HERWIN ESTRADA ALEA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

Alea versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is Alea versus People of the Philippines, a petition for review on certiorari brought by Herwin Estrada Alea against the People of the Philippines. Alea was charged in two separate informations with the illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5 and the illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11 of Article II of Republic Act Number 9165, both arising from a single buy-bust operation. Before trial, he asked the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City to allow him to withdraw his plea of not guilty and instead plead guilty to the lesser offense under Section 12 of the same Article, invoking the Court's plea bargaining framework. The trial court refused, and the Court of Appeals upheld the refusal. The case matters because the Supreme Court here clarifies the true meaning of the disqualification "has been charged many times," and reminds every trial judge that plea bargaining is a matter of sound discretion, not of whim.

Procedural History

Alea was charged before Branch 295 of the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City in two criminal cases, one for illegal sale and one for illegal possession. Through the Public Attorney's Office, he filed a motion to enter into a plea bargaining agreement, praying that he be allowed to withdraw his prior plea of not guilty and plead instead to the lesser offense under Section 12 of Article II of Republic Act Number 9165, pursuant to Administrative Matter Number 18-03-16-SC. The trial court denied the motion in a resolution dated March 27, 2023, and later denied his motion for reconsideration in a resolution dated June 27, 2023.

Alea then went up to the Court of Appeals on a petition for certiorari with an urgent prayer for a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction, alleging grave abuse of discretion. The Office of the Solicitor General filed its comment opposing the petition. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition in a decision dated April 12, 2024, finding no grave abuse of discretion. Alea then filed the present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, dated July 4, 2024, which is how the case reached the Supreme Court.

Facts

Alea was apprehended during a buy-bust operation conducted at about five o'clock in the afternoon of February 5, 2023, along San Juan De Coastal in Barangay San Dionisio, Parañaque City. In the sale charge, he was alleged to have sold to a poseur-buyer one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance weighing 0.35 gram, for a consideration of 500 pesos, which tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. In the possession charge, he was alleged to have had in his possession and custody three heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets with a total weight of 2.23 grams, likewise testing positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.

Before trial, Alea manifested his willingness to enter into a plea bargaining agreement. On March 20, 2023, through the Public Attorney's Office, he filed a motion to enter into a plea bargaining agreement, praying that he be allowed to withdraw his prior plea of not guilty and enter a plea to the lesser offense under Section 12 of Article II of Republic Act Number 9165 for both charges, pursuant to Administrative Matter Number 18-03-16-SC.

The trial court denied the motion, holding that the acceptance of an offer to plead guilty to a lesser offense is not demandable as a matter of right but is addressed entirely to the sound discretion of the court, and that plea bargaining should not be allowed since the accused "has been charged many times" under Article II, Sections 5 and 11. In denying reconsideration, the trial court reasoned that the phrase refers to the accused's character and criminal propensity, and that the nature and number of the charges and the number of sachets seized showed the drugs were intended for distribution. Alea pointed out that both charges arose from one incident, that no other cases stood against him, and that the quantities involved fell within the permissible amounts under the plea bargaining framework.

Issues

• Whether or not the Regional Trial Court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it denied Alea's motion to plead to a lesser offense.
• Whether or not the phrase "has been charged many times," as a ground for disallowing plea bargaining, covers two charges arising from a single and present incident.

Applicable Provisions

Paragraph 4 of OCA Circular Number 102-2023-AA, the Guidelines on Plea-Bargaining in Drugs Cases, provides:

As a rule, plea bargaining requires the mutual agreement of the parties and remains subject to the approval of the court. Regardless of the mutual agreement of the parties, the acceptance of the offer to plead guilty to a lesser offense is not a demandable by the accused as a matter of right but is a matter addressed entirely to the sound discretion of the court. Though the prosecution and the defense may agree to enter into a plea bargain, it does not follow that the courts will automatically approve the proposal. Judges must still exercise sound discretion in granting or denying plea bargaining, taking into account the relevant circumstances, including the character of the accused.

This is the very provision the trial court invoked, and it fixes plea bargaining in the sound discretion of the court rather than in the right of the accused.

