RTC order prohibiting plea bargain in drug case challenged

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
SUPREME COURT
MANILA 19 PH 2: 14
SALVADOR A. ESTIPONA,
JR.
Petitioner,
- versus - G.R.NO.~~~~~-
226635
(Crimina l Case No. 13586)
HON. FRANK E. LOBRIGO,
Presiding Judge of the
Regional Trial Court of
Legazpi City, Branch 3, and
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondents.
x----------------------------x
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION

(with Prayer to Declare Section 23 of Republic
Act No. 9165 as UNCONSTITUTIONAL; and
Urgent Prayer for Issuance of a Temporary
Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary
Injunction)
This is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of

the Revised Rules of Court which seeks to annul the Orders dated
12 July 2016 and 26 July 2016 of the Regiona l Trial Court of
Legazpi City, Branch 3 (RTC); an d specia l civi l action for
prohibition under the same rule which see ks to enjo in the RTC
from proceeding with the prosecution of the petitioner w ithout
allowing him to plea bargain, on the grounds stated in page 6 of
th is petition.
Ultimately, the present petition seeks to have Section 23 of

Republic Act (R.A.) No . 9165 ot herwise known as the
COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, prohibiting plea
bargaining in all offenses covered therein, as unconstitutional,
pursuant to the Judiciary's constitutional power to pass upon the
constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or
executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation,
order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation, as enshrined in
Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution:
SECTION 5. The Supreme Court shall have the

following powers:
Estipona versus Hon. Lobrigo 2
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
xxx xxx xxx
(2) Review. revise. reverse. modify. or affirm on

appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court
may provide, final judgments and orders of lower
courts in:
(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity

of any treaty, international or executive agreement,
law, presidential decree, proclamation , order,
instruction, ordinance, or regu lation is in question.
xxx xxx xxx
(e) All cases in which only an error or question of

law is involved.
xxx xxx xxx"
As the constitutional issue posed herein has far-reaching

consequences and concerns the fore m ost thrust of the current
Administration - eradicating the drug menace plaguing the nation
- direct resort to this Honorable Court is being availed of.
Moreover, there is no factual issue involved in the instant case
but concerns pure questions of law, as may be gleaned from the
issues presented for resolution.
The pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court requiring the

payment of docket fees for the purpose of filing this petition
notwithstanding, the petitioner is exempted from the application
thereof pursuant to Section 16-D, Chapter 5, Title III, Book IV of
Executive Order No. 292, as amended by Republic Act No. 9406
(Exempti ng Clients of PAO from Paym ent of Docket and Other
Fees), Supreme Court Resolution da t ed 12 Ju ne 2007 on A.M. No.
07-5-15-SC, and OCA Circular No. 12 1-2007 dated 11 December
2007.
PREFATORY STATEMENT
The Republic is in the grip of an intensified anti-drug

campaign , the likes of which has never been seen in civilian law
enforcement. Nary a day passes by w ithout mention from various
news sources of the latest drug buy bust resu lt ing to the death of
the suspected illegal drug pusher, or the surrender of hundreds
of drug users. The intensified efforts to rid the country of the
illegal drug menace under the present Administration have
challenged the limits of the legal fundamentals of due process

and equal protection of the laws. While it is true that dura lex
sed lex - the law may be harsh but that is the law - it is likewise
true that justice should be fair and humane. Indeed, this is
reflected in Republic Act No. 9165 otherwise known as the
"COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002", wherein Congress,
in its wisdom, stated that government shall, however, aim to
achieve a balance in the national drug control program .
" No person shall be deprived of fife, liberty, or property

without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the
equal protection of the laws." (1987 Constitution, Article III,
Section 1). This is a basic provision of law whence all rights come
from. Law enforcement and Congress should always be aware of
the primacy of the Constitution. It is on this bedrock provision of
the Constitution that the following petition filed before th is
Honorable Court is grounded on.
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL DATES
1. On 12 July 2016, the Regiona l Trial Court, throug h

Presiding Judge Hon. Frank E. Lobrigo, rendered the assailed
Order, a copy of which was received by the petitioner on 13 July
2016. A duplicate original copy of th e Order is at tached hereto
as Annex "A".
2. On 14 July 2016, petition er filed his Motion for

Reconsideration , which was denied by t he RTC in its Order dated
26 July 2016, a copy of which was received on 27 July 2016,
thus giving the petitioner sixty (60) days until 25 September
2016 to file a petition for certiorari and proh ibition under Rule 65
of the Rules of Court. A duplicate original copy of the Order
denying the Motion for Reconsideration is attached hereto as
Annex "B".
3. This petition is being filed within t he reglementary period .
THE PARTIES
4. Petitioner SALVADOR A. ESTIPONA, JR., of legal age,

and presently incarcerated at the Bureau of Jail Management and
Penology Legazpi City, Legazpi, Al bay, is represented by the
Public Attorney's Office- Special and Appealed Cases Service, with
office address at 5 th floor, DOJ-Agencies Bu ilding, NIA Road
l

corner East Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City, where notices and

other processes of this Honorable Court may be served.
s. Respondent, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, is

represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, with office
address at 134 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City,
where it may be served with summons and other processes.
6. Public respondent HON. FRANK E. LOBRIGO (Judge

Lobrigo) is the Presiding Judge of the REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
OF LEGAZPI CITY, BRANCH 3 (RTC). He may be served with
notices and processes of this Honorable Court at the Regional
Trial Court Building, Legazpi City, Albay. Pursuant to Section 5,
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, it shall be the duty of the private
respondent to appear and defend both in its behalf and on behalf
of the public respondent.
STATEMENT OF THE MATTERS INVOLVED
7. Salvador Estipona was charged for violation of Section 11,

Article II of R.A. No. 9165 or the present anti-drugs Law, in an
Information filed with the Regional Trial Court of Legazpi City,
Branch 3, the accusative portion of which is quoted below:
"That on or about the 21st day of March, 2016, in

the City of Legazpi, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess or
otherwise use any regulated drug and without the
corresponding license or prescription, did then and
there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have, in his
possession and under his control and custody, one (1)
piece heat sealed transparent plastic sachet marked
as VOP 03/21/16-lG containing 0 .084 grams (sic) of
white crystalline substance, which when examined
were found to be positive for Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride (Shabu), a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW. " 1
The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 13586.
1
Copy is attached hereto as Annex "C".
,' Estipona versus Hon. Lobrigo 5
s. On 15 June 2016, the petitioner (accused in Criminal Case

No. 13586), through the PAO-Legazpi District Office, filed a
Motion to Allow the Accused to Enter into a Plea Bargaining
Agreement, praying that the accused be allowed to enter a plea
bargaining agreement and enter a plea of guilty under Section 12,
Article II of R.A. No. 9165, and be meted a penalty of
rehabilitation for a period subject to the trial court's discretion in
order to give him a chance to reform himself, which would be in
keeping with the intent of the law. He argued also that while plea
bargaining is prohibited under Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165, the
same is considered as unconstitutional as it violates procedural
law, specifically Section 1, Rule 118 of the Rules of Court, which
only the Supreme Court can promulgate; thus, it violates the
principle of separation of powers among the three (3) branches
of the government and encroaches upon the power of the
Supreme Court to promulgate rules of procedure. 2
9. The prosecution, in its Comment or Opposition dated 27

June 2016, reiterated the express prohibition against plea
bargaining in Section 23 of RA No. 9165, and argued that while
the Supreme Court has the power to promulgate rules concerning
procedural matters, Congress did not encroach on said powers of
the Supreme Court when it expressly inserted the said
prohibition in the law. 3 However, the prosecution, in its
Comment or Opposition dated 29 June 2016, stated that it was
open to the possibility for plea bargaining, but due to the express
prohibition of Section 23, RA No. 9165, it had no choice but to
reject the accused's proposal. 4 Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165
provides:
"Section 23. Plea-Bargaining Provision. - 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."
10. On 12 July 2016, the RTC, presided by Judge Lobrigo,

issued its Order denying accused's motion for plea bargaining,
stating that while it sees merit in his argument that there might
be plausible basis for declaring Section 23 of RA No. 9165
unconstitutional, it nonetheless did not pass judgment on
whether or not Section 23 was unconstitutional in deference to
modesty and the potential ramifications such declaration may
2
Duplicate original copy is attached hereto as Annex "D".
3
Duplicate original copy is attached hereto as Annex "E".
4
Duplicate original copy is attached hereto as Annex "F".
'. Estipona versus Hon. Lobrigo 6
have on the prosecution of illegal drugs cases pending before it. 5

