Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Act of 2002 (RA 9165)

Topic: Plea Bargaining in Drug Cases

Salvador Estipona Jr. vs. Hon. Frank E. Lobrigo

G.R. No. 226679, August 15, 2017

Facts:
Petitioner Estipona was charged with violation of Section 11 of RA 9165. He filed a Motion to allow
the accused to enter into a plea bargaining agreement, praying to withdraw his not guilty plea and instead,
to enter a plea of guilty for violation of Section 12 of the same law, with a penalty of rehabilitation in view of
his being a first time offender and the minimal quantity of the dangerous drug seized in his possession. He
argues that Section 23 of RA 9165 which prohibits plea bargaining in all violations of said law violates (1)
the intent of the law expressed in paragraph 3, section 2 “It is further declared the policy of the State to
provide effective mechanisms or measures to re-integrate into society individuals who have fallen victims
to drug abuse or dangerous drug dependence through sustainable programs of treatment and
rehabilitation”; (2) the rulemaking authority of SC under Section 5 (5) of Article VIII of the Constitution; and
(3) the principle of separation of powers among the three equal branches.

Issue:
WON Section 23 of RA 9165 is unconstitutional.

Held:
Yes, Section 23 of RA 9165 is unconstitutional. First, it violates the doctrine of separation of powers
by encroaching upon the rule-making power of the Supreme Court under the constitution. Plea-bargaining
is procedural in nature and it is within the sole prerogative of the Supreme Court.

On whether section 23 violates equal protection clause, the court did not resolve the issue in order
not to preempt any future discussion by the Court. However, pending deliberation, the court deemed it
proper to declare as invalid the prohibition against plea bargaining on drug cases until and unless it is made
part of the rules of procedure through an administrative circular.

UPDATE!

NOT INCLUDED IN THE CASE, NOW SC ISSUED A GUIDE OR FRAMEWORK TO PLEA BARGAINING
IN DRUG CASES

Based on the new framework, the high court said an accused charged with violation of Section 11 of RA
9165 for possession of dangerous drugs where the quantity is less than five grams (in case of shabu, opium,
morphine, heroin and cocaine, and less than 300 grams in case of marijuana) with a penalty of 12 years
and one day to 20 years in prison and a fine ranging from P300,000 to P400,000, he or she can plea bargain
to a violation of Section 12 on possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus, etc. with a penalty of six
months and one day to four years in prison and a fine ranging from P10,000 to P50,000.

“The court is given the discretion to impose a minimum period and a maximum period to be taken from the
range of the penalty provided by law,” the high court said.

“A straight penalty within the range of six months and 1 day to one year may likewise be imposed,” the high
court added.

The high court added there has to be a drug dependency test in all instances regardless if the maximum
period of the penalty has been served.
“If accused admits drug use, or denies it but is found positive after drug dependency test, he/she shall
undergo treatment rehabilitation for a period of not less than six month,” the high court said.

It added that the treatment or rehabilitation has to be credited “to his/her penalty and the period of his/her
after-care and follow-up program if penalty is still unserved. If accused is found negative for drug
use/dependency, he/she will be released on time served, otherwise, he/she will serve his sentence in jail
minus the counseling period at rehabilitation center.”

“However, if accused applies for probation in offenses punishable under RA 9165, other than for illegal drug
trafficking or pushing under Section 5 in relation to Section 24 thereof, then the law on probation shall
apply.”

On the other hand, if the accused is charged with possession of shabu, opium, morphine, heroin and
cocaine of more than five grams but not exceeding 10 grams, or with marijuana of 300 grams but not more
than 500 grams (Section 11), the accused can enter into a plea bargain to violation of Section 11 (less than
five grams in case of shabu, etc. and less than 300 grams of marijuana) to lower the penalty from 20 years
to life imprisonment and fine ranging from P400,000 to P500,000, to 12 years and one day to 20 years
prison term and fine ranging from P300,000 to P400,000.

If an accused is charged with possession of equipment, apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous
drugs under Section 12, he or she can plea bargain to violation of Section 15 or use of dangerous drugs to
lessen the penalty from six months and one day to four years in prison and fine from P10,000 to P50,000,
to six months treatment and rehabilitation if he or she admits drug use or is found positive after drug
use/dependency test.

For violation of Section 14 for possession of equipment, apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous
drugs during parties, social gatherings or meetings, he or she can plea bargain to violation of Section 15
on use of dangerous drugs to lower the penalty from a maximum or four months in prison to six months of
treatment and rehabilitation.

The plea bargaining framework was adopted by the SC as an offshoot of its Aug. 15, 2017 decision that
declared unconstitutional Section 23 of RA 9165 for being contrary to the rule-making authority of the High
Tribunal under the Constitution.

Section 23 of RA 9165 provides that any person charged under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
of 2002, regardless of the imposable penalty, should be denied plea bargaining or pleading guilty to a lesser
offense.

The high court issued the guideline following its ruling in the case involving Salvador Estipona versus
Legazpi City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 3 Judge Frank Lobrigo.

In its ruling, the high court declared as unconstitutional the prohibition against plea bargaining in Republic
Act 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).

The framework was released following a meeting between Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta, who
wrote the Estipona decision and officers of the Philippine Judges Association which submitted the draft on
the plea bargaining framework.

The SC directed Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez to issue a circular to all trial courts in the
country for the implementation of the plea bargaining framework.

Read more: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/987672/sc-issues-guide-to-plea-bargaining-in-drug-

cases#ixzz5PxlmkGla
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook