G.R. No. 268672 – VICENTE SUAREZ JR. y BANUA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

LAZARO-JAVIER, J.

Rule Synopsis

Under A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC, or the Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases, plea bargaining is proscribed in case of illegal sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu (violation of Section 5 Republic Act [RA] 9165, or the Dangerous Drugs Act), when the same involves 1.00 gram or above of the said dangerous drug. However, such disqualification may be deemed waived if not raised in the pleadings before the trial and appellate courts, and the Supreme Court.

Facts

In an Information dated May 27, 2019, Vicente Suarez, Jr. (Suarez) was charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs (methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu) under Section 5 of RA 9165. He pleaded not guilty. He later filed a motion to enter a plea of guilty to a lesser offense of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia under Section 12 of the same law.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted Suarez’ motion. He then pleaded guilty under Section 12 of RA 9165. The RTC rendered a decision finding him guilty of said offense.

The respondent sought to nullify the RTC’s disposition on the ground that it did not conform to Suarez’ plea to a lesser offense. Granting the People’s petition, the Court of Appeals (CA) nullified the RTC’s disposition and remanded the case to the RTC. The CA also denied Suarez’ Motion for Reconsideration.

Hence, the instant Petition for Review before the Supreme Court (SC).

Issues

1. Did the RTC correctly grant Suarez’ offer to plead guilty to a lesser offense?
2. Will the appellate court’s order to remand the case for continuation of the proceedings, Suarez’ arraignment and trial, and the trial court’s rendition of judgment on the original charge put Suarez in double jeopardy?

Ruling and Discussion

1. No. The RTC should not have granted the offer to plead guilty to a lesser offense. HOWEVER, the respondent failed to raise the proper argument to nullify RTC’s disposition.
   
   The original charge for which Suarez was indicted, i.e. illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5 of RA 9165, involved 2.1585 grams of shabu, in which case, plea bargaining is proscribed under A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC, or the Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases.
   
   Although plea bargaining should not have been allowed based on the aforesaid guidelines, the respondent never raised this argument in any of its pleadings before the RTC, the CA, and the Supreme Court. Respondent’s opposition was solely based on the lack of conformity to Suarez’ proposed plea bargaining. In any event, both the RTC and the CA overlooked that Suarez’ case fell within the excepting clause.
   
   The judgment of conviction against Suarez for the lesser offense, i.e. illegal possession of drug paraphernalia under Section 12 of RA 9165 had already become final and executory.
2. Yes. The appellate court’s order to remand the case for continuation of the proceedings, Suarez’ arraignment and trial, and the trial court’s rendition of judgment on the original charge will put Suarez in double jeopardy
   
   All the requisites of double jeopardy are present in this case: (1) petitioner was indicted under a valid Information; (2) the trial court possessed jurisdiction over him and the offense charged; (3) following the trial court’s approval of his plea bargain, he was arraigned for the lesser offense and entered a valid plea therefor; and (4) there was a termination of the case given petitioner’s eventual conviction for violation of Section 12 of RA 9165.
   
   Plea bargaining is a rule of procedure. Respondent’s failure to invoke Suarez’ disqualification may be deemed waived. Further, the RTC’s and the CA’s errors in applying the Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases should not be blamed on Suarez. His right against double jeopardy should therefore be sustained.

dispositive

Petition granted. Decision and Resolution of the CA reversed.