Estipona v. Lobrigo

3/25/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 837 3/25/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 837

161
VOL. 837, AUGUST 15, 2017 161

Estipona, Jr. vs. Lobrigo
law enforcers, may be unjustly accused and convicted.” Fully

G.R. No. 226679. August 15, 2017.*
aware of the gravity of the drug menace that has beset our

country and its direct link to certain crimes, the Court, within its
SALVADOR ESTIPONA, JR. y ASUELA, petitioner, vs.
sphere, must do its part to assist in the all-out effort to lessen, if
HON. FRANK E. LOBRIGO, Presiding Judge of the
not totally eradicate, the continued presence of drug lords,
Regional Trial Court, Branch 3, Legazpi City, Albay, and
pushers and users.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
Courts; Supreme Court; Jurisdiction; The power to
Courts; Supreme Court; Jurisdiction; It is within the Supreme promulgate rules of pleading, practice and procedure is now the
Court’s (SC’s) power to make exceptions to the rules of court. Under Supreme Court’s (SC’s) exclusive domain and no longer shared
proper conditions, it may permit the full and exhaustive with the Executive and Legislative departments.—The power to
ventilation of the parties’ arguments and positions despite the promulgate rules of pleading, practice and procedure is now Our
supposed technical infirmities of a petition or its alleged exclusive domain and no longer shared with the Executive and
procedural flaws.—On matters of technicality, some points raised Legislative departments. In Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice, 301
by the OSG maybe correct. Nonetheless, without much further SCRA 96 (1999), then Associate Justice (later Chief Justice)
ado, it must be underscored that it is within this Court’s power to Reynato S. Puna traced the history of the Court’s rulemaking
make exceptions to the rules of court. Under proper conditions, power and highlighted its evolution and development.
We may permit the full and exhaustive ventilation of the parties’ Political Law; Separation of Powers; The separation of powers
arguments and positions despite the supposed technical among the three (3) coequal branches of our government has
infirmities of a petition or its alleged procedural flaws. In erected an impregnable wall that keeps the power to promulgate
discharging its solemn duty as the final arbiter of constitutional rules of pleading, practice and procedure within the sole province
issues, the Court shall not shirk from its obligation to determine of the Supreme Court (SC).—The separation of powers among the
novel issues, or issues of first impression, with far-reaching three coequal branches of our government has erected an
implications. impregnable wall that keeps the power to promulgate rules of
Procedural Rules and Technicalities; Matters of procedure pleading, practice and procedure within the sole province of this
and technicalities normally take a backseat when issues of Court. The other branches trespass upon this prerogative if they
substantial and transcendental importance are present.—Matters enact laws or issue orders that effectively repeal, alter or modify
of procedure and technicalities normally take a backseat when any of the procedural rules promulgated by the Court. Viewed
issues of substantial and transcendental importance are present. from this perspective, We have rejected previous attempts on the
We have acknowledged that the Philippines’ problem on illegal part of the Congress, in the exercise of its legislative power, to
drugs has reached “epidemic,” “monstrous,” and “harrowing” amend the Rules of Court (Rules).
proportions, and that its disastrously harmful social, economic, Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Plea Bargaining; Speedy
and spiritual effects have broken the lives, shattered the hopes, Trial Act of 1998; Section 2 of Republic Act (RA) No. 8493
and destroyed the future of thousands especially our young (“Speedy Trial Act of 1998”) required that plea bargaining and
citizens. At the same time, We have equally noted that “as urgent other matters that will promote a fair and expeditious trial are to
as the campaign against the drug problem must be, so must we as be considered during pretrial conference in all criminal cases
urgently, if not more so, be vigilant in the protection of the rights cognizable by the Municipal Trial Court (MTC), Municipal Circuit
of the accused as mandated by the Constitution x x x who, Trial Court (MCTC), Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Regional
because of excessive zeal on the part of the Trial Court (RTC), and the Sandiganbayan.—When R.A. No. 8493
(“Speedy Trial Act of 1998”) was enacted, Section 2, Rule 118 of
_______________ the Rules was substantially adopted. Section 2 of the law required
that plea bargaining
* EN BANC.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178690b4e8dcd142ed1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/36 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178690b4e8dcd142ed1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/36


162 163
162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL. 837, AUGUST 15, 2017 163
Estipona, Jr. vs. Lobrigo Estipona, Jr. vs. Lobrigo
and other matters that will promote a fair and expeditious Court to “provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for
trial are to be considered during pretrial conference in all criminal the speedy disposition of cases.” This provision protects the courts
cases cognizable by the Municipal Trial Court, Municipal Circuit from delay in the speedy disposition of criminal cases — delay
Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Regional Trial Court, and arising from the simple expediency of nonappearance of the
the Sandiganbayan. accused on the scheduled promulgation of the judgment of
Procedural Rules and Technicalities; The Supreme Court’s conviction.
(SC’s) sole prerogative to issue, amend, or repeal procedural rules Same; Same; Plea Bargaining; In this jurisdiction, plea
is limited to the preservation of substantive rights, i.e., the former bargaining has been defined as “a process whereby the accused
should not diminish, increase or modify the latter.—The Supreme and the prosecution work out a mutually satisfactory disposition of
Court’s sole prerogative to issue, amend, or repeal procedural the case subject to court approval.”—In this jurisdiction, plea
rules is limited to the preservation of substantive rights, i.e., the bargaining has been defined as “a process whereby the accused
former should not diminish, increase or modify the latter. and the prosecution work out a mutually satisfactory disposition
“Substantive law is that part of the law which creates, defines and of the case subject to court approval.” There is give-and-take
regulates rights, or which regulates the right and duties which negotiation common in plea bargaining. The essence of the
give rise to a cause of action; that part of the law which courts are agreement is that both the prosecution and the defense make
established to administer; as opposed to adjective or remedial law, concessions to avoid potential losses. Properly administered, plea
which prescribes the method of enforcing rights or obtain redress bargaining is to be encouraged because the chief virtues of the
for their invasions.” system — speed, economy, and finality — can benefit the accused,
Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Promulgation of the offended party, the prosecution, and the court. Considering
Judgments; Failure to Appear at the Promulgation; The Supreme the presence of mutuality of advantage, the rules on plea
Court (SC) said in Jaylo, et al. v. Sandiganbayan, et al., 746 bargaining neither create a right nor take away a vested right.
SCRA 452 (2015), that Section 6, Rule 120 of the Rules, which Instead, it operates as a means to implement an existing right by
provides that an accused who failed to appear at the promulgation regulating the judicial process for enforcing rights and duties
of the judgment of conviction shall lose the remedies available recognized by substantive law and for justly administering
against the judgment, does not take away substantive rights but remedy and redress for a disregard or infraction of them.
merely provides the manner through which an existing right may Same; Same; Same; Under the present Rules, the acceptance of
be implemented.—We said in Jaylo, et al. v. Sandiganbayan, et an offer to plead guilty is not a demandable right but depends on
al., 746 SCRA 452 (2015), that Section 6, Rule 120 of the Rules, the consent of the offended party and the prosecutor, which is a
which provides that an accused who failed to appear at the condition precedent to a valid plea of guilty to a lesser offense that
promulgation of the judgment of conviction shall lose the is necessarily included in the offense charged.—The decision to
remedies available against the judgment, does not take away plead guilty is often heavily influenced by the defendant’s
substantive rights but merely provides the manner through which appraisal of the prosecution’s case against him and by the
an existing right may be implemented. Section 6, Rule 120, of the apparent likelihood of securing leniency should a guilty plea be
Rules of Court, does not take away per se the right of the offered and accepted. In any case, whether it be to the offense
convicted accused to avail of the remedies under the Rules. It is charged or to a lesser crime, a guilty plea is a “serious and
the failure of the accused to appear without justifiable cause on sobering occasion” inasmuch as it constitutes a waiver of the
the scheduled date of promulgation of the judgment of conviction fundamental rights to be presumed innocent until the contrary is
that forfeits their right to avail themselves of the remedies proved, to be heard by himself and counsel, to meet the witnesses
against the judgment. It is not correct to say that Section 6, Rule face to face, to bail (except those charged with offenses punishable
120, of the Rules of Court diminishes or modifies the substantive by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong), to be
rights of petitioners. It only works in pursuance of the power of convicted by proof beyond reasonable doubt, and not to be
the Supreme

