® Republic of the Philippines: Supreme Court #anila SECOND DIVISION BERT PASCUA y VALDEZ, GAR.No, 250578 Petitioner, Present: PERLAS-BERNABE, S.A, ‘Chairperson, PEOPLE OF THE rsa PHILIPPINES, INTING,” Respondent. DELOS SANTOS, and BALTAZAR-PADILLA," J A Promulgated! O75 DECISION PERLAS-BERNABE, J. Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari! are the Decision? dated September 13, 2019 and the Resolution’ dated November 21, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR. SP No, 160653 which upheld the Orders dated January 29, 2019 and February 26, 2019° ofthe Regional Trial Court of Balanga City, Bataan, Branch 1 (RTC) in Criminal Case No. 18805, allowing petitioner Ber Pascua y Valdez (Pascua) to enter a plea of uilty for violation of Section 12, Article Il of Republic Act No, (RA) 9165," Dues Sema Garo (now t momber of hs Coun) sd Geran Pane D, LapeDecision 2 GR.No. 250578 otherwise known as the “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,” but declared him “ineligible to apply for probation.” ‘The Facts ‘The instant case stemmed from two (2) Informations fled before the RTC, docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 1880S and 18806, respectively charging Pascua wit violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article IT of RA 9163, for selling 0.024 gram and possessing 0.084 gram of methamphetamine Iyrochloride, ot shabu? Upon arraignment, Paseva pleaded “not guilty” 10 the crimes charged. However, he later filed 8 Motion to Allow Accused to Enter info Plea Bargaining Agreement wherein he offered to enter a plea of “guilty” to the lesser offense of violation of Seetion 12," Article II of RA 9165 for both criminal cases." The prosecution filed its Comment and Opposition thereto, stressing thal, per Department of Justice Department CCireular No, 027-18," the State's consent is necessary before the accused can plead toa lesser offense," ‘The RTC Ruling On January 29, 2019, the RTC issued separate Orders" allowing. Pascus to enter a plea of guilty to the lesser offense of violation of Section 12, Amite II of RA 9165 in both Criminal Case Nos. 18805 and 18806, However, it was expressly stated in the dispositive portion of the Order Pertining to Criminal Case No. 18805 that Pascus was “ineligible to apply for probation.” ‘Accordingly, Pascua applied for probation as regards Criminal Case No, 18806, which the RTC acted upon issuing an Order" dated February 26, 2019 which, among others, directed the Bataan Parole and Probation Officer ‘o conduct an investigation on Pascua in accordance with Sections Sand 7 of Presidential Decree No. 968,"" as amended,"* otherwise known as the “Probation Law of 1976" (Probation La. avon 0 Egepme: sume Aparss Oe Fahena Dass Ds fee Ate 1 aA AM POT AN OeDecision a RN. 250578 (On the other hand, Pascua moved for reconsideration as tothe Order made in Criminal Case No. 18805, particularly for declaring him ineligible for probation. He argued that A.M. No. 18.03-16-SC™ only. prohibits probation if the accused is actually found guilty of sale of illegal drugs {Section 5), and not when he is found guilty to the lesser offense of “possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus, and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs" (Section 12).”! In an Order" dated February 26, 2019, the RTC issued an Order denying the motion for reconsideration for lack of merit. The RTC held that probation is not a matter of right but a special privilege which is ‘iscretionary upon the court It held that the framers of A.M. No. 18-03- 16-SC clearly intended that persons charged with sale of illegal drugs would not be qualified for probation if they choose to plead gully t0 a lesser offense. ‘Aggrieved, Pascua filed a petition for certiorari withthe CA. ‘The CA Ruling In a Decision® dated September 13, 2019, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling. The CA held that a reasonable interpretation of A.M. No, 18-03-16- ‘SC would lead to the conclusion that the Supreme Court intended for dru trafficking and pushing (Section 5) to stil be covered by the “no probation rule” under Section 24, Article IL of RA 9165.2" It rejected: Pascua’s contention that A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC should apply to the lesser offense allowed instead of the offense actually charged.#* The CA opined in this wise: “this interpretation will result to absurdity, since Section 5 is not among the enumerated lesser offenses to which an accused can admit guilt to in lieu of being convicted ofa higher offense, If this was really the intention of the Supreme Court, it would not have included this provision since there is no acceptable plea to which this exception to the general rule would be applicable, It is therefore rational and logical to conclude that persons charged [with] violating Section $ who subsequently avail of plea bargaining ‘may not apply for probatioa[,} x x x it would mean that every person accused of sale of illegal drugs would simply have to plead guilty to the lesser offense of violation of Section 12, apply for probation, then be ‘a ery 42019 lap 107-11,Decision ‘ GR No. 250578 released scot-free.” I