The dispositive portion of the Order states:
"WHEREFORE, the motion to allow the accused

to enter i nto plea bargaining agreement is denied in
view of the limitation under R.A. No . 9165.
SO ORDERED."
11. Petitioner filed his Motion for Reconsideration 6 but the same
was denied by the RTC in its Order dated 26 July 2016. 7
Hence, the present petition.
GROUNDS FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF THE PETITION
12 . Public respondent Judge Lobrigo committed grave abuse of

discretion in not allowing the petitioner to enter into a plea
bargaining agreement, thereby contin uing with his prosecution
for the more serious offense of violation of Section 11, Article II
of R.A. No. 9165, despite the prosecution's manifestation that it
was open to the possibility of plea bargaining and despite the
petitioner's assertion that Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165 - the
provision disallowing plea bargaining in drug-related offenses - is
unconstitutional. "The Regional Trial Courts (RTC) have the
authority and jurisdiction to consider the constitutionality of
statutes, executive orders, presidential decrees and other
issuances. The Constitution vests that power not only in the Supreme
Court but in all Regional Trial Courts. "8
13. If the issue is not settled, the same would cause grave
injustice and irreparable damage to t he petitioner, particularly
the denial of his right to equal protection of laws and right to due
process.
14. Furthermore, the assailed Orders being interlocutory in

nature, petitioner has no other pla in, speedy, and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of the law. "Under Section 1 (c) of
Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, no appeal may be taken from an
interlocutory order. An interlocutory order is one that does not
dispose of the case completely but leaves something to be
5
Ann ex "A" hereof.
6
Duplicate orig inal copy is attached hereto as Annex " G" .
7
Annex "B" hereof.
8
Planters Products, Inc. versus Fertiphil Corporation, G.R. No. 166006, 14 March 2008.
.
'
decided upon. xxx xxx xxx Instead, the proper remedy is to file a
Petition for Certiorari and/or Prohibition under Rule 65. ,s
1s. In view of the constitutional issue posed herein, direct

resort before this Honorable Court is the most speedy and
adequate remedy. Among other grounds of which the instant
case falls, "xxx xxx xxx a direct resort to [the Supreme Court] is
allowed when there are genuine issues of constitutionality that
must be addressed at the most immediate time. A direct resort to
this court includes availing of the remedies of certiorari and
prohibition to assail the constitutionality of actions of both legislative
and executive branches of the government." 10 Awaiting for the
resolution of the main case to avail of the remedy of appeal,
before the issue on the constitutionality of Section 23 of R.A. No.
9165 is finally settled, or filing the instant petition before the
Honorable Court of Appeals, would not only prolong the agony of
the petitioner, it shall likewise render the Rules of Court
provisions on plea bargaining inutile.
16. Not to mention, the instant case involves pure questions of

law, as may be gleaned from the issues presented below. In the
main, the issue is whether Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165 is
unconstitutional. This being so, the case is immediately
cognizable by this Honorable Court.
ISSUES PRESENTED FOR RESOLUTION
WHETHER SECTION 23 OF REPUBLIC ACT

NO. 9165, WHICH PROHIBITS PLEA
BARGAINING IN ALL VIOLATIONS OF THE
SAID LAW, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR
BEING VIOLATIVE OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO EQUAL
PROTECTION OF THE LAW.
II
WHETHER SECTION 23 OF REPUBLIC ACT

NO. 9165 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS IT
ENCROACHED UPON THE POWER OF THE
9
Australian Professional Realty, Inc., et al. versus Municipality of Padre Garcia Batangas
Province, G.R. No. 183367, 14 March 2012, emphasis ours.
10
The Diocese of Bacolod, represented by the Most Rev. Bishop Vicente M. Navarra versus
Commission on Elections , et a l. , G.R. No. 205728, 21 January 20 15.
.
'
SUPREME COURT TO PROMULGATE RULES

OF PROCEDURE.
III
WHETHER THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, AS

PRESIDED BY HON. FRANK E. LOBRIGO,
COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF
JURISDICTION WHEN IT REFUSED TO
DECLARE SECTION 23 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO.
9165 AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
DISCUSSION
SECTION 23 OF R.A. NO. 9165

VIOLATES THE EQUAL
PROTECTION OF LAWS CLAUSE
OF THE CONSTITUTION.
11. For emphasis, Section 23 of R.A . No. 9165 or the present

anti-drugs Law is hereby restated:
"Section 23. Plea-Bargaining Provision. - 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."
1a. Meanwhile, Section 1, Article III of the 1987 Constitution

reads:
"No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or

property without due process of law, nor shall
any person be denied the equal protection of
the laws."
19. "The equal protection clause means that no person or class of

persons shall be deprived of the same protection of laws enjoyed by
other persons or other classes in the same place in like
circumstances. Thus, the guarantee of the equal protection of laws is
not violated if there is a reasonable classification. For a classification
.. Estipona versus Hon. Lobrigo 9
to be reasonable, it must be shown that (1) it rests on substantial

distinctions; (2) it is germane to the purpose of the law; (3) it is not
limited to existing conditions only; and (4) it applies equally to all
members of the same class.,, 11
20. It is subm itted that Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165 violates the
equa l protection clause of the Constitution as no reasonable
classification ex ists to classify violators of the anti-drugs law from
violators of other criminal laws, be it offenses listed in the
Revised Penal Code, or other special cri minal laws.
2 i. It m ust be stressed that th e prohibition aga inst plea

bargaining as found in R.A. No. 9165 has no equivalent provision
for other crimes and offenses. Th is begs the question: are
alleged violators of R.A. No. 9165 separate and distinct from
persons accused of Murder, Rape, Carnapping, and so forth?
22. Those accused of other heinous crimes such as Murder,

some acts of Rape, and other cri mes where the maximum
imposabl e penalty is either life impri sonment, reclusion perpetua,
or death, are allowed to enter into plea bargaining under Section
1, Rule 118 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, to wit:
"Section 1. Pre-trial; mandatory in criminal cases. - In all

criminal cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan,
Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal
Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court and Municipal
Circuit Trial, the court shall , after arraignment and within
thirty (30) days from the date the court acquires
jurisdiction over the person of the accused, unless a
shorter period is provided for in special laws or circulars
of the Supreme Court, order a pre-trial conference to
consider the following :
(a) plea bargaining
xxx xxx xxx"
But not those accused of violation of our present anti-drugs law .

This, despite the fact that the vario us pertinent violations under
R.A. No. 9 165 12 do not bare out anv reason to consider a
person accused under the said law as a separate and
distinct specie that would exempt him from plea bargaining.
11
Commiss ioner of Customs et al. , v Hypermix Feeds Corporation, GR No. 179579, 1 February
2012
12
For clarity and for easy reference, undersigned counsel prepared a Table of Violations and
Penalties Provided under Republic Act No. 9165 Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,
attached hereto as Annex "H".
This, despite the fact that the afore-mentioned crimes are equally,
if not more, deplorable than drug offenses.
23. At the very least, if plea bargaining is indeed not allowable

in violations of R.A. No. 9165, the prohibition should apply only
to those drug offenses involving the capital punishment.
24. It should be noted that not all violations under R.A. No.
9165 fall under the classification of heinous crimes. Heinous
crimes are defined as those crimes that are "grievous, odious and
hateful offenses and which, by reason of their inherent or
manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity and perversity are
repugnant and outrageous to the common standards and norms
of decency and morality in a just, civilized and ordered society. " 13
When Republic Act No. 7659, "AN ACT TO IMPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY
ON CERTAIN HEINOUS CRIMES, AMENDING FOR THAT PURPOSE THE REVISED
PENAL LAWS, AS AMENDED, OTHER SPECIAL PENAL LAWS, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES" or the Heinous Crimes Law, was enacted (and took
effect on 31 December 1993 14 ), it amended 15 certain provisions
of Republic Act No. 6425 or the "DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT 1972" or
the old anti-drugs law, which was then in-effect (R.A. No. 9165
took effect on 4 July 2002 16 ). The amendment provided an
increase in penalties of up to reclusion perpetua to death. In
effect, certain violations under R.A . No. 6425 were placed under
the category of heinous crimes, their penalties having been made
equivalent to that of other heinous crimes. But there are many
other violations under R.A. No. 6425 that do not fall under the
category of heinous crimes. This goes true for violations under
R.A. No. 9165; offenses which are not punishable by reclusion
perpetua (or life imprisonment) to death are not classified as
heinous crimes but remain as ordinary crimes.
2s. That being said, we invite the attention of this Honorable