compelled to be a witness against himself. Yet a defendant has no 165

constitutional right
VOL. 837, AUGUST 15, 2017 165

164
Same; Same; Same; If the accused moved to plead guilty to a
lesser offense subsequent to a bail hearing or after the prosecution
164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
rested its case, the rules allow such a plea only when the
Estipona, Jr. vs. Lobrigo prosecution does not have sufficient evidence to establish the guilt
of the crime charged.—If the accused moved to plead guilty to a
to plea bargain. No basic rights are infringed by trying him lesser offense subsequent to a bail hearing or after the
rather than accepting a plea of guilty; the prosecutor need not do prosecution rested its case, the rules allow such a plea only when
so if he prefers to go to trial. Under the present Rules, the the prosecution does not have sufficient evidence to establish the
acceptance of an offer to plead guilty is not a demandable right guilt of the crime charged. The only basis on which the prosecutor
but depends on the consent of the offended party and the and the court could rightfully act in allowing change in the former
prosecutor, which is a condition precedent to a valid plea of guilty plea of not guilty could be nothing more and nothing less than the
to a lesser offense that is necessarily included in the offense evidence on record. As soon as the prosecutor has submitted a
charged. The reason for this is that the prosecutor has full control comment whether for or against said motion, it behooves the trial
of the prosecution of criminal actions; his duty is to always court to assiduously study the prosecution’s evidence as well as all
prosecute the proper offense, not any lesser or graver one, based the circumstances upon which the accused made his change of
on what the evidence on hand can sustain. plea to the end that the interests of justice and of the public will
be served. The ruling on the motion must disclose the strength or
Same; Same; Same; Trial courts are exhorted to keep in mind weakness of the prosecution’s evidence. Absent any finding on the
that a plea of guilty for a lighter offense than that actually charged weight of the evidence on hand, the judge’s acceptance of the
is not supposed to be allowed as a matter of bargaining or defendant’s change of plea is improper and irregular.
compromise for the convenience of the accused.—The plea is
further addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, which Leonen, J., Separate Concurring Opinion:
may allow the accused to plead guilty to a lesser offense which is
necessarily included in the offense charged. The word may Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Plea Bargaining; Rule-
denotes an exercise of discretion upon the trial court on whether making Power of the Supreme Court; View that the prohibition
to allow the accused to make such plea. Trial courts are exhorted found in Section 23 of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 is
to keep in mind that a plea of guilty for a lighter offense than that unconstitutional not only because it contravenes the rulemaking
actually charged is not supposed to be allowed as a matter of power of the Supreme Court (SC), it also constitutes “cruel,to a
bargaining or compromise for the convenience of the accused. lesser offense, he or she waives all the fundamental rights
Same; Same; Same; Plea bargaining is allowed during the degrading, [and] inhuman” punishment for the accused.—In my
arraignment, the pretrial, or even up to the point when the view, the prohibition found in Section 23 of Republic Act No.
prosecution already rested its case.—Plea bargaining is allowed 9165 is unconstitutional not only because it contravenes the
during the arraignment, the pretrial, or even up to the point when rulemaking power of this Court, it also constitutes “cruel,
the prosecution already rested its case. As regards plea degrading, [and] inhuman” punishment for the accused. It is the
bargaining during the pretrial stage, the trial court’s exercise of declared policy of the law “to provide effective mechanisms or
discretion should not amount to a grave abuse thereof. “Grave measures to reintegrate into society individuals who have fallen
abuse of discretion” is a capricious and whimsical exercise of victims to drug abuse or dangerous drug dependence through
judgment so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a sustainable programs of treatment and rehabilitation.” The aim is
positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by to rehabilitate, not punish, those drug offenders.
law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic Same; Same; Same; Plea to a Lesser Offense; View that when
manner because of passion or hostility; it arises when a court or an accused pleads to a lesser offense, he or she waives all the fun-
tribunal violates the Constitution, the law or existing damental rights guaranteed to an accused.—When an accused
jurisprudence. pleads to a lesser offense, he or she waives all the fundamental
rights


166 167
166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL. 837, AUGUST 15, 2017 167
Estipona, Jr. vs. Lobrigo Estipona, Jr. vs. Lobrigo
guaranteed to an accused. It is essentially a choice that only 9165, or the “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
the accused can make, as a way to acknowledge his or her guilt 2002,”2 which provides:
and as atonement for that guilt. The reality is that most “drug SEC. 23. Plea Bargaining Provision.—Any person charged
pushers” that come before the courts are found with less that 0.1 under any provision of this Act regardless of the imposable
gram of illegal drugs. While some of these accused will be charged penalty shall not be allowed to avail of the provision on plea
with both selling and possession, most of them will have to suffer bargaining.3
the penalty of selling, that is, life imprisonment. They will be
sentenced to life imprisonment for evidence amounting to “only
about 2.5% of the weight of a five-centavo coin (1.9 grams) or a The facts are not in dispute.
one-centavo coin (2.0 grams).” Petitioner Salvador A. Estipona, Jr. (Estipona) is the
Same; Same; Same; Same; View that preventing the accused accused in Criminal Case No. 13586 for violation of Section
from pleading to the lesser offense of possession is a cruel, 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (Possession of Dangerous
degrading, and unusual punishment for those who genuinely Drugs). The Information alleged:
accept the consequences of their actions and seek to be
That on or about the 21st day of March, 2016, in the City of
rehabilitated.—Plea bargaining does not necessarily mean that
Legazpi, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
the accused will automatically be sentenced to the lesser offense.
Court, the above named accused, not being lawfully authorized to
The plea is subject to the acceptance of the prosecution and is only
possess or otherwise use any regulated drug and without the
allowed by discretion of the court. What is essential is that the
corresponding license or prescription, did then and there,
choice exists. Preventing the accused from pleading to the lesser
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have, in his possession and
offense of possession is a cruel, degrading, and unusual
under his control and custody, one (1) piece heat-sealed
punishment for those who genuinely accept the consequences of
transparent plastic sachet marked as VOP 03/21/16-1G containing
their actions and seek to be rehabilitated. It will not advance the
0.084 [gram] of white crystalline substance, which when
policy of the law to punish offenders with penalties not
examined were found to be positive for Methamphetamine
commensurate with the offense and to hinder their reintegration
Hydrocloride (Shabu), a dangerous drug.
into society.
CONTRARY TO LAW.4
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS in the Supreme Court.
Certiorari and Prohibition. _______________
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
2 Approved on June 7, 2002.
Public Attorney’s Office for petitioner.
3 This repealed Section 20-A of R.A. No. 6425 (“Dangerous Drugs Act
The Solicitor General for respondents.
of 1972”), as amended by R.A. No. 7659 (“Death Penalty Law”), which was
PERALTA, J.: approved on December 13, 1993. It provided:
SEC. 20-A. Plea bargaining Provisions.—Any person charged under
Challenged in this petition for certiorari and any provision of this Act where the imposable penalty is reclusion
prohibition1 is the constitutionality of Section 23 of perpetua to death shall not be allowed to avail of the provision on plea
Republic Act (R.A.) No. bargaining.
4 Rollo, p. 47.
_______________

1 With Urgent Prayer for Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order
and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction.
168

