People of The Philippines Vs Erick Montierro

People of the Philippines vs Erick Montierro
Facts of the Case:
In early 2017, Montierro and Baldadera were separately charged with violations of Sec. 5, RA
No. 9165 (selling illegal drugs) for allegedly selling shabu or methamphetamine hydrochloride. The
penalty for selling illegal drugs is lifetime imprisonment.
In August 2017, the SC promulgated Estipona vs. Lobrigo which declared that plea bargaining is
allowed in drugs cases.
In November 2017, the Department of Justice issued Department Circular No. 061-17 which
disallowed its prosecutors from agreeing with plea bargaining proposals in cases involving violations of
Section 5 of RA No. 9165 or in cases of illegal sale of dangerous drugs regardless of the quantity seized
in those cases.
In April 2018, the SC issued A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC or the Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs
Cases which allowed plea bargaining in Section 5 cases if the quantity of the drugs seized is 0.01 gram to
0.99 gram. Accused in these cases are allowed to plead guilty to the lesser offense of violation of Section
12 or illegal possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs
punishable by six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and a fine ranging from P10,000.00 to
P50,000.00.
In June 2018, the DOJ issued Department Circular No. 027-18 which amended Department
Circular No. 061-17. This allows their prosecutors to agree to plea bargaining proposals involving
violations of Section 5 but the acceptable proposal should be a plea of guilt to the lesser offense of
Section 11, paragraph 3 or illegal possession of dangerous drugs with an indeterminate penalty of twelve
(12) years and one (1) clay to twenty (20) years and a fine from P300.000.00 to P400,000.00.
Baldadera and Montierro submitted their respective plea bargaining proposals with both seeking
to plead guilty for violations of Section 12. The prosecution objected to the proposals but despite the
objection, the trial court approved the proposals and both were convicted to the lesser offense of
violations of Section 12.
The Office of the Solicitor-General questioned the approval of the plea bargaining proposals on
the ground that one of the requisites for a valid plea of guilt is the consent of the prosecution as ruled
in People vs Reafor (G.R. No. 247575, 16 November 2020).
ISSUES:
Whether or not there may be a valid plea bargaining agreement even if the prosecution objects to
the plea bargaining proposal.
HELD:
Yes. These consolidated cases settle the conflict between the DOJ issuances and the Court’s plea
bargaining framework as well as the seeming confusion brought about by the SC’s ruling in Reafor.
Plea bargaining requires the consent of the parties but the approval thereof is subject to the sound
discretion of the court. Whether the prosecution is for or against the accused’s proposal to plead guilty to
a lesser offense, the trial court remains duty-bound to assiduously evaluate the qualifications of the
accused and the circumstances of the case. In other words, the approval of the accused’s plea of guilty to
a lesser offense is ultimately subject to the sound discretion of the court.
For a valid plea bargaining in drugs cases, the following guidelines must be observed by the trial court:
1. Offers for plea bargaining must be initiated in writing by way of a formal written motion filed by the
accused in court.
2. The lesser offense which the accused proposes to plead guilty to must necessarily be included in the
offense charged.
3. Upon receipt of the proposal for plea bargaining that is compliant with the provisions of the Plea
Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases, the judge shall order that a drug dependency assessment be
administered. If the accused admits drug use, or denies it but is found positive after a drug dependency
test, then he/she shall undergo treatment and rehabilitation for a period of not less than six (6) months.
Said period shall be credited to his/her penalty and the period of his/her after-care and follow-up program
if the penalty is still unserved. If the accused is found negative for drug use/dependency, then he/she will
be released on time served, otherwise, he/she will serve his/her sentence in jail minus the counselling
period at rehabilitation center.
4. As a rule, plea bargaining requires the mutual agreement of the parties and remains subject to the
approval of the court. Regardless of the mutual agreement of the parties, the acceptance of the offer to
plead guilty to a lesser offense is not demandable by the accused as a matter of right but is a matter
addressed entirely to the sound discretion of the court.
a. Though the prosecution and the defense may agree to enter into a plea bargain, it does not follow that
the courts will automatically approve the proposal. Judges must still exercise sound discretion in granting
or denying plea bargaining, taking into account the relevant circumstances, including the character of the
accused.
5. The court shall not allow plea bargaining if the objection to the plea bargaining is valid and supported
by evidence to the effect that:
a. the offender is a recidivist, habitual offender, known in the community as a drug addict and a
troublemaker, has undergone rehabilitation but had a relapse, or has been charged many times; or
b. when the evidence of guilt is strong.
6. Plea bargaining in drugs cases shall not be allowed when the proposed plea bargain does not conform
to the Court-issued Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases.
7. Judges may overrule the objection of the prosecution if it is based solely on the ground that the
accused’s plea bargaining proposal is inconsistent with the acceptable plea bargain under any internal
rules or guidelines of the DOJ, though in accordance with the plea bargaining framework issued by the
Court, if any.
8. If the prosecution objects to the accused’s plea bargaining proposal due to the circumstances
enumerated in item no. 5, the trial court is mandated to hear the prosecution’s objection and rule on the
merits thereof. If the trial court finds the objection meritorious, it shall order the continuation of the
criminal proceedings.
9. If an accused applies for probation in offenses punishable under RA No. 9165, other than for illegal
drug trafficking or pushing under Section 5 in relation to Section 24 thereof, then the law on probation
shall apply.
In Reafor, there was no showing that the trial judge judiciously resolved the objection of the prosecution.
The cases of Montierro and Baldadera are remanded to the lower court for further proceedings to resolve
the basis of the objection of the prosecution.

People of The Philippines Vs Erick Montierro

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People of The Philippines Vs Erick Montierro

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People of The Philippines Vs Erick Montierro

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People of the Philippines vs Erick Montierro

Facts of the Case:

b. when the evidence of guilt is strong.

You might also like