Court to the history behind the unqualified prohibition against
plea bargaining in drug offenses.
26. The provision was first introduced with the passage of R.A.
No. 7659 or the Heinous Crimes Law, specifically Section 18
thereof, amending R.A. No. 6425 or the old anti-drugs law, to wit:
13
Preamble of Republic Act No. 7659, "AN ACT TO IMPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY ON CERTAIN
HEINOUS CRIMES, AMENDING FOR THAT PURPOSE THE REVISED PENAL LAWS, AS AMENDED, OTHER
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES"
14
People of the Philippines versus Winifredo David, G.R. No. 105667, 16 August 1994.
15
For c larity and for easy referen ce, unders igned counsel prepared a document titled Pertinent
Provisions of Republic Act No. 7659 Amending Provisions of Republic Act No. 6425 Otherwise
known as The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, hereto attached as Annex "I" .
16
Herminio Buenaventura versus People of the Philippines , G.R. No. 171578, 8 August 2007.
"Section 18. There shall be incorporated after Section 20

of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, known as the
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, a new section to read as
follows:
'Sec. 20-A. Plea-bargaining Provisions. - Any person charged

under any provision of this Act where the imposable penalty
17
is reclusion perpetua to death shall not be allowed to avail
of the provision on plea bargaining.'"
27. This reasoning for introducing this prov1s1on against plea

bargaining was revealed during the Senate deliberations on S.B.
No. 891, when Senator Ernesto Herrera claimed that a 1991
study on cases in Quezon City reveal that all fifty-nine (59) cases
had been downgraded and resolved as a result of plea bargaining.
Senator Joey Lina, in turn, stated that plea bargaining was not in
consonance with the Rules of Court; that if the proposed
provision prohibiting plea bargaining is incorporated, it would be
"formalizing or legalizing the plea bargaining that is happening
but which is illegal"; and that strictly speaking, there was nothing
in the Rules of Court on plea bargaining. The matter was,
however, held in abeyance. 18 It should be noted, however, that
in 1993, it was the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure that was
still in effect 19 , and Rule 118 on Pre-Trial specifically mentions
that plea-bargaining shall be among those considered during pre-
trial:
"Sec. 2. Pre-trial conference; subject.
The pre-trial conference shall consider the following :
(a) Plea bargaining;

(b) Stipulation of facts;
(c) Marking for identification of evidence of the parties;
(d) Waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence; and
(e) such other matters as will promote a fair and
expeditious trial ."20
Thus, it was not accurate to say that plea-bargaining was not in

the Rules of Court, and neither was it illegal.
2a. The matter was tackled during the Bicameral Conference

Committee on 24 November 1993, during which Senator Herrera
once again reiterated the 1991 study of Quezon City cases
17
Emphasis ours.
18
Record of the Senate, 9th Congress, Second Regular Session, 26 July 1993 to 5 October 1993,
Volume I, No. 6, pp. 177-178 (4 August 1993), copy attached hereto as Annex "J".
19
The Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure took effect on December 1, 2000.
20
Emphasis ours.
wherein all fifty-nine (59) cases were downgraded due to plea-

bargaining. Senator Herrera claimed that plea-bargaining was
abused by the rich. The matter was thereafter approved by the
21
Bicameral Conference Committee.
29. However, it should be noted that the wordings of Section

20-A of R.A. No. 6425, as amended by Section 18 of R.A. No.
7659, limited the prohibition to plea bargaining in cases where
the imposable penalty was reclusion perpetua to death. It
provides:
SECTION 20-A. Plea-bargaining Provision . - Any person

charged under any provision of this Act where the imposable
penalty is reclusion perpetua to death shall not be allowed to
avail of the provision on plea-bargaining .22
30. Clearly, at first, the prohibition on plea bargaining was

limited only to cases where the imposable penalty was reclusion
perpetua to death. Thus, other violators of the said anti-drugs
law, whose offenses were not subject to capital punishment,
could still enter into plea bargaining agreements. Here, Congress
made a clear and rational distinction - those offenses punishable
by reclusion perpetua to death were heinous crimes, committed
by persons who are presumed to be grievous, odious, hateful,
wicked, vicious, atrocious, and perverted, following the definition
of heinous crimes set in the preamble of R.A. No. 7659.
31. Section 20-A of R.A. No. 6425 was eventually adopted with
modification in R.A. No. 9165 or the present anti-drugs law, via
the assailed Section 23 subject of this petition. However, in R.A .
No. 9165, the prohibition was no longer made to depend on the
imposable penalty of the drug violation; the distinctions between
heinous and non-heinous drug offenses were erased. The reason
behind this change is elucidated during the second reading of
Senate Bill No. 1858, the Senate's version of the bill that would
later become R.A. No . 9165. On this matter, Senator Renato
Luna Cayetano, who had the floor, began:
"Mr. President, it says here 'Plea-Bargaining

Provision.' It prohibits plea bargaining where the penalty
is life imprisonment to death. Plea bargaining is not
allowed.
Mr. President, I have a strong reservation on this.

Because from the information that we have gathered -
21
Committee on Constitutional Amendments (Bicameral Conference Committee), 24 November
1993, 9:02 p.m., pp. 4-5, copy attached hereto as Annex "K".
22
Emphasis ours.
and I am sure even my good friend and sponsor who

once upon a time was the secretary of the Department of
the Interior and Local Government also knows - most of
the plea-bargaining cases happen not on offenses
penalized by life imprisonment or death but rather on
offenses penalized by imprisonment of less than , let us
say, 12 years or less than six years or thereabout.
I recall that about two years when I was the

chairman of the Committee on Justice and Human Rights
and I was in Dumaguete, some of the judges there
complained to me that many of those pushers who have
been apprehended, with the consent of the prosecutors,
have engaged in plea bargaining simply because that is
the law. When one engages in plea bargaining, what
happens really is, if a penalty, let us say, without plea
bargaining involves more than six years, a person cannot
be subject to probation . But because of plea bargaining,
the crime and the penalty are reduced so much so that
when the plea bargaining is approved, with the consent of
the prosecutor, the imposable penalty, more often than
not, is six years or at least not more than six years. And
thereafter, because of the law on probation, Mr. President,
this person or pusher applies for probation. The lament
and the complaint of many judges are, 'We cannot get rid
of the pushers simply because the law allows plea
bargaining except on offenses penalized by life or death.'
So what I am pointing at, Mr. President, is, at the

proper time, would the gentleman , my good friend and
sponsor, consider an amendment to this - that in all
cases, as long as it involves dangerous drugs, there
should be no plea bargaining at all in order to precisely
make this law effective. Otherwise, if we retai n.. .
By the way , Section 22 of this present bill is really

found in the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. It is in fact a
verbatim reproduction on plea bargaining . I am just
looking at the section of the law.
Senator Barbers. Section 20.
Senator Cayetano. Section 20 of the law, of

Republic Act no. 6425. I think this is the bane of the
present provision of the law which allows plea bargaining
precisely on imposable penalty or offenses punishable by
life imprisonment to death.
So at the proper time, I was wondering if my good

friend and sponsor would consider an amendment to
precisely completely disallow plea bargaining when it
comes to any provision of this particular bill.
Senator Barbers. The observation of the

gentleman is well-taken, Mr. President. I am amenable to
his proposal. We cross the bridge when we come to it. "23
The amendment introduced by Sen. Cayetano was

thereafter adopted without issue; 24 hence, the present Section 23
of R.A. No. 9165.
32. It is important to point out, however, that as can be