168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED The accused posited in his motion that Sec. 23 of RA No. 9165,
which prohibits plea bargaining, encroaches on the exclusive
constitutional power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules of
procedure because plea bargaining is a “rule of procedure.”
On June 15, 2016, Estipona filed a Motion to Allow the Indeed, plea bargaining forms part of the Rules on Criminal
Accused to Enter into a Plea Bargaining Agreement,5 Procedure, particularly under Rule 118, the rule on pretrial
praying to withdraw his not guilty plea and, instead, to conference. It is only the Rules of Court promulgated by the
enter a plea of guilty for violation of Section 12, Article II of Supreme Court pursuant to its constitutional rulemaking power
R.A. No. 9165 (Possession of Equipment, Instrument, that breathes life to plea bargaining. It cannot be found in any
Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs) statute.
with a penalty of rehabilitation in view of his being a first- Without saying so, the accused implies that Sec. 23 of Republic
time offender and the minimal quantity of the dangerous Act No. 9165 is unconstitutional because it, in effect, suspends the
drug seized in his possession. He argued that Section 23 of operation of Rule 118 of the Rules of Court insofar as it allows
R.A. No. 9165 violates: (1) the intent of the law expressed plea bargaining as part of the mandatory pretrial conference in
in paragraph 3, Section 2 thereof; (2) the rulemaking criminal cases.
authority of the Supreme Court under Section 5(5), Article The Court sees merit in the argument of the accused that it is
VIII of the 1987 Constitution; and (3) the principle of also the intendment of the law, R.A. No. 9165, to rehabilitate an
separation of powers among the three equal branches of the accused of a drug offense. Rehabilitation is thus only possible in
government. cases of use of illegal drugs because plea bargaining is disallowed.
In its Comment or Opposition6 dated June 27, 2016, the However, by case law, the Supreme Court allowed rehabilitation
prosecution moved for the denial of the motion for being for accused charged with possession of paraphernalia with traces
contrary to Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165, which is said to be of dangerous drugs, as held in People v. Martinez, G.R. No.
justified by the Congress’ prerogative to choose which 191366, 13 December 2010. The ruling of the Supreme Court in
offense it would allow plea bargaining. Later, in a this case manifested the relaxation of an otherwise stringent
Comment or Opposition7 dated June 29, 2016, it application of Republic Act No. 9165 in order to serve an intent
manifested that it “is open to the Motion of the accused to for the enactment of the law, that is, to rehabilitate the offender.
enter into plea bargaining to give life to the intent of the Within the spirit of the disquisition in People v. Martinez, there
law as provided in paragraph 3, Section 2 of [R.A. No.] might be plausible basis for the declaration of Sec. 23 of R.A. No.
9165, however, with the express mandate of Section 23 of 9165, which bars plea bargaining as unconstitutional because
[R.A. No.] 9165 prohibiting plea bargaining, [it] is left indeed the inclusion of the provision in the law encroaches on the
without any choice but to reject the proposal of the exclusive constitutional power of the Supreme Court.
accused.” While basic is the precept that lower courts are not precluded
On July 12, 2016, respondent Judge Frank E. Lobrigo of from resolving, whenever warranted, constitutional questions, the
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 3, Legazpi City, Court is not unaware of the admonition of the Supreme Court
Albay, issued an Order denying Estipona’s motion. It was that lower courts must observe a becoming modesty in examining
opined: constitutional questions. Upon which admonition, it is thus not
for this
_______________

5 Id., at pp. 49-51.
6 Id., at p. 52.
7 Id., at p. 53. 170


169
lower court to declare Sec. 23 of R.A. No. 9165 unconstitutional

VOL. 837, AUGUST 15, 2017 169 given the potential ramifications that such declaration might
have on the prosecution of illegal drug cases pending before this
judicial station.8

Estipona filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was to sue for failure to show direct injury; (2) there is no actual
denied in an Order9 dated July 26, 2016; hence, this case or controversy; and (3) the constitutionality of Section
petition raising the issues as follows: 23 of R.A. No. 9165 is not the lis mota of the case.
On matters of technicality, some points raised by the
I. OSG maybe correct. Nonetheless, without much further
WHETHER SECTION 23 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, ado, it must be underscored that it is within this Court’s
WHICH PROHIBITS PLEA BARGAINING IN ALL power to make exceptions to the rules of court. Under
VIOLATIONS OF THE SAID LAW, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL proper conditions, We may permit the full and exhaustive
FOR BEING VIOLATIVE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT ventilation of the parties’ arguments and positions despite
TO EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW. the supposed technical infirmities of a petition or its
II. alleged procedural flaws. In discharging its solemn duty as
WHETHER SECTION 23 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165 IS the final arbiter of constitutional issues, the Court shall not
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS IT ENCROACHED UPON THE shirk from its obligation to determine novel issues, or
POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT TO PROMULGATE issues of first impression, with far-reaching implications.11
RULES OF PROCEDURE. Likewise, matters of procedure and technicalities
III. normally take a backseat when issues of substantial and
WHETHER THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, AS PRESIDED BY transcendental importance are present.12 We have
HON. FRANK E. LOBRIGO, COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF acknowledged that the Philippines’ problem on illegal
DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF drugs has reached “epidemic,”
JURISDICTION WHEN IT REFUSED TO DECLARE SECTION
23 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165 AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.10
_______________
11 See Garcia v. Drilon, 712 Phil. 44, 84; 699 SCRA 352, 403 (2013).
We grant the petition.
12 GMA Network, Inc. v. Commission on Elections, 742 Phil. 174, 209-
210; 734 SCRA 88, 125 (2014).
_______________

8 Id., at pp. 44-45.

9 Id., at pp. 46, 54-55.
10 Id., at pp. 3, 15-16. 172

171
“monstrous,” and “harrowing” proportions,13 and that its

VOL. 837, AUGUST 15, 2017 171 disastrously harmful social, economic, and spiritual effects
Estipona, Jr. vs. Lobrigo have broken the lives, shattered the hopes, and destroyed
the future of thousands especially our young citizens.14 At
the same time, We have equally noted that “as urgent as
Procedural Matters
the campaign against the drug problem must be, so must

we as urgently, if not more so, be vigilant in the protection
The People of the Philippines, through the Office of the
of the rights of the accused as mandated by the
Solicitor General (OSG), contends that the petition should
Constitution x x x who, because of excessive zeal on the
be dismissed outright for being procedurally defective on
part of the law enforcers, may be unjustly accused and
the grounds that: (1) the Congress should have been
convicted.”15 Fully aware of the gravity of the drug menace
impleaded as an indispensable party; (2) the
that has beset our country and its direct link to certain
constitutionality of Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165 cannot be
crimes, the Court, within its sphere, must do its part to
attacked collaterally; and (3) the proper recourse should
assist in the all-out effort to lessen, if not totally eradicate,
have been a petition for declaratory relief before this Court
the continued presence of drug lords, pushers and users.16
or a petition for certiorari before the RTC. Moreover, the
Bearing in mind the very important and pivotal issues
OSG argues that the petition fails to satisfy the requisites
raised in this petition, technical matters should not deter
of judicial review because: (1) Estipona lacks legal standing
Us from having to make the final and definitive that rules must not be applied rigidly so as not to override
pronouncement that everyone else depends for substantial justice.19
enlightenment and guidance.17 When public interest
requires, the Court may brush aside procedural rules in Substantive Issues
order to resolve a constitutional issue.18
Rulemaking power of the Supreme Court under the
1987 Constitution
_______________

