Resolution 2 G.R. No.

260214· •

of discretion when it accepted /,lvero's proposal for plea bargaining despite

the prosecution's objection. 3

The Facts

Alvero and Sorabelle Aporta were charged with violation of Section 5,

Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. No. 9165) 4 in an Information,5
dated August 11, 2016 for the illegal sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride
or shabu with a total weight of 0. J459 grams. 6

During the arraignment, Alvero pleaded "not guilty." However, during

the presentation of the prosecution's evidence and following the ruling of the
Court in Estipona v. Lobrigo (Estipona), 7 Alvero filed a Proposal for Plea
Bargaining (Proposal), 8 dated November 9, 2018, praying that the RTC.
accept his proposal for plea bargaining. Alvero asked that he be allowed to
plead guilty to violation of Section 12, A1ticle II of R.A. No. 9165 in
accordance 'fith A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC (Plea Bargaining Framework in
Drugs Cases). 9
!

The prosecution filed a Comment/Objection (Comment), 10 dated

I

November ri, 2018. The prosecution argued that under Department Circular
No. 027 oftHe Department of Justice (DOJ), the acceptable plea for violation
of Section 5, Article II ofR.A. No. 9165 is Section 11, paragraph 3. Thus, the
prosecution manifested that Alvero's Proposal is not acceptable. The
prose~ution r1;her add~d that Alve~? is also being ch:rged under a theory of
conspiracy l\nder Section 26, A1t1cle II of R.A. No. 9165. Department
Circular No! 027 allows no plea bargain in such cases. Finally, the
prosecution tlaimed that it has already commenced the presentation of its
evidence and that its evidence thus far (consisting of the testimonies of the
forensic che#iist, the investigator, the poseur buyer, the team leader, the back-.
up, and the barangay official) is sufficient to convict the accused. 11

Durinl the hearing on September 10, 2019, the RTC resolved to grant
the Proposal iover the prosecution's objection. Alvero was then re-arraigned
with the doVl(ngraded crime of violation of Section 12, Article II ofR.A. No.
9165. Alvero pleaded guilty to the offense. 12

Id. at 124. I
4 Entitied "CONOPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002." approved on January 23, 2022.
5
Rollo, pp. 71J72.
Id. at 71. :
816 Phil. 789j(20l7).
Rollo. pp. 78, 79.
9
Id. I
10
Id. at 82-85.
11
Id. at 83. 1
12 '
Id. at 86, Ord,r.
Resolution .,
.1 G.R. No. 260214

The Ruling of the RTC

In its Decision (RTC Decision),'' dated September 10, 2019, the RTC
invoked the Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases and Estipona as basis
for its ruling allowing the plea bargain. 14

The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision stated in part:

WHEREFORE, judgn,ent is hereby rendered as follows:

1. In Criminal Case No. C-292-16, accused Sorabelle Aporta y

Arandez alias "Mandra" and Erwin Alvero y Tresvalles alias "Peebles" are
found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of
Section 12, Article II of R.A. 9165 and is sentenced to imprisonment
consisting of six (6) months and one(!) day to three (3) years and to pay a
fine ofl"l0,000.00;

xxxx

The detention periods of each accused shall be credited in their

service of sentences.

Accused Erwin Alvero y Tresvalles alias "Peebles," having fully

served his maximum sentence, is ordered released from detention subject to
the condition that he shall enroll himself at the DOH Treatment and
Rehabilitation Center, Brgy. Rumbang, Pototan, Iloilo for a [sic] not less
than three months of drug counseling.

The sachets of shabu and paraphernalia are confiscated to be turned

over to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency Region VI, Iloilo City for
proper disposal. The buy-bust money shall be turned-over to the national
treasury.

SO ORDERED. 15 (Emphasis in the original)

The RTC denied the prosecution's Motion for Reconsideration, 16 dated

September 17, 2019, in its Order (RTC Order), 17 dated September 27, 2019.

The Ruling of the CA

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing the People of

the Philippines, filed a Petition for Certiorari (CA Petition), 18 dated
November 18, 2019, under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the CA.

13 Id. at 64-69.
14
Id. at 68.
15
Id.
16 Id. at 87-93.
17 Id. at 70.
18 Id. at 47-61.
Resolution 4 G.R. No. 260214
•
. The CA Petition alleged that the RTC acted with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it issued the RTC
Decision and RTC Order which allowed the plea bargain. The OSG asserted
that the consent of the prosecution i~ essential for there to be a valid plea
bargain. 19

The CA granted the Petition. The CA concluded that the consent of the
prosecution is essential in plea bargaining. Moreover, the CA held that the
RTC erred in allowing a plea bargain where the crime of illegal possession of
drug paraphernalia is considered as an offense necessarily included in the
crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. According to the CA, this is
erroneous because the crime necessarily included in the illegal sale of
dangerous drugs should be illegal possession of dangerous drugs. 20

Thus, the CA ruled that the RTC should have disapproved the Proposal
and continued with the trial. Its error amounts to grave abuse of discretion. 21

The dispositive portion of the CA Decision stated:

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Certiorari is GRANTED. The 10

September 2019 Decision and 27 September 2019 Order are NULLIFIED
and SET AS[DE for having been rendered and issued with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of or in excess of jurisdiction. The public-
respondent judge of Regional Trial Court, Branch 16 of Roxas City, is
ORDERED to continue with the proceedings in Criminal Case Nos. C-292-
16, C-294-16, and C-295-16 a,_'1.d to d~cide the cases with dispatch.

SO ORDERED. 22 (Emphasis in the original)

Alvero filed a Ivlotion for Reconsideration, 23 dated April 5, 2021, which

the CA denied in its Resolutibn, 24 dated November 16, 2021.
I

Alvero, represented by the Public Attorney's Office, filed the Petition

before the Court challenging ~he CA Decision.
I

Alvero argues that thelRTC did not act with grave abuse of discretion
when it allowed the plea \j,argain over the objection of the prosecution.
According to Alvero, trial co rts exercise discretion in granting or denying a
1
motion for plea bargaining anid the RTC merely exercised this discretion when

19
Id. at 53-56.
20
Id. at 124.
21 id.
22 Id.
23 Id. at 126-135.
24
Id. at 144-147.
 Resolution 5 G.R. No. 260214

it accepted the Proposal. He a,_;ers that this view is consistent with the recent
jurisprudence and the Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases. 25

The Issue

Did the RTC act with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction when it allowed Alvero to plea bargain in this case?

The Ruling of the Court

The ultimate legal issue in this case is whether a trial court has the
authority to allow plea bargaining even when the prosecution objects to the
plea bargain and thus withholds consent. This question has been resolved by
the Court in People v. lvfontierro ()lt/ontierro ). 26 While the ponente dissented
in Montierro and took the view that the consent of the prosecution is
indispensable in plea bargaining, the ponente is bound to the doctrine adopted
by the Court En Banc in Montierro.

The Court rules that the RTC did not act with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it allowed the plea bargain
in this case.

The rule is settled that a Rule 65 Petition imposes a high bar. It is an

extraordinary remedy that can be availed of only in a unique set of
circumstances when the act assailed is tainted with grave abuse. The meaning
of grave abuse of discretion is well established. It "denotes capricious,
arbitrary[,] and whimsical exercise of power. The abuse of discretion must be
patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual
refusal to perfonn a duty enjoined by law, as not to act at all in contemplation
of law, or where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner
by reason of passion or hostility." 27 A special civil action for certiorari under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is intended to correct errors of jurisdiction and
not mere errors of law.

Tested against this standard, the Court finds that the RTC Decision and
Order allowing Alvero to enter into a plea bargain are not rninted by grave
abuse.

In Montierro, the Court ruled:

25
Id. at 25-38.
26
People v. Montierro, G.R. Nos. 254564, 254974, A.M. No. 21-07-16-SC & A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC, July
26, 2022.
27
G & S Transport Corporation v. Coiirt qfAppeals, 432 Phil. 7, 22 (2002), citing Filinvest Credit Corp.
v. Intermediate Appeilate C'ourt, 248 Phil. 394 (1988); and Litton Mills, Inc. v. Galleon Trader, Inc., 246
Phil. 503 (] 988).
Resolution 6 G.R. No. 260214 · •

However, it must b,;: noted with import that the exclusive prerogative
of the Executive begins and ends with matters involving purely
prosecutorial discretion. Prosecutoria! discretion pertains to who to
prosecute, what case to prosecute, and hcv,' the case would be pursued based
on the evidence available to the prosecution. The prosecution has the
freedom and authority to determine whether to charge a person, what
Information to file against them and how to prosecute the case filed before
the courts. There is, however, an obvious limit to prosecutorial prerogatives
as the prosecutor obviously has no control over how the court would decide
the case. While a prosecutor may look at the evidence and determine the
charge and that a person is probably guilty of the same, a judge may look at
the same set of evidence and arrive at a different conclusion.

This dividing line between prosecutorial prerogatives and judicial

discretion is why courts may overrule objections on plea bargaining on
certain grounds. The prosecution's objection may be based on anything
under the sun. If an objection is anchored on what is exclusively a
prosecutorial prerogative, it would indeed be a violation of the separation
of powers for a court to override the prosecutor's objection. If, however, the
objection is based on a supposed "internal guideline" of the Executive that
directly runs counter to a Court issuance promulgated within the exclusive
domain of the Judiciary- such as the Plea Bargaining Framework-then
it is not a violation, but rather a mere assertion, of the principle of separation
of powers. In other words, as any motion submitted for the court's
resolution, if the prosecution's basis for objection has no merit or runs afoul
of the Constitutional prerogative exclusive to the court, then it is not
unconstitutional for a comi to assert by ruling that such objection is invalid.

It must be clarified that courts are not given the unbridled discretion
to overrule any objection of the prosecution to a plea bargaining proposal.
To be sure, the authority of the court over plea bargaining in drugs cases is
circumscribed foremost by the Court-issued framework on the acceptable
plea bargains and by the evidence and circurnstances of each case. Thus, a
court has no jurisdiction to ovenule an objection of the prosecution if the
same is grounded on evidence showing that the accused is not qua,Iified
therefor, or when the plea does not conform to tli.e Court-issued rule or
framework.