gleaned from the afore-quoted deliberations, the reasoning
behind the amendment (re: unqualified prohibition of plea
bargaining) came from judges who complained to Sen. Cayetan o
that drug pushers, with the consent of prosecutors, engag ed in
plea bargaining. Clearly, the complaint involved the sale of
il legal drugs.
33. Not only that, there was a definit e t ime frame as to whe n
these judges made a complaint - durin g Sen. Cayetano 's
Chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Justice and Human
Rights which was, at the earliest, in 1998. R.A. No . 7659, which
amended R.A. No. 6425 by increasi ng the penalty for sa le of
dangerous drugs from the original twelve ( 12) years and one ( 1)
day to twenty (20) years 25 to the new penalty of reclusion
per petua to death, was approved on 13 December 1993 ; hence,
by 1998, the amendments were already in effect for roughly four
( 4) years . The importance of pointing out this timeline is this: by
the time the judges complained to Sen. Cayeta no, their concerns
23
Record of the Senate, 1ih Congress, First Regular Session, 14 January to 30 April 2002 ,
Volume Ill, pp. 69-70 ; copy attached hereto as Annex "L".
24
Record of the Senate, 12th Congress, First Regular Session, 6 May to 6 June 2002, Volume IV,
~ - 506; copy attached hereto as Annex "M".
5
Section 4 of R.A. No. 6425 origina lly reads:
Section 4. Sale, Administration, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of
Prohibited Drugs. The penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve years
and one day to twenty years and a fine ranging from twelve thousand to twenty
thousa nd pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by
law, shall sell, administer, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in
transit or transport any prohibited drug, or shall act as a broker in any such
transactions. In case of a practitioner, the additional penalty of the revocation of
his license to practice his profession shall be imposed. If the victim of the offense
is a minor, the maximum of the penalty shall be imposed.
Should a prohibited drug involved in any offense under this Section, be the
proximate ca use of the death of a victim thereof, the penalty of life imprisonment
to death and a fine ranging from twenty thousand to thirty thousand pesos shall
be imposed upon the pusher.
were long rendered moot and academic. There was no real

reason to modify Section 20-A of R.A. No. 6425 (qualified
prohibition on plea bargaining in drug offenses) and remove the
qualification provided therein, because of the earlier increase in
penalty for sale of dangerous drugs to reclusion perpetua to
death. In other words, the concerns of the judges as relayed to
Sen. Cayetano (that drug pushers, with the consent of
prosecutors, engaged in plea bargaining) was already addressed
and remedied even earlier on, when R.A. No. 7659 amended R.A.
No. 6425 and increased the penalty for sale of dangerous drugs
to reclusion perpetua to death .
34. Sen . Cayetano's rationale for removing the qualification in

the proh ibition against plea bargaining was, thus, clearly based
on an erroneous appreciation of the facts. His reasons for
extending the plea bargaining prohibition to all cases involving
violations of the anti-drugs law, regardless of the severity of the
penalty imposed, cannot be considered as grounds for reasonable
classification of criminal offenders. Ubi lex non distinguit nee nos
distinguiere debemus. Where the law does not distinguish, we
ought not to distinguish.
35. While the law was enacted in the government's pursuit of

an intensive and unrelenting campaign against the trafficking and
use of dangerous drugs and other similar substances 26 , it
remains to be a declared policy of the State that "The government
shall however aim to achieve a balance in the national drug control
program so that people with legitimate medical needs are not
prevented from being treated with adequate amounts of appropriate
medications, which include the use of dangerous drugs. 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."
3 6. The foregoing notwithstanding, the undersigned subm its

that regardless of whether the violation under R.A. No. 9165 is
classified as heinous or not - punishable by reclusion perpetua to
death or not - there is still no clear distinction between
suspected violators of the anti-drugs law and other
offenders in other criminal laws, which would result to the
former group being prohibited to plea bargai n. There is no
reasonable classification of offenders of criminal laws to separate
drug offenders on one hand, to non-drug offenders on the other
hand. On this note, Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165 clearly fails the
reasonable classification test as the prohibition does not rest on
26
Section 2, R.A. No. 9165 .
substantial distinctions and does not apply equally to all

members of the same class.
37. It is on this ground that Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165 should

be struck down for being unconstitutional.
SECTION 23 OF R.A. NO. 9165

ENCROACHED UPON THE
POWER OF THE SUPREME
COURT TO PROMULGATE RULES
OF PROCEDURE.
38. "The 1987 Constitution molded an even stronger and more

independent judiciary. Among others, it enhanced the rule
making power of this Court. Its Section 5(5), Article VIII provides:
xxx xxx xxx
Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following

powers:
xxx xxx xxx
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and

enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading,
practice and procedure in all courts, the admission to
the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal
assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall
provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the
speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all
courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish,
increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of
procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies
shall remain effective unless disapproved by the
Supreme Court.
The rule making power of this Court was expanded. This

Court for the first time was given the power to promulgate rules
concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights.
The Court was a/so granted for the first time the power to disapprove
rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies. But
most importantly, the 1987 Constitution took away the power of
Congress to repeal, alter, or supplement rules concerning
pleading. practice and procedure. In fine, the power to promulgate
rules of pleading, practice and procedure is no longer shared by this
Court with Congress, more so with the Executive.
The separation of powers among the three co-equal branches of our

government has erected an impregnable wall that keeps the power to
promulgate rules of pleading, practice and procedure within the sole
province of this Court. The other branches trespass upon this
prerogative if they enact laws or issue orders that effectively repeal,
alter or modify any of the procedural rules promulgated by this
Court. ,f2 7
39. By denying persons accused under the present anti-drugs

law the opportunity to plea bargain, Congress encroached upon
the exclusive power and sole prerogative of the Supreme Court
to promulgate rules of procedure. We submit that plea
bargaining falls within the ambit of procedural law, as opposed to
substantive law. The procedural nature of plea bargaining is
evident from the following:
"Steps in a Trial
Plea Bargaining
Many criminal cases are resolved out of court by having

both sides come to an agreement. This process is known
as negotiating a plea or plea bargaining . In most
jurisdictions it resolves most of the criminal cases filed .
Plea bargaining is prevalent for practical reasons.
Defendants can avoid the time and cost of
defending themselves at trial , the risk of harsher
punishment, and the publicity a trial could involve.
The prosecution saves the time and expense of a
lengthy trial.
Both sides are spared the uncertainty of going to
trial.
The court system is saved the burden of conducting
a trial on every crime charged.
Either side may begin negotiations over a proposed plea
bargain, though obviously both sides have to agree
before one comes to pass. Plea bargaining usually
involves the defendant's pleading guilty to a lesser
charge, or to only one of several charges. It also may
involve a guilty plea as charged , with the prosecution
recommending leniency in sentencing. The judge,
however, is not bound to follow the prosecution's
recommendation. Many plea bargains are subject to the
approval of the court, but some may not be (e.g.,
27
Re: Petition for Recognition of the Exemption of the Government Service Insurance System
from Payment of Legal Fees, A.M. No. 08-2-01 -0, 11 February 2010.
prosecutors may be able to drop charges without court

approval in exchange for a "guilty" plea to a lesser
offense). "28
40. "Substantive law creates substantive rights and the two terms in
this respect may be said to be synonymous. Substantive rights is a
term which includes those rights which one enjoys under the legal
system prior to the disturbance of normal relations. (60 C.J., 980.)
Substantive law is that part of the law which creates, defines and
regulates rights, or which regulates the rights and duties which give
rise to a cause of action; that part of the law which courts are
established to administer; as opposed to adjective or remedial law,
which prescribes the method of enforcing rights or obtains
redress for their invasion. (36 C. J. , 27; 52 C. J. S., 1026.)
As applied to criminal law, substantive law is that which

declares what acts are crimes and prescribes the punishment for
committing them, as distinguished from the procedural law which
provides or regulates the steps bv which one who commits a
crime is to be punished. (22 C. J. S., 49.)"29
41. Robert Brady versus United States 30 , a U.S . case

upholding the constitutionality of the process of plea bargaining,
elucidates the benefits of plea bargaining insofar as criminal
procedure is concerned, viz:
"The issue we deal with is inherent in the criminal law and

its administration because guilty pleas are not
constitutionally forbidden , because the criminal law
characteristically extends to judge or jury a range of
choice in setting the sentence in individual cases, and
because both the State and the defendant often find it
advantageous to preclude the possibility of the maximum
penalty authorized by law. For a defendant who sees
slight possibility of acquittal, the advantages of pleading
guilty and limiting the probable penalty are obvious his
exposure is reduced, the correctional processes can
begin immediately, and the practical burdens of a trial are
eliminated. For the State there are also advantages-the
more promptly imposed punishment after an admission of
guilt may more effectively attain the objectives of
28
How Courts Work, by the American Bar Association,
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/public education/resources/law related ed ucation network/h
ow courts work/pleabarnaining.html, last accessed on 6 September 2016.
29
Dominador Bustos versus Antonio Lucero, G.R. No. L-2068, Resolution dated 8 March 1949,
emphasis ours.
30
397 U.S. 742, accessed through https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/texU397/742 on 6
Sept ember 2016 .
punishment; and with the avoidance of trial, scarce

judicial and prosecutorial resources are conserved for
those cases in which there is a substantial issue of the
defendant's guilt or in which there is substantial doubt that
the State can sustain its burden of proof. It is this
mutuality of advantage that perhaps explains the fact that
at present well over three-fourths of the criminal
convictions in this country rest on pleas of guilty, a great
many of them no doubt motivated at least in part by the
hope or assurance of a lesser penalty than might be
imposed if there were a guilty verdict after a trial to judge
or jury. "
This all the more establishes the procedural nature of the plea
bargaining process; it is a procedural device to eliminate the
burdens of a trial.
42. A similar conclusion may be deduced from the Supreme

