Trial courts told: Implement plea bargaining in drug cases

CEBU, Philippines — The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) has directed all trial courts in the country to implement the plea bargaining framework.

Court Administrator Jose Midas Marquez issued OCA Circular No. on May 4 this year, directing all Regional Trial Courts to implement the framework on plea bargaining in illegal drugs cases.

The arrangement, which was suspended for almost seven months pending finality of Estipona versus Legaspi City Regional Trial Court Judge Frank Lobrigo, a Supreme Court case, allows drug offenders to enter in plea bargain deals in their cases, except those with imposable penalty of life imprisonment or death.

OCA’s directive came after SC ruled with finality on May 1 that the provision under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act or RA 9165 disallowing plea bargaining agreement to drug suspects is unconstitutional.

The SC en banc denied with finality the motion for reconsideration filed in connection to the case of Salvador Estipona Jr. versus Lobrigo.

The high court upheld its decision last August that declared Section 23 of RA 9165 as unconstitutional.

“Wherefore, the petition for certiorari and prohibition is granted. Section 23 of Republic Act No. 9165 is declared unconstitutional for being contrary to the rule-making authority of the Supreme Court under Section 5(5), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution,” read the SC ruling.

Section 23 states that “any person charged under any provision of this Act regardless of the imposable penalty shall not be allowed to avail of the provision on plea-bargaining.”

But the high court reiterated that plea bargaining is also prohibited under Section 5 of Republic Act 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. Section 5 of RA 9165 penalizes sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution and transportation of all kinds of dangerous drugs.

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.

However, there will be no plea bargaining if an accused is charged with illegal possession of shabu, opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine with 10 grams and above, and marijuana with over 500 grams.

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.

According to SC, 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. — KBQ (FREEMAN)