13 See People v. Castro, 340 Phil. 245, 246; 724 SCRA 115, 117 (1997); Section 5(5), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution
People v. Camba, 302 Phil. 311, 323; 232 SCRA 280, 290 (1994); People v. explicitly provides:
Tantiado, 288 Phil. 241, 258; 213 SCRA 365, 379 (1992); People v.
Sec. 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
Zapanta, 272-A Phil. 161, 166; 195 SCRA 200, 204 (1991); People v. Taruc,
x x x x
241 Phil. 177, 186; 157 SCRA 178, 187 (1988); and People v. Ale, 229 Phil.
81, 87; 145 SCRA 50, 58 (1986).
_______________
14 People v. Tanliado, id., as cited in People v. Camba, id., and People
v. Caco, 294 Phil. 54, 65; 222 SCRA 49, 58 (1993). 19 Philippine Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, Inc. v. Teodoro R.
15 People v. Quintana, 256 Phil. 430, 436; 174 SCRA 675, 680-681 Yangco 2nd and 3rd Generation Heirs Foundation, Inc., 731 Phil. 269,
(1989). 292; 720 SCRA 522, 544-545 (2014). (Citation omitted and italics supplied)
16 See People v. Gatlabayan, 669 Phil. 240, 261; 653 SCRA 803, 824-
825 (2011); People v. Lagmay, 365 Phil. 606, 632; 306 SCRA 157, 181
(1999); and People v. Arcega, G.R. No. 96319, March 31, 1992, 207 SCRA
681, 688. 174
17 Supra note 12 at p. 210; p. 126.
18 Matibag v. Benipayo, 429 Phil. 554, 570; 380 SCRA 49, 65-66
(2002). 174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and
173 enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and
procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the
Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged. Such
VOL. 837, AUGUST 15, 2017 173
rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the
Estipona, Jr. vs. Lobrigo speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the
same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify
x x x [T]he Court is invested with the power to suspend the substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-
application of the rules of procedure as a necessary complement of judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the
its power to promulgate the same. Barnes v. Hon. Quijano Padilla Supreme Court.
discussed the rationale for this tenet, viz.:
Let it be emphasized that the rules of procedure should be
viewed as mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of The power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice and
justice. Their strict and rigid application, which would result in procedure is now Our exclusive domain and no longer
technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote shared with the Executive and Legislative departments.20
substantial justice, must always be eschewed. Even the Rules of In Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice,21 then Associate
Court reflect this principle. The power to suspend or even Justice (later Chief Justice) Reynato S. Puno traced the
disregard rules can be so pervasive and compelling as to alter history of the Court’s rulemaking power and highlighted its
even that which this Court itself has already declared to be final, evolution and development.
x x x. x x x It should be stressed that the power to promulgate rules of
The emerging trend in the rulings of this Court is to afford pleading, practice and procedure was granted by our Constitutions
every party litigant the amplest opportunity for the proper and just to this Court to enhance its independence, for in the words of
determination of his cause, free from the constraints of Justice Isagani Cruz “without independence and integrity, courts
technicalities. Time and again, this Court has consistently held will lose that popular trust so essential to the maintenance of
their vigor as champions of justice.” Hence, our Constitutions reasons, it is no less certain that only this Court, and not the
continuously vested this power to this Court for it enhances its legislative nor executive department, that may do so. Any attempt
independence. Under the 1935 Constitution, the power of this on the part of these departments would be a clear usurpation of
Court to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice and its function, as is the case with the law in question.” The
procedure was granted but it appeared to be coexistent with venerable jurist further ruled: “It is obvious, therefore, that the
legislative power for it was ultimate power to grant license for the practice of law belongs
exclusively to this Court, and the law passed by Congress on the
_______________ matter
20 Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice, 361 Phil. 73, 88; 301 SCRA 96,
112 (1999), as cited in Re: Petition for Recognition of the Exemption of the
Government Service Insurance System from Payment of Legal Fee, 626
176
Phil. 93, 106; 612 SCRA 193, 206 (2010) and Baguio Market Vendors
Multi-Purpose Cooperative (BAMARVEMPCO) v. Cabato-Cortes, 627 Phil.
543, 549; 613 SCRA 733, 740 (2010). 176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
21 Id. Estipona, Jr. vs. Lobrigo

is of permissive character, or as other authorities say, merely to

fix the minimum conditions for the license.” By its ruling, this
175 Court qualified the absolutist tone of the power of Congress to
repeal, alter or supplement the rules concerning pleading,
practice and procedure, and the admission to the practice of law
VOL. 837, AUGUST 15, 2017 175
in the Philippines.
Estipona, Jr. vs. Lobrigo The ruling of this Court in In re: Cunanan, was not changed by
the 1973 Constitution. For the 1973 Constitution reiterated the
subject to the power of Congress to repeal, alter or supplement. power of this Court “to promulgate rules concerning pleading,
Thus, its Section 13, Article VIII provides: practice and procedure in all courts, x x x which, however, may be
“Sec. 13. The Supreme Court shall have the power to repealed, altered or supplemented by the Batasang Pambansa
promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice and x x x.” More completely, Section 5(2)5 of its Article X provided:
procedure in all courts, and the admission to the practice of x x x x
law. Said rules shall be uniform for all courts of the same “Sec. 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers.
grade and shall not diminish, increase, or modify x x x x
substantive rights. The existing laws on pleading, practice (5) Promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and
and procedure are hereby repealed as statutes, and are procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law,
declared Rules of Court, subject to the power of the and the integration of the Bar, which, however, may be
Supreme Court to alter and modify the same. The Congress repealed, altered, or supplemented by the Batasang Pambansa.
shall have the power to repeal, alter or supplement the rules Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive
concerning pleading, practice and procedure, and the procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform
admission to the practice of law in the Philippines.” for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish,
The said power of Congress, however, is not as absolute as it may increase, or modify substantive rights.”
appear on its surface. In In re: Cunanan, Congress in the exercise Well worth noting is that the 1973 Constitution further
of its power to amend rules of the Supreme Court regarding strengthened the independence of the judiciary by giving to it the
admission to the practice of law, enacted the Bar Flunkers Act of additional power to promulgate rules governing the integration of
1953 which considered as a passing grade, the average of 70% in the Bar.
the bar examinations after July 4, 1946 up to August 1951 and The 1987 Constitution molded an even stronger and more
71% in the 1952 bar examinations. This Court struck down the independent judiciary. Among others, it enhanced the rule making
law as unconstitutional. In his ponencia, Mr. Justice Diokno held power of this Court. Its Section 5(5), Article VIII provides:
that “x x x the disputed law is not a legislation; it is a judgment — x x x
a judgment promulgated by this Court during the aforecited years

affecting the bar candidates concerned; and although this Court

certainly can revoke these judgments even now, for justifiable

177 vested unto Congress, the power to promulgate rules

concerning the protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in
VOL. 837, AUGUST 15, 2017 177
all courts belongs exclusively to this Court. Section 5(5),
Estipona, Jr. vs. Lobrigo Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution reads:
x x x x
“Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following In Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice (Echegaray), the Court
powers: traced the evolution of its rule-making authority, which, under
x x x the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, had been priorly subjected to a
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and power-sharing scheme with Congress. As it now stands, the 1987
enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice and Constitution textually altered the old provisions by deleting
procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the the concurrent power of Congress to amend the rules, thus
Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged. solidifying in one body the Court’s rule-making powers, in
Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive line with the Framers’ vision of institutionalizing a “[s]tronger
procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform and more independent judiciary.”
for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, The records of the deliberations of the Constitutional
increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of Commission would show that the Framers debated on whether or
special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective not the Court’s rule making powers should be shared with
unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.” Congress. There was an initial suggestion to insert the sentence
The rule making power of this Court was expanded. This Court, “The National Assembly may repeal, alter, or supplement the said
for the first time, was given the power to promulgate rules rules with the advice and concurrence of the Supreme Court,”
concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional right after the phrase “Promulgate rules concerning the
rights. The Court was also granted for the first time the power to protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading,
disapprove rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice
bodies. But most importantly, the 1987 Constitution took away the of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the
power of Congress to repeal, alter, or supplement rules concerning underprivileged[,]” in the enumeration of powers of the Supreme
pleading, practice and procedure. In fine, the power to promulgate Court. Later, Commissioner Felicitas S. Aquino proposed to delete
rules of pleading, practice and procedure is no longer shared by the former sentence and, instead, after the word
this Court with Congress, more so with the Executive. x x x22 “[under]privileged,” place a comma (,) to be followed by “the
phrase with the concurrence of the Na-
_______________
_______________
22 Id., at pp. 85-88; pp. 109-112. (Citations omitted) See also Re:
Petition for Recognition of the Exemption of the Government Service 23 G.R. Nos. 217126-27, November 10, 2015, 774 SCRA 431.
Insurance System from Payment of Legal Fee, supra note 20 at pp. 106-

108; pp. 206-208 and In Re: Exemption of the National Power Corporation

from Payment of Filing/Docket Fees, 629 Phil. 1, 4-5; 615 SCRA 1, 4-6
(2010). 179

VOL. 837, AUGUST 15, 2017 179
178
tional Assembly.” Eventually, a compromise formulation was