Court ruling in People of the Philippines versus Hon. Martin
S. Villarama, Jr. and Jaime Manue/ 31 , which described the
plea bargaining process as follows, viz:
"Plea bargaining in criminal cases , is a process whereby

the accused and the prosecution work out a mutually
satisfactory disposition of the case subject to court
approval (see Black Law Dictionary, 5th Ed., 1979, p.
1037). It usually involves the defendant's pleading guilty
to a lesser offense or to only one or some of the counts of
a multi-count indictment in return for a lighter sentence
than that for the graver charge (ibid).
xxx xxx xxx

However, the acceptance of an offer to plead guilty to a
lesser offense under the aforequoted rule is not
demandable by the accused as a matter of right but is
a matter that is addressed entirely to the sound
discretion of the trial court (Manuel v. Velasco, et al. ,
G.R. No. 94732, February 26, 1991 , En
Banc Resolution). "
43. The 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure even expressly

stated the purpose of pre -trial and pre-trial conference, with plea
bargaining as among the agenda thereof:
31
G.R. No. 99287 , 23 June 1992, emphasis ours.
..
"Section 1. Pre-trial; when proper.
To expedite the trial, where the accused and counsel

agree, the court shall conduct a pre-trial conference on
the matters enumerated in Section 2 hereof, without
32
impairing the rights of the accused."
44. Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165 deprives not only the accused
and the prosecution, but more importantly, the courts, of the
benefits of a validly entered plea bargaining agreement. It is
antithetical to the early resolution of cases and de- clogging of
court dockets, especially in instances such as this case, where
the prosecution does not object and both the prosecution and
defense are open to the possibility of plea bargaining. 33
45. The process being procedural, Congress trespassed upon

the Supreme Court's power to promulgate rules on pleading,
practice and procedure when it prohibited plea bargaining in drug
offenses via Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165. The subject provision
effectively repealed the following procedural rules in the Rules
of Court:
Rule 116 of the Rules of Court:
"Section 2. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense. - At

arraignment, the accused, with the consent of the
offended party and the prosecutor, may be allowed by the
trial court to plead guilty to a lesser offense which is
necessarily included in the offense charged. After
arraignment but before trial, the accused may still be
allowed to plead guilty to said lesser offense after
withdrawing his plea of not guilty. No amendment of the
complaint or information is necessary. (sec. 4, circ. 38-
98)"
Rule 118 of the Rules of Court:
"Section 1. Pre-trial; mandatory in criminal cases. - In all

criminal cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan,
Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal
Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court and Municipal
Circuit Trial, the court shall, after arraignment and within
thirty (30) days from the date the court acquires
jurisdiction over the person of the accused, unless a
shorter period is provided for in special laws or circulars
32
Emphasis ours .
33
Please see Comment or Opposition dated 29 June 2016, Annex "F" hereof.
of the Supreme Court, order a pre-trial conference to

consider the following :
(b) plea bargaining
xxx xxx xxx"
HON. FRANK E. LOBRIGO

COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION WHEN HE
REFUSED TO DECLARE SECTION
23 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165
AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
46. That Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165 is unconstitutional was

equally concluded by public respondent Judge Lobrigo in his
Order dated 12 July 2016 34 :
"xxx xxx xxx Indeed , plea bargaining forms part of the

Rules on Criminal Procedure particularly under Rule 118,
the rule on pre-trial conference. It is only the Rules of
Court promulgated by the Supreme Court pursuant to its
constitutional rule-making power that breathes life to plea
bargaining. It cannot be found in any statute.
Without saying so, the accused implies that Sec. 23

of Republic Act No. 9165 is unconstitutional because it in
effect suspends the operation of Rule 118 of the Rules of
Court insofar as it allows plea bargaining as part of the
mandatory pre-trial conference in criminal cases.
xxx xxx xxx
Within the spirit of the disquisition in People v.

Martinez, there might be plausible basis for the
declaration of Sec. 23 of R.A. No. 9165, which bars plea
bargaining, as unconstitutional because indeed the
inclusion of the provision in the law encroaches on the
exclusive constitutional power of the Supreme Court."
4 7. Yet, he declined to pronounce the unconstitutionality of the

challenged provision, reason ing as follows:
34
Annex "A" hereof.
"While basic is the precept that lower courts are not

precluded from resolving, whenever warranted ,
constitutional questions, the Court is not unaware of the
admonition of the Supreme Court that lower courts must
obseNe a becoming modesty in examining constitutional
questions. Upon which admonition, it is thus not for this
lower court to declare Sec. 23 of R.A. No. 9165
unconstitutional given the potential ramifications that such
declaration might have on the prosecution of illegal drugs
cases pending before this judicial station."
48. By so ruling, we humbly submit - with all due respect - that

public respondent Judge Lobrido committed grave abuse of
discretion. The unconstitutionality of Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165
is too gross and patent for him to refuse to pronounce.
49. Besides, Regional Trial Courts also have the power to

declare any treaty, international or executive agreement, law,
presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance,
or regulation as unconstitutional or invalid, subject to appeal to
the Supreme Court. Under pain of being repetitive, it bears
stressing that Section 5, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution is
explicit in stating that the Supreme Court has the power to
review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm final judgments
and orders of lower courts in, among others, all cases in
which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty,
international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree,
proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in
question.
so. Thus, it has been held that "while lower courts should
observe a becoming modesty in examining constitutional
questions, they are nonetheless not prevented from resolving
the same whenever warranted, subject only to review by the
highest tribunal. We have jurisdiction under the Constitution to
'review, revise, reverse, modify or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as
the law or rules of court may provide, ' final judgments and orders of
lower courts in, among others, all cases involving the constitutionality
of certain measures. This simply means that the resolution of such
cases may be made in the first instance by these lower courts.
And while it is true that laws are presumed to be constitutional,

that presumption is not by any means conclusive and in fact may be
rebutted. Indeed, if there be a clear showing of their invalidity, and of
the need to declare them so, then 'will be the time to make the
hammer fall, and heavily,' to recall Justice Laurel's trenchant warning.
Stated otherwise, courts should not follow the path of least resistance
by simply presuming the constitutionality of a law when it is
Petition tor Certiorari and Prohibition
questioned. On the contrary, they should probe the issue more

deeply, to relieve the abscess, paraphrasing another distinguished
jurist, and so heal the wound or excise the affliction.
Judicial power authorizes this; and when the exercise is
demanded, there should be no shirking of the task for fear of
retaliation, or loss of favor, or popular censure, or any other
similar inhibition unworthy of the bench, especially this Court. "35
si. Planters Products, Inc. versus Fertiphil Corporation,

G.R. No. 166006, 14 March 2008, explains:
"It is settled that the RTC has jurisdiction to resolve the

constitutionality of a statute, presidential decree or an
executive order. xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx
In Mirasol v. Court of Appeals, this Court recognized the

power of the RTC to resolve constitutional issues, thus:
On the first issue. It is settled that Regional Trial

Courts have the authority and jurisdiction to
consider the constitutionality of a statute,
presidential decree, or executive order. The
Constitution vests the power of judicial review or the
power to declare a law, treaty, international or
executive agreement, presidential decree, order,
instruction, ordinance, or regulation not only in this
Court, but in all Regional Trial Courts.
In the recent case of Equi-Asia Placement, Inc. v.