likewise held that even assuming Pascua was eligible for probation, the same is still within the discretion of the lower court,” Pascua moved for reconsideration but was denied in a Resolution” dated November 21, 2019; hence, this petition, ‘The Issue Before the Court ‘The sole issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA comeetly ruled that the RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion in holding. that Pascua is ineligible for probation in Criminal Case No. 18805 after pleading guilty to the lesser offense of violation of Section 12, Article Hof RADIOS ‘The Court's Ruling The petition has partial merit. “[Glrave abuse of diseretion connotes a capricious and whimsical cexereise of judgment, done in a despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, the character of which being so patent and gross as to mount 10 an evasion of positive duty or to a viral refusal to perform the duty enjoined by or to act at all in contemplation of law." Tn this regard, «ase law instructs that there is grave abuse of dieretion when an act: (a) is done contrary to the Constitution, the law or jurisprudence, or executed \himsically, capriciously or arbitrarily, out of malice, ill will, oF personal bias; or (6) manifestly disregards basi rules or procedures.” Guided by the foregoing considerations and as will be explained hereunder, the Court finds that the CA erred in finding no grave abuse of siscretion on the part ofthe RTC in declaring Pascua ineligible for probation after pleading guilty o the lesser offense of violation of Section 12, Article ToFRA 9165, ‘To tecal, plea bargaining in cases involving drugs cases was recently allowed through the Cours promulgation of Estipona, Jr. v. Lobrigo,”> Which declared the provision in RA 9165 expressly. disallowing plea ery of Sat Tomes (SP ». Samar Mongugon ig UST 39 Pal, 212,20 2017 ig (Qua ng Comaraco in 98 P19, THEO COL SeeXrew tewsG Nor ial, att Fenay 200, cos ote » Slot 790Decision GR No, 250578 ‘bargaining in drugs cases, Ze., Section 23,% Article I, unconstitutional for contravening the rule-making authority of the Supreme Court, Following. this pronouncement, the Court issued A.M, No, 18-03-16-SC providing fora plea bargaining framework in drugs cases, which was required to be adopted by all ial courts handling drugs cases.” In A.M. No, 18-03-16-SC, the Court enumerated, in table format, several violations of RA 9165 which could be subject to plea-bargaining.™ Included therein is violation of Section 5, Article II thereof, particularly for the sale, trading, etc. of shabu weighing less than 1,00 gram, The rationale for this particular exception was explained by the Cour in its Resolution dated April 2, 2019 in Re: Letter of Associate Justice Diasdado M. Peralta ‘on the Suggested Plea Bargaining Framework Submitted by the Philippine Judges Association, to wit Te bears emphasis that the main reason of the Court i stating in AM. No. 1803-16-SC dated Api 10, 2018 that “plea bargaining isle ‘ot allowed under Section & (Sle, Trading, taf Dangerous Dru) Involving. all other kinds of dangerous drugs, except sab and manjuana” is in the diminutive quantity of the dangerous drugs Involved. Taking jel notice of the volume and prevalence of eases involving the said two (2) dangerous recommendations ofthe Ofces of the PIA, deh fu) ver bt becom nat Dguipment, Instrument. Appar her Paraphernalia for Danaerous Drugs. wile 1.00 gram and above ‘substantial enough to dsllew ples bargaining, The Cout holds the ‘Sime view with rospact to legal sale of 0.01 gra fo 999 grams of manjuana, which ikewisesufices 1 be deemed necessarily nclided a the Sme offense of violation ofthe same Section 2 of RA. No. 16S, hile 10.00 grams and above sample enough odo ples barging (Emphases and undersoring supplied) ALM. No. 18-03-16-SC also provides, among others, in the “Remarks” column of the aforesaid offense that “if accused applies for probation in offenses punishable under R.A. No. 9165, other than for illegal drug tsafficking or pushing under Section 5 in relation to [Section] 24 thereof, sf. At gs ote mp ‘pesky shall nt be alowed to val ofthe swe OCA Cre Nor S001, sje “Ley Banca FRAMEWORK DUS CASES sued Fitaiarcani fearon Suu ne PME aks ssa selon MyDecision 6 GRNo. 250578 then the law on probation apply." Notably, Section 24, Article Il of RA 9165 provides that any person convicted for drug trafficking or pushing under Section 5 ofthe law eannot avail ofthe benefits of the Probation Law, : Section 24. NomAppicabiliy af the Probation Law for Drug Trackers and Pushers. Any person convicted for drug tllicking ot Pshing under this Act, regardless of the penalty imposed bythe Cou, ‘annot aa ofthe privilege grated by the Probation Law o President Decree No. 968, a8 amend, In this ease, the CA construed the aforementioned remark in A.M, No. 18.03-16-SC as disqualifying persone originally charged with violation of Section 5, Aicle II of RA 9165 but were convicted of the lesser offense of Violation of Section 12, Article Il of the same law ~ such as Paseua ~ from applying for probation However, the CA is mistaken a5 the said remark should be simply regarded as a recognition