178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED reached wherein (a) the Committee members agreed to
Estipona, Jr. vs. Lobrigo Commissioner Aquino’s proposal to delete the phrase “the
National Assembly may repeal, alter, or supplement the said
Just recently, Carpio-Morales v. Court of Appeals (Sixth rules with the advice and concurrence of the Supreme Court” and
Division)23 further elucidated: (b) in turn, Commissioner Aquino agreed to withdraw his
proposal to add “the phrase with the concurrence of the National
While the power to define, prescribe, and apportion the Assembly.” The changes were approved, thereby leading to
jurisdiction of the various courts is, by constitutional design, the present lack of textual reference to any form of
Congressional participation in Section 5(5), Article VIII, from Payment of Filing/Docket Fees;31 and Rep. of the Phils. v.
supra. The prevailing consideration was that “both bodies, Hon. Mangotara, et al.32 — Despite statutory provisions, the
the Supreme Court and the Legislature, have their GSIS, BAMARVEMPCO, and NPC are not exempt from the
inherent powers.” payment of legal fees imposed by Rule 141 of the Rules.
Thus, as it now stands, Congress has no authority to repeal, 4. Carpio-Morales v. Court of Appeals (Sixth Division)33 — The
alter, or supplement rules concerning pleading, practice, and first paragraph of Section 14 of R.A. No. 6770, which prohibits
procedure. x x x24 courts except the Supreme Court from issuing temporary
restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin
an investigation conducted by the Ombudsman, is
The separation of powers among the three coequal unconstitutional as it contravenes Rule 58 of the Rules.
branches of our government has erected an impregnable
wall that keeps the power to promulgate rules of pleading,
_______________
practice and procedure within the sole province of this
Court.25 The other branches trespass upon this prerogative 28 738 Phil. 37; 728 SCRA 482 (2014).
if they enact laws or issue orders that effectively repeal, 29 Re: Petition for Recognition of the Exemption of the Government
alter or modify any of the procedural rules promulgated by Service Insurance System from Payment of Legal Fees, supra note 20.
the Court.26 Viewed from this perspective, We have 30 Baguio Market Vendors Multi-Purpose Cooperative (BAMARVEM-
rejected previous attempts on the part of the Congress, in PCO) v. Hon. Judge Cabato-Cortes, supra note 20.
the exercise of its legislative power, to amend the Rules of 31 In Re: Exemption of the National Power Corporation from Payment
Court (Rules) to wit:
of Filing/Docket Fees, supra note 22.
1. Fabian v. Desierto27 — Appeal from the decision of the Office 32 638 Phil. 353; 633 SCRA 64 (2010).
of the Ombudsman in an administrative disciplinary case should 33 Carpio-Morales v. Court of Appeals (Sixth Division), supra note 23.
be taken to the Court

_______________
181
24 Id., at pp. 505-508. (Citations omitted)
25 Re: Petition for Recognition of the Exemption of the Government
Service Insurance System from Payment of Legal Fee, supra note 20 at p.
VOL. 837, AUGUST 15, 2017 181
108; pp. 208-209. Estipona, Jr. vs. Lobrigo
26 Id.
27 356 Phil. 787; 295 SCRA 470 (1998). Considering that the aforesaid laws effectively modified
the Rules, this Court asserted its discretion to amend,

repeal or even establish new rules of procedure, to the

exclusion of the legislative and executive branches of
180 government. To reiterate, the Court’s authority to
promulgate rules on pleading, practice, and procedure is
exclusive and one of the safeguards of Our institutional
180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED independence.34
Plea bargaining in
of Appeals under the provisions of Rule 43 of the Rules instead of criminal cases
appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 as provided in Section 27 of
R.A. No. 6770. Plea bargaining, as a rule and a practice, has been
2. Cathay Metal Corporation v. Laguna West Multipurpose existing in our jurisdiction since July 1, 1940, when the
Cooperative, Inc.28 — The Cooperative Code provisions on notices 1940 Rules took effect. Section 4, Rule 114 (Pleas) of which
cannot replace the rules on summons under Rule 14 of the Rules. stated:
3. RE: Petition for Recognition of the Exemption of the GSIS
SEC. 4. Plea of guilty of lesser offense.—The defendant, with the
from Payment of Legal Fees;29 Baguio Market Vendors Multi-
consent of the court and of the fiscal, may plead guilty of any
purpose Cooperative (BAMARVEMPCO) v. Hon. Judge Cabato-
Cortes;30 In Re: Exemption of the National Power Corporation
lesser offense than that charged which is necessarily included in When R.A. No. 8493 (“Speedy Trial Act of 1998”) was
the offense charged in the complaint or information. enacted,35 Section 2, Rule 118 of the Rules was
substantially adopted. Section 2 of the law required that
plea bargaining and other matters36 that will promote a
When the 1964 Rules became effective on January 1, fair and expeditious trial are to be considered during
1964, the same provision was retained under Rule 118 pretrial conference in all criminal cases cognizable by the
(Pleas). Subsequently, with the effectivity of the 1985 Rules Municipal Trial Court, Municipal Circuit Trial Court,
on January 1, 1985, the provision on plea of guilty to a Metropolitan Trial Court, Regional Trial Court, and the
lesser offense was amended. Section 2, Rule 116 provided: Sandiganbayan.
SEC. 2. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense.—The accused with the
Currently, the pertinent rules on plea bargaining under
consent of the offended party and the fiscal, may be allowed by
the 2000 Rules37 are quoted below:
the trial court to plead guilty to a lesser offense, regardless of
whether or not it is necessarily included in the crime charged, or _______________
is cognizable by a court of lesser jurisdiction than the trial court.
35 Approved on February 12, 1998.
No amendment of the complaint or information is necessary. (4a,
36 Such as stipulation of facts, marking for identification of evidence of
R-118)
parties, and waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence.
37 Effective December 1, 2001 (People v. Mamarion, 459 Phil. 51, 74;
_______________ 412 SCRA 438, 456 [2003]).
34 Id., at pp. 517-518, citing Baguio Market Vendors Multi-Purpose

Cooperative (BAMARVEMPCO) v. Cabato-Cortes, supra note 20 at p. 550;
p. 741.
183

VOL. 837, AUGUST 15, 2017 183
182

RULE 116 (Arraignment and Plea):
SEC. 2. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense.—At arraignment, the
As well, the term “plea bargaining” was first mentioned accused, with the consent of the offended party and the
and expressly required during pretrial. Section 2, Rule 118 prosecutor, may be allowed by the trial court to plead guilty to a
mandated: lesser offense which is necessarily included in the offense charged.
After arraignment but before trial, the accused may still be
SEC. 2. Pre-trial conference; subjects.—The pretrial conference
allowed to plead guilty to said lesser offense after withdrawing his
shall consider the following:
plea of not guilty. No amendment of the complaint or information
(a) Plea bargaining;
is necessary. (Sec. 4, Cir. 38-98)
(b) Stipulation of facts;
RULE 118 (Pretrial):
(c) Marking for identification of evidence of the parties;
SEC. 1. Pretrial; mandatory in criminal cases.—In all criminal
(d) Waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence; and
cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, Regional Trial Court,
(e) Such other matters as will promote a fair and
Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities,
expeditious trial. (n)
Municipal Trial Court and Municipal Circuit Trial Court, the
court shall, after arraignment and within thirty (30) days from
The 1985 Rules was later amended. While the wordings the date the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the
of Section 2, Rule 118 was retained, Section 2, Rule 116 accused, unless a shorter period is provided for in special laws or
was modified in 1987. A second paragraph was added, circulars of the Supreme Court, order a pretrial conference to
stating that “[a] conviction under this plea shall be consider the following:
equivalent to a conviction of the offense charged for (a) plea bargaining;
purposes of double jeopardy.” (b) stipulation of facts;
(c) marking for identification of evidence of the parties;
(d) waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence; Court of Appeals (Thirteenth Division), 352 Phil. 405, 415-416; 289 SCRA
(e) modification of the order of trial if the accused admits the 568, 577-578 (1998).
charge but interposes a lawful defense; and 39 Carpio-Morales v. Court of Appeals (Sixth Division), supra note 23
(f) such matters as will promote a fair and expeditious trial of at pp. 516-517.
the criminal and civil aspects of the case. (Secs. 2 & 3, Cir. 38- 40 Fabian v. Hon. Desierto, supra note 27.
98)