Department of Foreign Affairs, this Court reiterated:
There is no denying that regular courts have

jurisdiction over cases involving the validity or
constitutionality of a rule or regulation issued by
administrative agencies. Such jurisdiction, however,
is not limited to the Court of Appeals or to this Court
alone for even the regional trial courts can take
cognizance of actions assailing a specific rule or set
of rules promulgated by administrative
bodies. Indeed, the Constitution vests the power of
judicial review or the power to declare a law, treaty,
35
Restituto Ynot versus Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 74457, 20 March 1987; please
also see Phlippine Coconut Producers Federation, et al versus Republic of the Philippines, G.R.
No. 177857-58, Danilo Urs ua versus Republic of the Philippines , G.R. No. 178193, 24 January
2012 , emphasis ours .
international or executive agreement, presidential

decree, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation
in the courts, including the regional trial courts.
Judicial review of official acts on the ground of

unconstitutionality may be sought or availed of through
any of the actions cognizable by courts of justice, not
necessarily in a suit for declaratory relief. Such review
may be had in criminal actions, as in People v.
Ferrer involving the constitutionality of the now defunct
Anti-Subversion law, or in ordinary actions, as in Krivenko
v. Register of Deeds involving the constitutionality of laws
prohibiting aliens from acquiring public lands. The
constitutional issue, however, (a) must be properly raised
and presented in the case, and (b) its resolution is
necessary to a determination of the case, i.e., the issue of
constitutionality must be the very /is mota presented."36
52. Judge Lobrigo's refusal to perform his judicial mandate

amounts to grave abuse of discretion.
53. In Serrano versus Gallant Maritime Services, Inc., G.R.

No. 167614, 24 March 2009, the Honorable Supreme Court
declared Section 10 of Republic Act No . 8042 as unconstitutional,
but not without noting that the Court of Appeals was remiss in
failing to take up the issue brought before it in its decision.
The foregoing notwithstanding,

direct resort to the Supreme
Court on issues concerning the
constitutionality or validity of any
treaty, international or executive
agreement, law, presidential
decree, proclamation, order,
instruction, ordinance, or
regulation is allowable. As in this
case, there are exceptions to the
doctrine of hierarchy of courts.
54. The power of thi s Honorable Court to pass upon the

constitutionality of Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165 is most
respectfully implored. In The Diocese of Bacolod,
represented by the Most Rev. Bishop Vicente M. Navarra
versus Commission on Elections, et al., G.R. No. 205728, 21
36
Citations omitted, emphasis ours.
January 2015, this Honorable Court had occasion to clarify that it

may entertain petitioners for certiorari and prohibition assailing
the constitutionality of actions of both legislative and executive
branches of the government, notwithstanding the doctrine of
hierarchy of courts, explaining as follows :
"The doctrine that requires respect for the hierarchy of

courts was created by this court to ensure that every level
of the judiciary performs its designated roles in an
effective and efficient manner. Trial courts do not only
determine the facts from the evaluation of the evidence
presented before them. They are likewise competent to
determine issues of law which may include the validity of
an ordinance, statute, or even an executive issuance in
relation to the Constitution. To effectively perform these
functions, they are territorially organized into regions and
then into branches. Their writs generally reach within
those territorial boundaries. Necessarily, they mostly
perform the all-important task of inferring the facts from
the evidence as these are physically presented before
them. In many instances, the facts occur within their
territorial jurisdiction , which properly present the 'actual
case' that makes ripe a determination of the
constitutionality of such action. The consequences, of
course, would be national in scope. There are, however,
some cases where resort to courts at their level would not
be practical considering their decisions could still be
appealed before the higher courts, such as the Court of
Appeals.
The Court of Appeals is primarily designed as an

appellate court that reviews the determination of facts and
law made by the trial courts. It is collegiate in nature. This
nature ensures more standpoints in the review of the
actions of the trial court. But the Court of Appeals also
has original jurisdiction over most special civil actions.
Unlike the trial courts, its writs can have a nationwide
scope. It is competent to determine facts and, ideally,
should act on constitutional issues that may not
necessarily be novel unless there are factual questions to
determine.
This court, on the other hand , leads the judiciary by

breaking new ground or further reiterating - in the light of
new circumstances or in the light of some confusions of
bench or bar - existing precedents. Rather than a court
of first instance or as a repetition of the actions of the
Court of Appeals, this court promulgates these doctrinal

devices in order that it truly performs that role.
In other words, the Supreme Court's role to interpret the

Constitution and act in order to protect constitutional
rights when these become exigent should not be
emasculated by the doctrine in respect of the hierarchy of
courts. That has never been the purpose of such doctrine.
Thus, the doctrine of hierarchy of courts is not an iron-
clad rule. This court has "full discretionary power to take
cognizance and assume jurisdiction [over] special civil
actions for certiorari . . .filed directly with it for
exceptionally compelling reasons or if warranted by the
nature of the issues clearly and specifically raised in the
petition." As correctly pointed out by petitioners, we have
provided exceptions to this doctrine:
First, a direct resort to this court is allowed when there are

genuine issues of constitutionality that must be
addressed at the most immediate time. A direct resort
to this court includes availing of the remedies of certiorari
and prohibition to assail the constitutionality of actions of
both legislative and executive branches of the
government.
xxx xxx xxx
A second exception is when the issues involved are of

transcendental importance. In these cases, the
imminence and clarity of the threat to fundamental
constitutional rights outweigh the necessity for prudence.
The doctrine relating to constitutional issues of
transcendental importance prevents courts from the
paralysis of procedural niceties when clearly faced with
the need for substantial protection .
xxx xxx xxx
Third, cases of first impression warrant a direct resort

to this court. In cases of first impression, no jurisprudence
yet exists that will guide the lower courts on this matter. In
Government of the United States v. Purganan, this court
took cognizance of the case as a matter of first
impression that may guide the lower courts:
In the interest of justice and to settle once and for all

the important issue of bail in extradition proceedings,
we deem it best to take cognizance of the present
case. Such proceedings constitute a matter of first

impression over which there is, as yet, no local
jurisprudence to guide lower courts.
xxx xxx xxx
Fourth , the constitutional issues raised are better

decided by this court. In Drilon v. Lim, this court held
that:
. . . it will be prudent for such courts, if only out of a

becoming modesty, to defer to the higher judgment
of this Court in the consideration of its validity,
which is better determined after a thorough
deliberation by a collegiate body and with the
concurrence of the majority of those who
participated in its discussion. (Citation omitted)
xxx xxx xxx
Fifth , the time element presented in this case cannot

be ignored. xxx xxx xxx Exigency in certain situations
would qualify as an exception for direct resort to th is court.
Sixth, the filed petition reviews the act of a constitutional

organ.
xxx xxx xxx
Seventh, petitioners rightly claim that they had no other

plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law that could free them from the injurious
effects of respondents ' acts in violation of their right to
freedom of expression .
xxx xxx xxx
Eighth , the petition includes questions that are "dictated

by public welfare and the advancement of public
policy, or demanded by the broader interest of justice,
or the orders complained of were found to be patent
nullities, or the appeal was considered as clearly an
inappropriate remedy." In the past, questions similar to
these which this court ruled on immediately despite the
doctrine of hierarchy of courts included citizens' right to
bear arms government contracts involving modernization
of voters' registration lists, and the status and existence of
a public office.
xxx xxx xxx
It is not, however, necessary that all of these

exceptions must occur at the same time to justify a
direct resort to this court. While generally, the hierarchy of
courts is respected, the present case falls under the
recognized exceptions and, as such, may be resolved by
this court directly."37
55. The instant case falls within the established exceptions.

The constitutional issue is undoubtedly of transcendental
importance. 38 In the government's bid t o put an end to the
country's drug menace, constitutional rights of the accused
should be equally protected. Punishing the depraved versus
saving and rehabilitating the victims of drug abuse becomes an
increasing challenge. The benefits of plea bargaining, insofar as it
speeds up the resolution of drugs cases and declogs court
dockets, could very well be beneficial t o the country's anti-drugs
campaign. Indeed, the question on whether persons accused of
drug offenses may be allowed to plea bargain becomes a matter
dictated by public welfare and the advancement of public policy,
and demanded by the broader interest of justice. 3 9
56.
57. Equally important, the instant ca se is one of first impression,

as there exists no jurisprudence that may guide lower courts on
the issue of whether plea bargaining may be disallowed by law in
any criminal offense. 4 Coupled with t he issue of whether or not
plea bargaining stems from the power of this Honorable Court to
promulgate rules of procedure, a genuine issue of
41
constitutionality is now before this Honorable Court.
58 . With the arrests and surrender of drug offenders

significantly increasing by the day, t he constitutional issue must
be addressed at the most immediate ti me. 42
59. All the foregoing considered, it is indeed better for this

