Bason Vs PPL and Osg
Bason Vs PPL and Osg
Bason Vs PPL and Osg
i;upttnre €ourt
:Blanila
EN BANC
GESMUNDO, C.J.,
LEONEN,
CAGUIOA,
HERNANDO,
LAZARO-IAVIER,*
- versus - INTING,
ZALAMEDA,
LOPEZ,M.,
GAERLAN,
ROSARIO,
LOPEZ, J.,
DIMAAMPAO **
'
MARQUEZ,
KHO,JR.,
SINGH,JJ
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
represented by the OFFICE OF Promulgated:
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL,
Respondent. October 3, 2023
DECISION
INTING,J.:
• On official business.
•• On official business.
1
Rollo, pp. 4-25.
f);
.
the Decision2 dated April 13, 2021, and the Resolution 3 dated May 26,
2022, of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 12682. The CA
granted the petition for certiorari filed by the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG) thereby dismissing the Orders4 dated November 29, 2018,
December 3, 2018, and January 23, 2019, (assailed Orders) of Branch 18,
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Roxas City, in Criminal Case Nos. C-288-16
and C-289-16. The RTC previously granted Bason's plea bargaining
proposal 5 based on A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC. 6
The Antecedents
CONTRARY TO LA W. 11
That on or about the 22nd day of July, 2016, in the City of Roxas,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable [c]ourt, said
accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, have
in his possession and control:
2 Id. at 31-42. Penned by Associate Justice Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and concurred in by
Associate Justices Lorenza Redulla Bordios and Bautista G. Corpin, Jr.
Id. at 45-49. Penned by Associate Justice Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and concurred in by
Associate Justices Bautista G. Corpin, Jr. and Jacinto G. Fajardo, Jr.
4 Id. at 58-61, 62-63, and 69. Penned by Presiding Judge Ignacio I. Alajar.
See Proposal for Plea Bargaining dated June 5, 2018, id. at 51-54.
6 Adoption of the Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases, approved on April I0, 2018.
7 Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation
of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals.
Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs.
9 Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, approved on June 7, 2002.
10 Rollo, pp. 32-33, CA Decision.
II /d.at32.
-
CONTRARY TO LAW. 12
12 id. at 32-33.
13
id. at 33.
14 Section 12. Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for
Dangerous Drugs.
15 Rollo, p. 34.
16 Id. at 55-57. Signed by Associate City Prosecutor Ronald G. Asong and approved by City
Prosecutor Erwin D. Ignacio.
17 Amended Guidelines on Plea Bargaining for Republic Act No. 9165 Otherwise Known as the
"Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of2002," DOJ Department Circular No. 27, Series of2018.
18
Rollo, pp. 55-56.
f(J
Decision 4 G.R. No. 262664
SO ORDERED. 20
xxxx
SO ORDERED. 22
On behalf of the State, the OSG filed a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court imputing grave abuse of discretion on the
RTC for issuing the assailed Orders.
The CA Rulings
SO ORDERED. 28
" To bolster this argument, the OCP-Roxas City cited the case of Estipona, Jr. v. Lobrigo (816 Phil.
789 [2017]), Section 2 of Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the Revised
Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases (A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC, approved on April 25,
2017, and took effect on September 1, 2017).
25
Rollo, pp. 66-67.
26
/d.at69.
27
Id. at 31-42.
28
/d.at41.
f(l
•
Hence the instant petition where Bason argues that: (I) the CA erred
when it ruled that the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion when the
latter granted Bason's plea bargaining proposal despite the prosecution's
objection; (2) the CA erred when it ruled that a plea bargaining without
the consent of the prosecution is void, in contravention of A.M. No. 18-
03-16-SC; and (3) with the advent ofDOJ Department Circular No. 018, 32
the issue on the lack of consent in plea bargaining cases is now cured. 33
Issues
Our Ruling
29 Id. at 76-80.
30
Id. at 45-49.
31
Id at 49.
32
Revised Amended Guidelines on Plea Bargaining for Republic Act No. 9165 Otherwise Known as
the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002", DOJ Department Circular No. 018, Series of
2022.
Rollo, pp. 11-12.
fµ
Decision 7 G.R. No. 262664
34 G.R. No. 254564, July 26, 2022. This case was consolidated with G.R. No. 254974 (Baldadera v.
People) and A.M. No. 21-07-16-SC (In Re: letter ofthe Philippine Judges Association Expressing
Its Concern: Over the Ramifications of the Decisions in G.R. No. 247575 and G.R No. 250295).
35 Id.
36
Id.
37 Id.
•
38 Jd.
s, Id.
,o Id.
41 Id.
•12 Id.
Decision 9 G.R. No. 262664
becomes proper and regular if its ruling discloses the strength or weakness
of the prosecution's evidence. 43
In the case, the RTC in its Order44 dated November 29, 2018,
adjudged the weight of the evidence presented and ruled that the
prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized
items as the police officers committed procedural lapses, which cast doubt
on the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti of the offense. 45
Finally, the [c]ourt also notes that despite the missing link in the
chain of custody, there is also nothing in the testimony of the
prosecution witnesses that shows the precautions undertaken to ensure
that the condition of the seized items was not altered and the lack of
43 Estipona. Jr. v. Lobrigo, 816 Phil. 789,817 (2017), citing Peoplev. Villarama, Jr., 285 Phil. 723,
731 (1992).
44
Rollo, pp. 58-6 l.
45
Id. at 38 and 60--61.
Decision G.R. No. 262664
Here, the records do not show that the RTC made an evaluation of
Bason's character. Hence, it should not have approved Bason's plea
bargaining proposal without this evaluation. As such, it is proper that the
case be remanded to the court of origin to make a determination on
whether Bason is qualified to avail of the benefits of plea bargaining based
on his character.
46
Id. at 60-61.
47 People v. lvfontierro, supra note 34.
48 Id.
(/I/(jJ
Decision 11 G.R. No. 262664
xxxx
52 People v. Montierro, supra note 34, citing Estipona v. Lobrigo, supra note 43, at 813.
53 People v. Montierro, supra note 34.
54 See Concurring and Dissenting Opinion of Associate Justice Lazaro-Javier in People v. Montierro.
55 People v. Montierro, supra note 34, citing Estipona v. Lobrigo, supra note 43, at 812-813, further
citing the cases of Brady v. Unites States, 397 U.S. 742, 752 (I 970); Santohello v. New York, 404
U.S. 257,261 (1971); and Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 71 (1977).
Decision 13 G.R. No. 262664
Summary
SO ORDERED.
/
HEN~UiNTING
Associate Ju ice
WE CONCUR:
AL S. CAGUIOA
Associate Justice
LI _I . )
pffidat-btt'smess
uai:.TufuANoo . LAiARO-JAVIER
ssociate Justice
Associate Justice
RIC-'"'-...,_...,o R. ROSARIO
Associate Justice ssociate Justice
JHOSE~PEZ
Associate Justice
Decision 16 G.R. No. 262664
. '- /
/
J~~~EZ
'---.____)Associate Justice
-----------:-, I
/ -L'.17_ ~~
~1A--.F1-EU1Vl£,J~A ,LJi;-Sl"N6¼l
/-11.;sociate Justice
/
/
/
/
/
V CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
AL~~
j ?7/1:1
~ustice