185
184
VOL. 837, AUGUST 15, 2017 185

justly administering remedy and redress for a disregard or
Plea bargaining is a infraction of them. If the rule takes away a vested right, it is not
rule of procedure procedural. If the rule creates a right such as the right to appeal,
it may be classified as a substantive matter; but if it operates as a
The Supreme Court’s sole prerogative to issue, amend, means of implementing an existing right then the rule deals merely
or repeal procedural rules is limited to the preservation of with procedure.41
substantive rights, i.e., the former should not diminish,
increase or modify the latter.38 “Substantive law is that
part of the law which creates, defines and regulates rights, In several occasions, We dismissed the argument that a
or which regulates the right and duties which give rise to a procedural rule violates substantive rights. For example, in
cause of action; that part of the law which courts are People v. Lacson,42 Section 8, Rule 117 of the Rules on
established to administer; as opposed to adjective or provisional dismissal was held as a special procedural
remedial law, which prescribes the method of enforcing limitation qualifying the right of the State to prosecute,
rights or obtain redress for their invasions.”39 Fabian v. making the time bar an essence of the given right or as an
Hon. Desierto40 laid down the test for determining whether inherent part thereof, so that its expiration operates to
a rule is substantive or procedural in nature. extinguish the right of the State to prosecute the accused.43
Speaking through then Associate Justice Romeo J. Callejo,
It will be noted that no definitive line can be drawn between Sr., the Court opined:
those rules or statutes which are procedural, hence within the
scope of this Court’s rulemaking power, and those which are In the new rule in question, as now construed by the Court, it
substantive. In fact, a particular rule may be procedural in one has fixed a time bar of one year or two years for the revival of
context and substantive in another. It is admitted that what is criminal cases provisionally dismissed with the express consent of
procedural and what is substantive is frequently a question of the accused and with a priori notice to the offended party. The
great difficulty. It is not, however, an insurmountable problem if a time bar may appear, on first impression, unreasonable compared
rational and pragmatic approach is taken within the context of to the periods under Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code.
our own procedural and jurisdictional system. However, in fixing the time bar, the Court balanced the societal
In determining whether a rule prescribed by the Supreme interests and those of the accused for the orderly and speedy
Court, for the practice and procedure of the lower courts, disposition of criminal cases with minimum prejudice to the State
abridges, enlarges, or modifies any substantive right, the test is and the accused. It took into account the sub-
whether the rule really regulates procedure, that is, the judicial
process for enforcing rights and duties recognized by substantive _______________
law and for
41 Id., at pp. 808-809; pp. 491-492. See also Carpio-Morales v. Court of
Appeals (Sixth Division), supra note 23 at p. 517; Securities and Exchange
_______________
Commission v. Laigo, 768 Phil. 239, 269-270; 768 SCRA 633, 667 (2015);
38 CONSTITUTION, Art. VIII, Sec. 5(5). See also Ogayon v. People, 768 Jaylo v. Sandiganbayan (First Division), 751 Phil. 123, 141-142; 746
Phil. 272, 288; 768 SCRA 670, 686 (2015) and San Ildefonso Lines, Inc. v. SCRA 452, 471 (2015); Land Bank of the Philippines v. De Leon, 447 Phil.

495, 503; 399 SCRA 376, 383 (2003); and Bernabe v. Alejo, 424 Phil. 933,
941; 374 SCRA 180, 187 (2002).
42 448 Phil. 317; 400 SCRA 267 (2003).
187
43 See Los Baños v. Pedro, 604 Phil. 215, 229; 586 SCRA 303, 316
(2009).
VOL. 837, AUGUST 15, 2017 187

186
On the other side of the fulcrum, a mere provisional dismissal
of a criminal case does not terminate a criminal case. The
186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED possibility that the case may be revived at any time may disrupt
or reduce, if not derail, the chances of the accused for
employment, curtail his association, subject him to public obloquy
and create anxiety in him and his family. He is unable to lead a
stantial rights of both the State and of the accused to due process. normal life because of community suspicion and his own anxiety.
The Court believed that the time limit is a reasonable period for He continues to suffer those penalties and disabilities
the State to revive provisionally dismissed cases with the consent incompatible with the presumption of innocence. He may also lose
of the accused and notice to the offended parties. The time bar his witnesses or their memories may fade with the passage of
fixed by the Court must be respected unless it is shown that the time. In the long run, it may diminish his capacity to defend
period is manifestly short or insufficient that the rule becomes a himself and thus eschew the fairness of the entire criminal justice
denial of justice. The petitioners failed to show a manifest system.
shortness or insufficiency of the time bar. The time bar under the new rule was fixed by the Court to
The new rule was conceptualized by the Committee on the excise the malaise that plagued the administration of the criminal
Revision of the Rules and approved by the Court En Banc justice system for the benefit of the State and the accused; not for
primarily to enhance the administration of the criminal justice the accused only.44
system and the rights to due process of the State and the accused
by eliminating the deleterious practice of trial courts of
provisionally dismissing criminal cases on motion of either the Also, We said in Jaylo, et al. v. Sandiganbayan, et al.45
prosecution or the accused or jointly, either with no time-bar for that Section 6, Rule 120 of the Rules, which provides that
the revival thereof or with a specific or definite period for such an accused who failed to appear at the promulgation of the
revival by the public prosecutor. There were times when such judgment of conviction shall lose the remedies available
criminal cases were no longer revived or refiled due to causes against the judgment, does not take away substantive
beyond the control of the public prosecutor or because of the rights but merely provides the manner through which an
indolence, apathy or the lackadaisical attitude of public existing right may be implemented.
prosecutors to the prejudice of the State and the accused despite
the mandate to public prosecutors and trial judges to expedite Section 6, Rule 120, of the Rules of Court, does not take away
criminal proceedings. per se the right of the convicted accused to avail of the remedies
It is almost a universal experience that the accused welcomes under the Rules. It is the failure of the accused to appear without
delay as it usually operates in his favor, especially if he greatly justifiable cause on the scheduled date of promulgation of the
fears the consequences of his trial and conviction. He is hesitant judgment of conviction that forfeits their right to avail themselves
to disturb the hushed inaction by which dominant cases have of the remedies against the judgment.
been known to expire.
The inordinate delay in the revival or refiling of criminal cases _______________
may impair or reduce the capacity of the State to prove its case
44 People v. Lacson, supra note 42 at pp. 387-389; pp. 307-309.
with the disappearance or nonavailability of its witnesses.
Physical evidence may have been lost. Memories of witnesses may (Citations omitted)
have grown dim or have faded. Passage of time makes proof of 45 Jaylo v. Sandiganbayan (First Division), supra note 41.
any fact more difficult. The accused may become a fugitive from

justice or commit another crime. The longer the lapse of time from

the dismissal of the case to the revival thereof, the more difficult
it is to prove the crime. 188

188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Estipona, Jr. vs. Lobrigo

which there is substantial doubt that the State can sustain its
It is not correct to say that Section 6, Rule 120, of the Rules of burden of proof. (Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 752 [1970])
Court diminishes or modifies the substantive rights of petitioners. Disposition of charges after plea discussions x x x leads to
It only works in pursuance of the power of the Supreme Court to prompt and largely final disposition of most criminal cases; it
“provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy avoids much of the corrosive impact of enforced idleness during
disposition of cases.” This provision protects the courts from delay pretrial confinement for those who are denied release pending
in the speedy disposition of criminal cases — delay arising from trial; it protects the public from those accused persons who are
the simple expediency of nonappearance of the accused on the prone to continue criminal conduct even while on pretrial release;
scheduled promulgation of the judgment of conviction.46 and, by shortening the time between charge and disposition, it
enhances whatever may be the rehabilitative prospects of the
guilty when they are ultimately imprisoned. (Santobello v. New
By the same token, it is towards the provision of a York, 404 U.S. 257, 261 [1971])
simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy The defendant avoids extended pretrial incarceration and the
disposition of cases in all court47 that the rules on plea anxieties and uncertainties of a trial; he gains a speedy
bargaining was introduced. As a way of disposing criminal disposition of his case, the chance to acknowledge his guilt, and a
charges by agreement of the parties, plea bargaining is prompt start in realizing whatever potential there may be for
considered to be an “important,” “essential,” “highly rehabilitation. Judges and prosecutors conserve vital and scarce
desirable,” and “legitimate” component of the resources. The public is protected from the risks posed by those
administration of justice.48 Some of its salutary effects charged with criminal offenses who are at large on bail while
include: awaiting completion of criminal proceedings. (Blackledge v.
Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 71 [1977])
x x x For a defendant who sees slight possibility of acquittal, the
advantages of pleading guilty and limiting the probable penalty
are obvious — his exposure is reduced, the correctional processes In this jurisdiction, plea bargaining has been defined as
can begin immediately, and the practical burdens of a trial are “a process whereby the accused and the prosecution work
eliminated. For the State there are also advantages — the more out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case subject
promptly imposed punishment after an admission of guilt may to court approval.”49 There is give-and-take negotiation
more effectively attain the objectives of punishment; and with the common in plea bargaining.50 The essence of the agreement
avoidance of trial, scarce judicial and prosecutorial resources are is that both
conserved for those cases in which there is a substantial issue of
the defendant’s guilt or in _______________
_______________ 49 People v. Villarama, Jr., 285 Phil. 723, 730; 210 SCRA 246, 251
(1992), citing Black’s Law Dictionary, p. 1037, 5th ed., 1979. See also
46 Id., at pp. 142-143; p. 472. (Citation omitted). Gonzales III v. Office of the President of the Philippines, 694 Phil. 52, 106;
47 CONSTITUTION, Art. VIII, Sec. 5(5). See also Neypes v. Court of 679 SCRA 614, 670 (2012); Amante-Descallar v. Ramas, 601 Phil. 21, 40;
Appeals, 506 Phil. 613, 626; 469 SCRA 633, 643-644 (2005) and San 582 SCRA 22, 40 (2009); Daan v. Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division), 573
Ildefonso Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals (Thirteenth Division), supra note Phil. 368, 375; 550 SCRA 233, 240-241 (2008); and People v. Mamarion,
38. supra note 37 at p. 75; p. 457.
48 See Corbitt v. New Jersey, 439 U.S. 212 (1978); Blackledge v. 50 Parker v. North Carolina, 397 U.S. 790 (1970).
Allison, 431 U.S. 63 (1977); and the Majority Opinion and Mr. Justice
Douglas’ Concurring Opinion in Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257
(1971).
190