Honorable Court to decide the very opportune challenge on the
constitutionality of Section 23, R.A. No. 9165. 4 3 To submit the
matter to the Honorable Court of Appeals, whose decision (in
whoever's favor) would definitely be appealed to this Honorable
Court, would only prolong the negati ve effects of a protracted
37
Emphasis ours, citations omitted.
38
Second exception .
39
First and fifth exceptions.
40
Third exception .
41
Third exception .
42
First exception .
43
Fourth exception.
trial. In the case of the petitioner, he continues to be prosecuted

for the more serious offense of Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165.
Hence, there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in
the ordinary course of law. 44
60. Besides, the instant case involves pure questions of law

(centering on whether Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165 is
unconstitutional), which this Honorable Court may immediately
take cognizance of.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE

APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
AND/OR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
61. To repeat, the accused, herein petitioner, not being allowed

to enter into a plea bargaining ag reement, continues to be
prosecuted under the more serious offense. His chance to be
released earlier, upon serving of his reduced sentence, and
undergo rehabilitation as needed, is now foreclosed. The same
goes true for his chance to apply for probation. 45 The
continuation of the criminal proceedin gs, if not restrained, would
definitely work injustice and irreparable damage to him.
62 . There is, therefore, an urgent need for the issuance of a

temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction from
the Honorable Court of Appeals enjoining the RTC from
conducting further proceedings in Crim inal Case No. 13586.
63. Attached 46 is an AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT executed by the

petitioner herein, in support of his application.
64. "As a general rule, the Court will not issue writs of prohibition or
injunction preliminary or final, to enjoin or restrain, criminal
prosecution. xxx xxx xxx However, in extreme cases, we have
laid the following exceptions:
(1) when the injunction is necessary to afford adequate
protection to the constitutional rights of the accused; (2) when it
is necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid
oppression or multiplicity of actions; (3) when there is a
prejudicial question which is subjudice; (4) when the acts of the
officer are without or in excess of authority; (5) where the
prosecution is under an invalid law; ordinance or regulation; (6)
when double jeopardy is clearly apparent; (7) where the Court
has no jurisdiction over the offense; (BJ where it is a case of
44
Seventh exception .
45
Section 9 (a) of R.A. No. 10707' AN ACT AMENDING P RESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 968, OTHERWISE
K NOWN AS THE "PROBATION LAW OF 1976", AS AMENDED.
46
Annex "N".
Es'tipona versus Hon. Lobrigo 30
persecution rather than prosecution; (9) where the charges are

manifestly false and motivated by the lust for vengeance; and
(10) when there is clearly no prima facie case against the
accused and a motion to quash on that ground has been
denied. "47
65. Disallowance of plea bargaining premised on an

unconstitutional provision of R.A. No. 9165 falls within the fifth
(5th) exception . Moreover, it is imperative to settle the issue on
whether the accused - petitioner may be allowed to enter into a
plea of guilty to a lesser offense before the criminal prosecution
for the higher offense of violation of Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165
is allowed to proceed - placing the instant case under the third
(3rd) exception.
In closing, it bears to stress that cases concerning

violations of R.A. No. 9165 being handled by the Public
Attorney's Office continue to significantly escalate in number.
From about thirty-six thousand (36,000) cases in 2011, the
PAO now handles around eighty-two thousand (82,000)
cases of drug offenses. 48 Therefore, it is undeniable that a
positive action from this Honorable Court on the matter of plea
bargaining will redound to the benefit of all stakeholders - the
courts being declogged of their dockets; the jail facilities
nationwide, being decongested; the government, saving
financial resources amounting to about Php 1.49 Billion Pesos (a
budget of PhpS0.00 for food is allotted every inmate; thus:
82,000 x 50.00 x 365 = Phpl,496,500.00); and the accused,
being given the opportunity to reform after incarceration for a
lesser number of years and seek rehabilitation, if need be.
RELIEF
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully

prayed of this Honorable Court that the petition be given DUE
COURSE and after consideration thereof:
A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER and/or WRIT OF

1.
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION be ISSUED against the Regional Trial
Court of Legazpi City, Branch 3, commanding the latter to refrain
from conducting trial in Criminal Case No. 13586 pending
resolution of the instant petition;
47
P/ lnsp. Rodolfo Samson, et al. versus Teofisto Guingona, Jr., et al. G.R. No. 123504,
December 14, 2000.
48
Number of cases involving R.A. No. 9165 being handled by the PAO, hereto attached as
Annex "0".
Estipona versus Hon. Lo igo 31
2. Thereafter, Sect ion 23 of Republic Act No. 9165 be

DECLARED as UNCONSTITUTIONAL for being violative of the
right to equal protection and/or for encroaching upon the power
of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules of procedure, both
enshrined in the 1987 Constitution;
a WRIT of CERTIORARI be ISSUED declaring the Orders

3.
dated 12 July 2016 and 26 July 2016 of public respondent Hon.
Frank E. Lobrigo as NULL and VOID for being issued with grave
abuse of discretion, setting aside the same and GRANTING the
Motion to Allow the Accused to Enter into a Plea Bargaining
Agreement; and,
4. A WRIT of PROHIBITION be ISSUED commanding the

Regional Trial Court of Legazpi City, Branch 3, to cease and
desist from proceeding with the criminal prosecution of accused-
petitioner in Criminal Case No. 13586 for the offense of violation
of Section 11, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165, without allowing
the accused-petitioner to plea bargain for a lesser offense.
Other reliefs that are just and equitable are likewise prayed
for.
Quezon City for Manila,

14 September 2016.
Department of Justice
PUBLIC ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
DOJ Agencies Bldg., NIA Road
corner East Avenue, Diliman
Quezon City
Tel. (02)929-94-36 Loe. 106/ 107
By :
Chief Public Attorney

Roll No. 36327
IBP Lifetime No. 07234; 1-24-08
MCLE Compliance No. V-0007151 ; 4-8-15
' Estipona versus Hon. Lo igo 32
Petition for Certiorari and Prohtbition
on
IBP Lifetime , - -02

MCLE Compliance No. V-0006557 ; 3-3-15
.P.k. RAMO~-DA
~ v cv ~
1
lie Attorney IV
Roll No.49304
N
1rf
IBP Lifetime No. 09781; 1-05- 1
MCLE Complia e 00 563; - 3-15
ANA ~ SA ~O IANO
blic Attorney v
Roll No. 50954
IBP Lifetime No. 010152; 8-05-11
MCLE Compliance No. V-0006591; 3-3-15
VE RI FICA TIO N /CERTIFICATION

OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING
I, SALVADOR A. ESTIPONA, JR., of legal age, and currently
incarcerated at the BJMP Legazpi City, Albay, after having been
duly sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose that:
1. I am the petitioner in the above-entitled case.
2. I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Petition

for Certiorari and Prohibition.
3. I have read and understood the same and all the

allegations therein are true, correct, and of my own personal
knowledge and/or based on authentic documents.
4. I hereby certify that: (a) I have not commenced any

other action or proceeding involving the same issues thereto with
the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or
agency; (b) To the best of my knowledge, there is no other
action or proceeding involving the same issues which is pending
before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any tribunal
or agency; (c) if there is any action or proceeding involving the
same issues which is pending before the Supreme Court, the
Court of Appeals, or any tribunal or agency, I will state the status
thereof; (d) should I learn hereafter that a similar action or

proceeding involving the same issues is filed or is pending before
the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or any tribunal or agency,
I will report that fact within five (5) days from knowledge thereof
to this Honorable Court and to the court where the original
pleading had been filed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand ~rs 1 5 2016

September 2016, in Legazpi City, Albay.
FffifdtJtA
SALVADOR A. ESTIPONA
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this

- -=- 1_5 _2_016_._ _ _ , in Legazpi City, Albay, affiant personally
SE""-P--=-
appearing before me and having been identified by his
en"'1 ni> 01/LfJ - /J, bearing his name, photograph, and
J
signature.
GRACE B. BALAORO
Public Attorney II
(Pursuant to R.A . No. 9406)
EXPLANATION
(Pursuant to Sec. 11, Rule 13 of the 1997
New Rules of Civil Procedure)
The foregoing pleading is being served by registered mail,

personal service not being practicable due to the limited number
of messengers in the undersigned's office.
ANA
Copy furnished:
1) THE SOLICITOR GENERAL Reg #: {p ~-;)_

134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village Date: SEP ] 6 2016
1229 Makati City
2) HON. FRANK E. LOBRIGO, Reg#:

