Estipona v. Judge Lobrigo

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing premises, accused Jan Michael Aguiling y Bernas is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case Nos. C-474-16 and C-475-16 which are both for violation of Section 12, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165, as amended, and in Criminal Case No. C-476-16 which is for violation of Section 15 of the same law for use of a dangerous drug. He is sentenced as follows: 1. In Criminal Case No. C-474-16, to be imprisoned for six (6) months and one (1) day, as minimum, to four (4) years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of twenty thousand pesos (₱20,000.00); 2. In Criminal Case No. C-475-16, to be imprisoned for six (6) months and one (1) day, as minimum, to four (4) years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of twenty thousand pesos (₱20,000.00); and 3. In Criminal Case No. C-476-16, inasmuch as based on the Drug Dependency Evaluation dated 18 October 2018 he is not a drug dependent, to undergo both an occasional random drug testing and drug counseling at the Department of Health Treatment and Rehabilitation Center (DOH-TRC), Rumbang, Pototan, Iloilo. If qualified under Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 6127, and further amended by Executive Order No. 214, accused, if he had agreed in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, shall be credited with the full duration of his preventive imprisonment; otherwise, he shall only be credited in the service of his sentence with four-fifth (4/5) of the time during which he had undergone preventive imprisonment. The items which had been marked as A(P-JMBA-1), B(P-JMBA-2), C(BB-JMBA-1), D(P-JMBA-3), E(JMBA-4) and F(JMBA-7), being illegalper seand the instruments in the commission of the offenses charged, are ordered confiscated, the same to be turned-over to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper destruction. Costs de oficio . SO DECIDED. 21 (Italics in the original) Consequently, the People, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), sought to annul the RTC's Order dated April 15, 2019 granting the plea bargaining proposal of Aguiling to a lesser crime over and above the objections of the prosecution; and the Order dated April 26, 2019 denying the prosecution's motion for reconsideration via a Petition for Certiorari 22 dated July 1, 2019 before the CA. The OSG averred that under the Rules of Court and prevailing jurisprudence, the public prosecutor's consent is required in plea bargaining. Hence, Judge Lorencito B. Diaz, Presiding Judge of Branch 17, RTC, Roxas City, committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, correctible only by certiorari , in granting Aguiling's plea bargaining proposal over the public prosecutor's objection. 23 The Ruling of the CA In its assailed Decision 24 dated February 23, 2021, the CA granted the respondent's petition, thefallothereof reads: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Petition for Certiorari is GRANTED .