189
VOL. 837, AUGUST 15, 2017 189
the prosecution and the defense make concessions to avoid and the prosecutor, which is a condition precedent to a
potential losses.51 Properly administered, plea bargaining valid plea of guilty to a lesser offense that is necessarily
is to be encouraged because the chief virtues of the system included in the offense charged.58 The reason for this is
— speed, economy, and finality — can benefit the accused, that the prosecutor has full control of the prosecution of
the offended party, the prosecution, and the court.52 criminal actions; his duty is to always prosecute the proper
Considering the presence of mutuality of advantage,53 offense, not any lesser or graver one, based on what the
the rules on plea bargaining neither create a right nor take evidence on hand can sustain.59
away a vested right. Instead, it operates as a means to
implement an existing right by regulating the judicial [Courts] normally must defer to prosecutorial decisions as to
process for enforcing rights and duties recognized by whom to prosecute. The reasons for judicial deference are well
substantive law and for justly administering remedy and known. Prosecutorial charging decisions are rarely simple. In
redress for a disregard or infraction of them. addition to assessing the strength and importance of a case,
The decision to plead guilty is often heavily influenced prosecutors also must consider
by the defendant’s appraisal of the prosecution’s case
against him and by the apparent likelihood of securing _______________
leniency should a guilty plea be offered and accepted.54 In
56 Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545 (1977). See also Mr. Justice
any case, whether it be to the offense charged or to a lesser
Scalia’s Dissenting Opinion in Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2011).
crime, a guilty plea is a “serious and sobering occasion”
inasmuch as it constitutes a waiver of the fundamental 57 The State is the offended party in crimes under R.A. No. 9165. In
rights to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, People v. Villarama, Jr., supra note 49 at p. 732; p. 254, the Court ruled:
to be heard by himself and counsel, to meet the witnesses “x x x While the acts constituting the crimes are not wrong in
face to face, to bail (except those charged with offenses themselves, they are made so by law because they infringe upon the rights
punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is of others. The threat posed by drugs against human dignity and the
strong), to be convicted by proof beyond reasonable doubt, integrity of society is malevolent and incessant (People v. Ale, supra note
and not to be compelled to be a witness against himself.55 13). Such pernicious effect is felt not only by the addicts themselves but
Yet a defendant has no constitutional right to plea also by their families. As a result, society’s survival is endangered because
bargain. No basic rights are infringed by trying him rather its basic unit, the family, is the ultimate victim of the drug menace. The
than accepting a plea of guilty; the prosecutor need not do state is, therefore, the offended party in this case. As guardian of the
so if he rights of the people, the government files the criminal action in the name
of the People of the Philippines. The Fiscal who represents the
government is duty bound to defend the public interests, threatened by
_______________
crime, to the point that it is as though he were the person directly injured
51 Hughey v. United States, 495 U.S. 411 (1990). by the offense (see United States v. Samio, 3 Phil. 691, 696). Viewed in
52 See Santobello v. New York and Blackledge v. Allison, supra note this light, the consent of the offended party, i.e., the state, will have to be
48. secured from the Fiscal who acts in behalf of the government.”
53 Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970). 58 People v. Villarama, Jr., id.
54 Id. 59 Id.
55 Id., and Mr. Justice Douglas’ Concurring Opinion in Santobello v.
New York, supra note 48 at p. 264.

192

191
VOL. 837, AUGUST 15, 2017 191
Estipona, Jr. vs. Lobrigo other tangible and intangible factors, such as government
enforcement priorities. Finally, they also must decide how best to
prefers to go to trial.56 Under the present Rules, the allocate the scarce resources of a criminal justice system that
acceptance of an offer to plead guilty is not a demandable simply cannot accommodate the litigation of every serious
right but depends on the consent of the offended party57 criminal charge. Because these decisions “are not readily

susceptible to the kind of analysis the courts are competent to arbitrary and despotic manner because of passion or
undertake,” we have been “properly hesitant to examine the hostility; it arises when a court or tribunal violates the
decision whether to prosecute.”60 Constitution, the law or existing jurisprudence.65
If the accused moved to plead guilty to a lesser offense
subsequent to a bail hearing or after the prosecution rested
The plea is further addressed to the sound discretion of its case, the rules allow such a plea only when the
the trial court, which may allow the accused to plead guilty prosecution does not have sufficient evidence to establish
to a lesser offense which is necessarily included in the the guilt of the crime charged.66 The only basis on which
offense charged. The word may denotes an exercise of the prosecutor and the court could rightfully act in allowing
discretion upon the trial court on whether to allow the change in the former plea of not guilty could be nothing
accused to make such plea.61 Trial courts are exhorted to more and nothing less than the evidence on record. As soon
keep in mind that a plea of guilty for a lighter offense than as the prosecutor has submitted a comment whether for or
that actually charged is not supposed to be allowed as a against said motion, it behooves the trial court to
matter of bargaining or compromise for the convenience of assiduously study the prosecution’s evidence as well as all
the accused.62 the circumstances upon which the accused made his change
Plea bargaining is allowed during the arraignment, the of plea to the end that the interests of justice and of the
pretrial, or even up to the point when the prosecution public will be served.67 The ruling on the motion must
already rested its case.63 As regards plea bargaining during disclose the strength or weakness of the prosecution’s
the pre- evidence.68 Absent any finding on the weight of the
evidence on hand, the judge’s acceptance of the defendant’s
_______________ change of plea is improper and irregular.69
60 Newton v. Rumery, 480 U.S. 386, 396 (1987).
_______________
61 Daan v. Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division), supra note 49 at p. 377;
pp. 242-243. In Capati v. Ocampo (199 Phil. 230, 234; 113 SCRA 794, 796 64 Id.
[1982], citing In Re: Hirsh’s Estate, 5A. 2d 160, 163; 334 Pa. 172; Words & 65 Albania v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 226792, June 6, 2017,
Phrases, permanent edition, 26a.), the Court also held: 826 SCRA 191.
“It is well settled that the word ‘may’ is merely permissive and operates 66 People v. Villarama, Jr., supra note 49 at p. 731; p. 252, as cited in
to confer discretion upon a party. Under ordinary circumstances, the term Gonzales III v. Office of the President of the Philippines, supra note 49,
‘may be’ connotes possibility; it does not connote certainty. ‘May’ is an and People v. Mamarion, supra note 37 at p. 76; p. 457.
auxiliary verb indicating liberty, opportunity, permission or possibility.” 67 Id.
62 Daan v. Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division), id. and People v.
68 Id.
Villarama, Jr., supra note 49.
69 Id.
63 Id., at p. 378; p. 243; People v. Mamarion, supra note 37 at p. 75; p.
457; Ladino v. Garcia, 333 Phil. 254, 258; 265 SCRA 422, 426-427 (1996);
and People v. Villarama, Jr., id., at p. 731; p. 252.
194