and reminder of the general rule provided in Section 24 that “falny person convicted for drug trafficking or pushing Under this Act™' shall be ineligible for probation. Moreover, the CA’s view isnot supported nether by the very wording of Section 24, Article It of RA 9165 nor the provisions of the Probation Law. It likewise disregards the legal consequences of plea bargaining, 1 bears stressing that it 1s only after the tral court arrives at @ judgment of conviction can the provisions of the Probation Law apply. “Probation” is defined under Section 3 (a) thereat as “a disposition under Which s defendant, after convietion and sentence, is released subject 10 conditions imposed by the court and to the supervision of a probation officer.” Section 9 thereof, which lists the disqualified offenders, also highlights that the disqualifications pertain tothe mature of the convictions meted out to the prospective applicaat: Section 9, Disqualified Offenders. — The benefits ofthis Decree sal not he extends to thow (a) sentenced to serve maximum term of imprisonment of more tha sit () years (convicted of any crime against the national sour (who have previously been conieted by final judgment ofan ‘offense punished by Imprisonment of more than si (6) monte tnd one (1) day aniora fine of not more than one thousand pesos (P0000) (who have been once on probation under the provisions of this Decree andDecision 7 RNa. 250578 (6) who are already serving sentence atthe time the substantive provisions of this Decree became applicable pursnt to Section 33 hereot™ Emphases sipped) It is clear fom both Section 24, Anicle I of RA 9165 and the provisions of the Probation Law that in applying for probation, what is ‘essential is not the offense charged but the offense to Which the accu found {In this regard, i is worth emphasizing that upon acceptance of a plea bargain, the accused is actually found guilty of the lesser offense subject of the plea. According to jurisprudence, “pllea bargaining in eriminal cases is 1 process whereby the accused and the prosecution work out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the ease subject to court approval. It usually involves the defendant's pleading guilty to a lesser offense otto only one or some of the counts of a mult-count indictment in return for a lighter sentence than that forthe graver charge," Thus, regardless of what the original charge was in the Information, the judgment would be for the lesser offense to which the accused pled guilty. This means that the penalty to be meted out, as well as all the attendant accessory. penalties, and other consequences under the law, including eligibility for probation and parole, would be based on such lesser offense. Necessarily, even if Pascua was originally charged with violation of Section 5, Amicle Il of RA 9165 in Criminal Case No. 18805, he was ultimately convicted ofthe lower offense of violation of Section 12, Article of the same law. Since the foregoing effectively removed Pascua’s ease from the coverage of Section 24, Article IT of RA 9165, he should, at the very least, be allowed to apply for probation, ‘The foregoing notwithstanding, itis well 0 clarify that this ruling does not, per se make Pascua eligible for probation. This alin is limited to the deletion of the RTC’s pronouncement that Pascua is “ineligible to apply Tor probation”, thereby allowing him to file such application. If he files for the same, the grant or denial thereof will then li in the sound diseretion of the RTC after due consideration of the eiteria laid down in the Probation Law, eg, Section 8* thereof, ers Peden sb ee. cm ‘Sein 8 Coto fr Pang a foro Poin — Ia eng tran cate be ed cn robs sl os al nemaion le ‘acs. anecedes, evens mel snd pss cnn the od ad ‘ail tira! leona arr Pun hl edu io co (a) end in sed of ostin nett tt an ty hscamine sn oo (i nd ing ef aon ie fdr wl omit (ey po ul apt the rome fhe fs omniDecision s GR No. 250578, WHEREFORE, the petition is parly GRANTED. The Decision dated September 13, 2019 and the Resolution dated November 21, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 160653 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Order dated January 29, 2019 of the Regional Trial Court of Balanga City, Bataan, Branch 1 in Criminal Case No. 18805 is hereby MODIFIED, in that the sentence: “Make it of record that the accused is ineligible 0 apply for probation” is DELETED, Petitioner Hert Pascua y Valdez is hereby given a period of fifteen (15) days fom notice of this Decision within which to file his application for probation before the court 10. SO ORDERED. WE CONCUR: R ULL. HERNANDO Associate lustice On Leave PRISCILLA J. BALTAZAR-PADILLA, ‘Associate Justice ATTESTATION {atest thatthe conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in ‘consultation before the ease was assigned to the writer ofthe opinion of the Cos Dison ste MHC nena Senior Associate Justice Chairperson, Second DivisionDecision ° GR No. 250578 CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 13, Article VILL of the Constitution, and the Division Chaigperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer ofthe opinion of wan