People vs. Reafor
G.R. No. 247575, November 16, 2020

Case Doctrine: 

A defendant has no constitutional right to plea bargain. No basic rights are infringed by trying him rather than accepting a plea of guilty; the prosecutor need not do so if he prefers to go to trial. Under the present Rules, the acceptance of an offer to plead guilty is not a demandable right but depends on the consent of the offended party and the prosecutor, which is a condition precedent to a valid plea of guilty to a lesser offense that is necessarily included in the offense charged. The reason for this is  that the prosecutor has full control of the prosecution of criminal actions; his duty is to always prosecute the proper offense, not any lesser or graver one, based on what the evidence on hand can sustain.

Facts: 

Reafor was charged with violation of Section 5 of RA 9165 for allegedly selling two (2) heat-sealed transparent sachets containing a total of 0.149 of shabu. He filed a motion to plea bargain, indicating he was willing to plead guilty to a lesser offense of possession of illegal drug paraphernalia under Section 12 of the same law. The prosecution opposed the motion, contending that the acceptable plea bargain is for violation of Section 11 as provided by DOJ Circular No. 27.

The RTC granted Reafor's motion over the opposition of the prosecution. It held that that since it is  only the Supreme Court that has the power to promulgate rules of procedure, "A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC dated April 10, 2018, which now forms part of the procedure in all courts, must prevail over the said DOJ Circular 27." Reafor was then re-arraigned and pled guilty to violation of Section 12 over the objection of the prosecution, and was then subsequently convicted therefor. 

Issues: 

1. Did the CA erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari filed before it?

2. Did the RTC gravely abused its discretion in granting Reafor's motion to plea bargain notwithstanding the prosecution's opposition to the same?


Held: 

1. The CA was correct in dismissing the petition since the same suffers from procedural defects. Nonetheless, the Court may disregarded procedural lapses in order to resolve a  case on the merits. "The rules of procedure need not always be applied in a strict technical sense, since they were adopted to help secure and not override  substantial justice. In clearly meritorious cases, the higher demands of substantial justice must transcend rigid observance of procedural rules."

2. The RTC gravely abused its discretion in granting Reofar's motion to plea bargain.

"A defendant has no constitutional right to plea bargain. No basic rights are infringed by trying him rather than accepting a plea of guilty; the prosecutor need not do so if he prefers to go to trial. Under the present Rules, the acceptance of an offer to plead guilty is not a demandable right but depends on the consent of the offended party and the prosecutor, which is a condition precedent to a valid plea of guilty to a lesser offense that is necessarily included in the offense charged. The reason for this is  that the prosecutor has full control of the prosecution of criminal actions; his duty is to always prosecute the proper offense, not any lesser or graver one, based on what the evidence on hand can sustain.

The basic requisites of plea bargaining are: (a) consent of the offended party; (b) consent of the prosecutor; (c) plea of guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily included in the offense charged; and (d) approval of the court.

Effectively, Reofar's plea of guilty to a lesser offense was made without the consent of the prosecution. Since Reofar's plea of guilt and subsequent conviction for a lesser offense clearly lack one of the requisites of a valid plea bargain, the plea bargaining is void. Resultantly, the judgment rendered by the RTC which was based on a void plea bargaining is  also void ab initio and cannot be considered to have attained finality for the simple reason that a  void judgment has no legality from its inception."

The Supreme Court court remanded the case to the RTC for further proceedings. (People vs. Reafor, G.R. No. 247575, November 16, 2020).