193 194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
VOL. 837, AUGUST 15, 2017 193
On whether Section 23 of
R.A. No. 9165 violates the
equal protection clause
trial stage, the trial court’s exercise of discretion should not
amount to a grave abuse thereof.64 “Grave abuse of At this point, We shall not resolve the issue of whether
discretion” is a capricious and whimsical exercise of Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165 is contrary to the constitutional
judgment so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of right to equal protection of the law in order not to preempt
a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty any future discussion by the Court on the policy
enjoined by law, as where the power is exercised in an considerations behind Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165. Pending
deliberation on whether or not to adopt the statutory both selling and possession, most of them will have to
provision in toto or a qualified version thereof, We deem it suffer the penalty of selling, that is, life imprisonment.5
proper to declare as invalid the prohibition against plea They will be sentenced to
bargaining on drug cases until and unless it is made part of
the rules of procedure through an administrative circular _______________
duly issued for the purpose.
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari and 1 Rep. Act No. 9165 (2001), Art. II, Sec. 23. Plea Bargaining
prohibition is GRANTED. Section 23 of Republic Act No. Provision.—Any person charged under any provision of this Act regardless
9165 is declared unconstitutional for being contrary to the of the imposable penalty shall not be allowed to avail of the provision on
rulemaking authority of the Supreme Court under Section plea bargaining.
5(5), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution. 2 CONST., Art. III, Sec. 19(1). Excessive fines shall not be imposed,
SO ORDERED. nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall
death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving
Sereno (CJ.), Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty
Bersamin, Del Castillo, Perlas-Bernabe, Jardeleza, already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
Martires, Tijam, Reyes, Jr. and Gesmundo, JJ., concur. 3 Rep. Act. No. 9165 (2001), Art. I, Sec. 2.
Leonen, J., See Separate Concurring Opinion. 4 The rights include the right to be presumed innocent, the right to be
Caguioa, J., On Wellness Leave. heard, the right to meet witnesses face to face, (Const., Art. III, Sec. 14(2),
and the right against self-incrimination (Const., Art. III. Sec. 17).
SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION
5 See Rep. Act No. 9165 (2001), Art. II, Sec. 5.

LEONEN, J.:

I concur with the ponencia.
196

195 196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
VOL. 837, AUGUST 15, 2017 195
life imprisonment for evidence amounting to “only about
2.5% of the weight of a five-centavo coin (1.9 grams) or a
one-centavo coin (2.0 grams).”6
In my view, the prohibition found in Section 23 of As we have observed in People v. Holgado:7
Republic Act No. 91651 is unconstitutional not only because
it contravenes the rulemaking power of this Court, it also It is lamentable that while our dockets are clogged with
constitutes “cruel, degrading, [and] inhuman” punishment prosecutions under Republic Act No. 9165 involving small-time
for the accused.2 drug users and retailers, we are seriously short of prosecutions
It is the declared policy of the law “to provide effective involving the proverbial “big fish.” We are swamped with cases
mechanisms or measures to reintegrate into society indi- involving small fry who have been arrested for miniscule
viduals who have fallen victims to drug abuse or dangerous amounts. While they are certainly a bane to our society, small
drug dependence through sustainable programs of retailers are but low-lying fruits in an exceedingly vast network of
treatment and rehabilitation.”3 The aim is to rehabilitate, drug cartels. Both law enforcers and prosecutors should realize
not punish, those drug offenders. that the more effective and efficient strategy is to focus resources
When an accused pleads to a lesser offense, he or she more on the source and true leadership of these nefarious
waives all the fundamental rights guaranteed to an organizations. Otherwise, all these executive and judicial
accused.4 It is essentially a choice that only the accused can resources expended to attempt to convict an accused for 0.05 gram
make, as a way to acknowledge his or her guilt and as of shabu under doubtful custodial arrangements will hardly make
atonement for that guilt. a dent in the overall picture. It might in fact be distracting our
The reality is that most “drug pushers” that come before law enforcers from their more challenging task: to uproot the
the courts are found with less that 0.1 gram of illegal causes of this drug menace. We stand ready to assess cases
drugs. While some of these accused will be charged with involving greater amounts of drugs and the leadership of these
cartels.8
wordings of a statute, there would be no violation of said

The application of the mandatory penalty of life principle for the court to merely affirm the correction made
imprisonment, as practiced, appear to have a by the same entity which committed the error. (The
disproportionate impact on those who are poor and those Learning Child, Inc. vs. Ayala Alabang Village Association,
caught with very miniscule quantities of drugs. A 624 SCRA 258 [2010])
disproportionate impact in practice of a seemingly neutral
penal law, in my view, will amount to an unusual ——o0o——
punishment considering that drugs affect all economic
classes. _______________
9 See ponencia, pp. 190-191.

_______________
6 See People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78, 99; 732 SCRA 554, 575 (2014)
[Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
7 Id.
8 Id., at p. 100; p. 577.
© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

197
VOL. 837, AUGUST 15, 2017 197

Plea bargaining does not necessarily mean that the

accused will automatically be sentenced to the lesser
offense. The plea is subject to the acceptance of the
prosecution and is only allowed by discretion of the court.9
What is essential is that the choice exists. Preventing the
accused from pleading to the lesser offense of possession is
a cruel, degrading, and unusual punishment for those who
genuinely accept the consequences of their actions and seek
to be rehabilitated. It will not advance the policy of the law
to punish offenders with penalties not commensurate with
the offense and to hinder their reintegration into society.
Having said all these, I am reserving judgment for an
appropriate case where the issue is whether life imprison-
ment is by itself cruel for those caught trading miniscule
amounts of illegal drugs.
Accordingly, I vote to GRANT the Petition.
Petition granted, Section 23 of Republic Act No. 9165

declared unconstitutional.
Notes.—Plea bargaining is a process, in criminal cases,

whereby the accused and the prosecution work out a
mutually satisfactory disposition of the case subject to
court approval. (Amante-Descallar vs. Ramas, 582 SCRA 22
[2009])
While it would be a violation of the principle of
separation of powers for the courts to interfere with the

Estipona v. Lobrigo

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Estipona v. Lobrigo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3/25/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 837 3/25/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 837

VOL. 837, AUGUST 15, 2017 161

law enforcers, may be unjustly accused and convicted.” Fully

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178690b4e8dcd142ed1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/36 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178690b4e8dcd142ed1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/36

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178690b4e8dcd142ed1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/36 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178690b4e8dcd142ed1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/36

compelled to be a witness against himself. Yet a defendant has no 165

VOL. 837, AUGUST 15, 2017 165

PERALTA, J.: approved on December 13, 1993. It provided:

SEC. 20-A. Plea bargaining Provisions.—Any person charged under

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178690b4e8dcd142ed1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/36 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178690b4e8dcd142ed1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/36

lower court to declare Sec. 23 of R.A. No. 9165 unconstitutional

“monstrous,” and “harrowing” proportions,13 and that its

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178690b4e8dcd142ed1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/36 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178690b4e8dcd142ed1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/36

177 vested unto Congress, the power to promulgate rules

tional Assembly.” Eventually, a compromise formulation was

34 Id., at pp. 517-518, citing Baguio Market Vendors Multi-Purpose

182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

VOL. 837, AUGUST 15, 2017 185

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178690b4e8dcd142ed1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/36 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178690b4e8dcd142ed1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 24/36

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178690b4e8dcd142ed1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 25/36 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178690b4e8dcd142ed1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 26/36

188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Estipona, Jr. vs. Lobrigo

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178690b4e8dcd142ed1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 29/36 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178690b4e8dcd142ed1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 30/36

wordings of a statute, there would be no violation of said

9 See ponencia, pp. 190-191.

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

VOL. 837, AUGUST 15, 2017 197

Plea bargaining does not necessarily mean that the

Petition granted, Section 23 of Republic Act No. 9165

Notes.—Plea bargaining is a process, in criminal cases,

You might also like