings, the prosecution's failure to timely raise the issue of the oral motion before the lower court, the non-jurisdictional and non-fatal nature of the defect, the interest of judicial economy and efficiency, and the principle of speedy disposition of cases. The prosecution's objection was also based solely on the nature of the lesser offense, not on the procedural defect of the motion being oral. The Court held that the prosecution waived its right to object to this procedural imperfection by failing to raise it seasonably. Thus, the conviction for illegal possession of drug paraphernalia is beyond question.
Main Doctrine
A person convicted of a lesser offense, such as illegal possession of drug paraphernalia under Section 12, Article II of RA 9165, through a plea bargain, is eligible to apply for probation, notwithstanding the original charge of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. The eligibility for probation hinges on the offense for which the accused is ultimately found guilty, not the offense originally charged.