Paragraph 5 of the same Circular provides:

The court shall not allow plea bargaining if the objection to the plea bargaining is valid and supported by evidence to the effect that: the offender 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 when the evidence of guilt is strong.

The entire dispute turns on the meaning of the phrase "has been charged many times" in this paragraph.

The Court's Plea Bargaining Framework under Administrative Matter Number 18-03-16-SC, as quoted in the decision, provides in part:

Section 11, par. 3. Possession of Dangerous Drugs (Where quantity of shabu, opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine is less than five grams) 12 years and 1 day to 20 years and fine ranging from 300,000 pesos to 400,000 pesos .01 gram to 4.99 grams Section 12. Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs six months and one day to four years and a fine ranging from 10,000 pesos to 50,000 pesos Section 5. Sale, Trading, etc. of Dangerous Drugs (Methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu only) Life Imprisonment to Death and fine ranging from 500,000 pesos to 10,000,000 pesos .01 gram to .99 grams (methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu only) Section 12. Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs six months and one day to four years and a fine ranging from 10,000 pesos to 50,000 pesos

This framework is decisive because it expressly lists sale and possession of shabu in the quantities involved here as eligible for plea bargaining to Section 12.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court granted the petition and held that the trial court did act with grave abuse of discretion. The Court acknowledged its earlier ruling in People versus Montierro that the approval or denial of plea bargaining, regardless of the mutual consent of the parties, lies within the sole power and discretion of the court. But it stressed the correlative duty of the trial court to independently evaluate the qualifications of the accused and the circumstances of the case, whether the prosecution favors or opposes the proposal. Here, the trial court denied the motion without specifying any circumstance in the records, apart from the nature of the charges, that would disqualify Alea. The Court held that the mere nature of the offense and the quantity of drugs confiscated do not, in themselves, constitute sufficient grounds to deny a motion for plea bargaining, so long as the plea is allowed under the framework. It defined grave abuse of discretion as a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty, and held that such abuse attends when the trial court manifestly acts with obstinate disregard of a well-established rule of law or procedure.

On the second issue, the Court held that two charges arising from a single incident do not fall within the disqualification "has been charged many times." That phrase refers to past incidents where the accused had prior charges different from the incident presently contemplated, which would tend to show criminal propensity. The Court applied the principle of ejusdem generis, the rule that a general phrase following an enumeration of particular words is restricted to things of the same kind or class as those specifically mentioned. The phrase must therefore be read alongside the company it keeps: recidivists, habitual offenders, those known in the community as drug addicts or troublemakers, and those who relapsed after rehabilitation. The Court noted that in Aquino versus People, plea bargaining to Section 12 was allowed even when the accused was also charged under Sections 5 and 11. Since Alea's proposed plea conformed with the framework, and since there was no finding that he was a recidivist, habitual offender, drug addict, troublemaker, relapsed, charged many times, or that the evidence of guilt was strong, the grant of the proposed plea bargain had to follow.

Doctrine

First, plea bargaining in drugs cases is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, but that discretion is not unbridled. The court must independently evaluate the accused's qualifications and the circumstances of the case, and must state the particular circumstances in the records that disqualify him. Second, the disqualification "has been charged many times" in paragraph 5 of OCA Circular Number 102-2023-AA refers only to prior charges from past incidents, not to multiple charges arising from a single and present incident, applying the principle of ejusdem generis. Third, the mere nature of the offense and the quantity of drugs confiscated are not, by themselves, sufficient grounds to deny plea bargaining where the plea is allowed under Administrative Matter Number 18-03-16-SC. Fourth, a trial court that denies plea bargaining on grounds outside the Circular and the framework commits grave abuse of discretion correctible by certiorari.

Disposition

The petition was granted, the decision of the Court of Appeals was reversed, and Branch 295 of the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City was directed to allow Alea's motion to enter a plea to a lesser offense and to render a guilty verdict accordingly.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: "has been charged many times" means prior charges from past incidents, not two charges born of one buy-bust. Examiners use this case to test the limits of judicial discretion in plea bargaining and the correct application of ejusdem generis to the drug plea bargaining guidelines.