However, when a court overrules a prosecution's objection, which

is solely grounded on an Executive issuance or policy that contradicts a
Court-issued rule on plea bargaining, it is not an intrusion into the
Executive's authority and discretion to prosecute crimes, but is simply a
recognition of the Court's exclusive rule-making power as enshrined in the
Constitution.

Further, Montierro held that judges "may overrule the objection of the
prosecution if it is based solely on the ground that the accused's plea
bargaining proposal is inconsistent with the acceptable plea bargain under any
internal rules or guidelines of the DOJ, though in accordance with the plea
bargaining framework issued by the Court, if any." 28

'' Id.
 Resolution 7
G.R. No. 260214

Here, the Proposal conforms with the Plea Bargaining Framework in

Drugs Cases. Alvero was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of
R.A. No. 9165 for the sale ofshabu with a total weight of0.1459 grams. The
RTC allowed Alvero to plead to the lower offense of violation of Section 12
. '
Article II of R.A. No. 9165. This is consistent with the Plea Bargaining
Framework in Drugs Cases which categorically states that where the crime
charged is violation of Section 5, Article II and the quantity of the shabu
recovered is from 0.01 gram to 0.99 grams, the acceptable plea bargain is
violation of Section 12, Article II or possession of equipment, instrument or
apparatus and other paraphernaiia for dangerous drugs.

When the RTC took the position that the Plea Bargaining Framework
in Drugs Cases prevails over the prosecution's view that DOJ Department
Circular No. 027 prohibits plea bargaining in Alvero's case, the RTC
performed its duty to resolve issues brought before it based on the law and the
rules.

To reiterate, grave abuse of discretion pertains to acts characterized by

the exercise of power in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion
or hostility. Here, there is no showing that the RTC was motivated by any
desire to abuse its power or to prejudice the parties. It is also worth noting
that at the time the RTC promulgated the RTC Decision, Alvero had already
been in preventive imprisonment for a period beyond the maximum penalty
of the downgraded offense under the Proposal. Thus, in acting promptly to
allow the plea bargain, to re-arraign Alvero, and to promulgate the RTC
Decision, the RTC was only ensuring that no person should be deprived of
liberty for a period beyond what the law allows.

Significantly, the CA, in concluding that the RTC acted with grave
abuse, did not specify which acts of the RTC can be considered as arbitrary,
capricious, and whimsical. A reading of the CA Decision will show that it
merely disagreed with the RTC's interpretation of the law, and particularly,
its view that it has the power to overrule the objection of the prosecution to
the plea bargain. The RTC and the CA differed in their resolution of a
question of law that had not yet been settled by the Court at that point.
Certainly, that the RTC's view was not the same as that of the CA cannot of
itself amount to grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC. If at all, it
was a mere error of judgment.

However, the Court notes that Montierro laid down the guidelines to be
observed in plea bargaining in drugs cases. In particular, the Montierro
guidelines require a comt to detem1ine first if (a) the accused is a recidivist,
habitual offender, known in the community as a drug addict and a
troublemaker, has undergone rehabilitation but had a relapse, or has been
charged many times, or (b) the evidence of guilt is strong. Here, the RTC
Resolution 8 G.R. No. 260214 •

Decision and Order do not show that the RTC made any findings as to these
matters.

Thus, consistent with the ruling of the Court in J\1ontierro, this ca:;;e is
remanded to the RTC to determine if Alvero may indeed be allowed to plea
bargain in this case, and specifically if (a) he is a recidivist, habitual offender,
known in the community as a dn:g addict and a troublemaker, has undergone
rehabilitation but had a relapse, or has been charged many times, or (b) the
evidence of guilt is strong.

The Court also notes that, as stated in the lvfontierro guidelines, if the
prosecution objects to the plea bargain because of the circumstances
mentioned above, the RTC is mandated to hear the prosecution's objection
and rule on the merits. If the RTC finds the prosecution's objection
meritorious, it shall order the continuation of the criminal proceedings.

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is GRANTED.

The Comi of Appeals Decision, dated February 22, 2021, in CA-G.R. SP No.
13379 is REVERSED.

The case of Erwin Alvero y Tresvalles docketed as Criminal Case No.

C-292-16 is remanded to the court of origin, Regional Trial Court of Roxas
City, Branch 16 to deterrnine: ( 1) whether the evidence of guilt is strong; and
(2) whether Alvero is a recidivist, habitual offender, known in the community
as a drug addict or a troublemaker, has undergone rehabilitation but had a
relapse, or has been charged many times.

SO ORDERED.

•
fu,i1)'.·~Jti]beivm;NXDJSffi"GH
~ Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ALFR
Resoluti<m G.R. No. 260214

UL .B. INT1NG
-===:::c~~
SAMUEL .
..
~~ AN
Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached
in consultation before the case was assigned t he writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.

A S. CAGU[OA

IV!SJOll

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the

Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Resolution had been reached in cons1Jltation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

G.GESMUNDO
Chief Justice