18.People v. Reafor, GR No.

247575, November 16, 2020

Facts:
Respondent Edwin Reafor was charged for violation of Section 5, Article 2 of RA 9165
for allegedly selling two (2) sachets of shabu, aggregately weighing 0.149 grams, on January 21,
2017. During the presentation of the evidence, respondent filed a Motion to Plea Bargain as per
A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC. This was opposed by the prosecution contending DOJ Circular No. 27.

Despite the prosecution’s objection, the Regional Trial Court granted the motion of
respondent Reafor contending that A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC must prevail over the issuances of the
Department of Justice given that only the Supreme Court has the power to promulgate the rules
of procedure.

Hence, the Office of the Solicitor General filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of
the Rules of Court before the Court of Appeals. However, the Court of Appeals dismissed such
petition contending that there was failure on the part of the OSG to file for a motion for
reconsideration before the RTC prior to the filing of the said petition. It also highlighted that the
OSG failed to provide sufficient justification as to why it took them nearly one month to file the
petition to the CA.

Issue:
Whether or not the contention of the Court of Appeals in dismissing the said petition be
given with merit.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court had set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals and granted the
resolution of the petitioner.

It held that although the Court of Appeals correctly pointed out that the petition filed
before it suffers from procedural defects, there were still instances wherein the Court disregarded
procedural lapses in order to resolve a case. It had emphasized that higher demand of substantial
justice must transcend rigid observance of procedural rules.

Additionally, the Court held that as governed by Section 2, Rule 116 of the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure, in plea bargaining in criminal cases, the accused and the
prosecution work out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case subject to court approval.
Essentially, it is a give-and-take negotiation wherein both the prosecution and the defense make
concessions in order to avoid potential losses.

In this case, the RTC gravely abused its discretion in granting respondent's motion to plea
bargain notwithstanding the prosecution's opposition to the same which is grounded on DOJ
Circular No. 27. Effectively, respondent's plea of guilty to a lesser offense was made without the
consent of the prosecution. Since respondent's plea of guilt and subsequent conviction for a
lesser offense clearly lack one of the requisites of a valid plea bargain, the plea bargaining is
void. Resultantly, the judgment rendered by the RTC which was based on a void plea bargaining
is also void ab initio and cannot be considered to have attained finality for the simple reason that
a void judgment has no legality from its inception.