Co-=K3
RTC OF LEGAZPI CITY, BRANCH 3 Date: SEP 16 7016
Regional Trial Court Building
4500 Legazpi City, Albay
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
(Revised July 1, 1977)
I, OSCAR T. BALUYOT, married, Administrative Aide IV and with business

address at Public Attorney's Office, DOJ Agencies Building, East Avenue cor. NIA Road ,
Diliman 1104 Quezon City after duly sworn hereby depose and say:
That on _ _S_E_P_1_6_
0_16_ _ , I served a copy of the following pleading/paper:
NATURE OF PLEADING/PAPER
ren-nof'J ~,z G~no~Prt2-I A-No PJZ..0H1e-,.not-.J (wrrtt P~.AYe-/2..
ro 0BCLA1Zf; ;~0TION 23 OF flr;Pllleuc ACT No . q /(:,& AS u N coNs..nru n o1\J,A L .
A/JD lA/2.be!T Pf<.Pr'(Gf- P0(2. ISS.UPrfJCE" Of A T1:;MfOJ2.A-f:-Y l(_E"~TIZ-PrrN l t-J& Q(2_eJEJ2
1
A-No/ of2.. w rG-rT DF Pt<.Gl.A Mr tJ A-tt. y 1tJJ vi tJ en oiJ )

In Case No. 6 - (L f\J o. ( C{lt tv11 NA L- CP1~b /\Jo , f3s;-.~&)
Entitled SALNADOrZ A - 1::;;-r..nfONA,..) 12.. vs. . HOl.J' FR.AN!< E - Lo{!:,(2,J C-Q, P12.81Dil'1 G
JLA00t::: OFltf"e f!.,~6IONAL- T1<-JAL. G-OLA/Z-1 OF LGt;A 2ff 0/T'/, 6~ANGH3S.- f EL>flE OP-THE
Pursuant to Sec. 5,7, 11 and Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as follows : PH-/ u fPI N ~
By registered mail to:

I I by depositing a copy on SEP 16 2016 ,
TJ-:tf2 ~QU Vt roil G/2N 5 !2-fcL the post office at Q.C. Main Post, as
J.9lf A-MOFUOU? ST. U?GPr&f/ V/UAht;evidenced by Registered No.
/.22g MAKAn CJry l ] ~), (p "f $3 hereto a-tt-ac-h-ed-an-d
indicated after the name(s) of the
H-ON . Ft<.AfJJt. E. LOJ'hr2..JGO addresse(s) , and with instructions to post-
JQ:rc OF u;;bA2P I LlTY, 6f2...ANUH 3 master to return the mail to the sender
/<.fi6/QNAL- T72.. /f'>rl-. GDVl!Z-T 61A1LV1t'1G afterten (10) days if undelivered .
4-ST>O ub-GAZf'/ CATY, A Lf3A7
Service was made by registered mail as the post office is efficient, economical,
convenient and non-exhausting.
Moreover, the Public Attorney's Office is a government office handling thousands

of cases and I am the only messenger/ filer in the office.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, 1 have hereto set my hand this SEP 16 2016

~
in Quezon City.
OSCAR T. BAL UY OT
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me on this SEP 16 2016

--~~--~--
aff iant, exhibiting to me his PAO ID with No. 00151 -2011 issued on January 2, 2013, at
the Public Attorney's Office, NIA Road corner East Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City
bearing his photo and signature. QQ._ f I
M.soMo
Pu lie Attorney IV
(Pursu t to R.A. No. 9406)
! .... ,_."f
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES A,flN ~,/( "A_~:

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
FIFTH JUDIC IAL REGION
BRANCll 3
LEGAZPI CITY ATTY. /\UC! S.RtMENOP..DO
BRl\NCh CLE '.:t}\ lF CJURT
D~TE : uj - /:> - Vb/~ - - .
Plaintiff, CRIMINAL CASE NO. 13586
- versus - FOR: VIOLATION OF SEC. 11,

ART. II, OF R.A. No. 9165
SALVADOR ESTIPONA, JR.,

Accused,
x--------------------------------x
ORDER
This issuance resolves the motion of the accused to allow him to

enter into plea bargaining agreement with the prosecution, as well as the
comment or opposition to it filed by the prosecution.
The accused alleges in his motion that he is being charged with an

offense involving the possession of 0.084 gram of methamphetamine
hydrochloride. That he would like to be allowed to plea bargain with the
prosecution so he could avail himself of rehabilitation and get a chance at
reformation.
In its comment or opposition, the prosecution manifested an

openness to the plea bargaining procedure in order to breathe life to the
intent of Republic Act No. 9165 , inter alia, to rehabilitate a drug
offender. However, the law itself proscribes plea bargaining.
The accused posited in his motion that Sec. 23 of RA No. 9165,

which prohibits plea bargaining, encroaches on the exclusive
constitutional power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules of
procedure because plea bargaining is a "rule of procedure." Indeed, plea
bargaining forms part of the Rules on Criminal Procedure particularly
under Rule 118, the rule on pre-trial conference. It is only the Rules of
Court promulgated by the Supreme Court pursuant to its constitutional
I
Page 1 of2
.-
rule-making power that breathes life to plea bargaining. It cannot be

found in any statute.
Without saying so, the accused implies that Sec. 23 of Republic

Act No. 9165 is unconstitutional because it in effect suspends the
operation of Rule 118 of the Rules of Court insofar as it allows plea
bargaining as part of the mandatory pre-trial conference in criminal cases.
The Court sees merit in the argument of the accused that it is also
the intendment of the law, R.A. No. 9165, to rehabilitate an accused of a
drug offense. Rehabilitation is thus only possible in cases of use of illegal
drugs because plea bargaining is disallowed. However, by case law, the
Supreme Court allowed rehabilitation for accused charged with
possession of paraphernalia with traces of dangerous drugs, as held in
People v. Martinez, G.R. No. 191366, 13 December 2010. The ruling of
the Supreme Court in this case manifested the relaxation of an otherwise
stringent application of Republic Act No. 9165 in order to serve an intent
for the enactment of the law, that is, to rehabilitate the offender.
Within the spirit of the disquisition in People v. Martinez, there

might be plausible basis for the declaration of Sec. 23 of R.A. No. 9165,
which bars plea bargaining, as unconstitutional because indeed the
inclusion of the provision in the law encroaches on the exclusive
constitutional power of the Supreme Court.
While basic is the precept that lower comis are not precluded from
resolving, whenever warranted, constitutional questions, the Court is not
unaware of the admonition of the Supreme Court that lower courts must
observe a becoming modesty in examining constitutional questions.
Upon which admonition, it is thus not for this lower court to declare Sec.
23 of R.A. No. 9165 unconstitutional given the potential ramifications
that such declaration might have on the prosecution of illegal drugs cases
pending before this judicial station.
WHEREFORE, the motion to allow the accused to enter into plea

bargaining agreement is denied in view of the limitation under R.A. No.
9165.
SO ORDERED.
ISSUED this 12th day of July 2016 at Legazpi City, Philippines.
Page 2of2
llEPLICATE COPY
FIFTH JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 3
LEGAZPI CITY

Plaintiff, CRIMINAL CASE No. 13586
- versus - FOR: VIOLATION OF R.A. 9165

47"2~~ ~'~. ~~~~,~~-ii~~~'~.:~~. ;~:~r~:;.:' .-~~~;~--jf>'~ ~.~.-:~".-' ;;.
., 1 .
SALVADOR ESTIPONA, JR., Y

ASUELA A.K.A. JR.,
Accused,
x--------------------------------x
ORDER
The Court finds no cogent reason to disturb its order of 12 July 2016,
which order is sought to be reconsidered by the accused.
WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is denied.
So ORDERED.
Issued this 26th day of July 2016 at Legazpi City, Philippines.
FEL/csa
. . ..
--\f fJr SLJS-
,: ..
!" --- - - .. - ..
;.I -~
~ --~~ .. :t.~ w -~ r""i
x- -------------------------------------------- --------x
I~~f-ORJV!J1.-~-10~
- - - -- - - -- .-- ------ - - - ----
:i '
. ~4(1
. ....
, ;
-- --- . . --- --- ---
Thi:? undersign :.::<.! i\ssociate Prosecution /.:..ttonit:;yr City of Le(1.:12pir '

he. r2~b:.r ,::i CCLlS2S Si:1L\!~f1.[)C~f.{ Es-r~!PC)~_fi~~- .J ~~- '!;~[ /J:s.~eia ~ . k .. ~ .. J~~~~ fbr
VI()~_i\-fI (}t~~ {)f SEC.1- IC~~ 1.1.(:3},. f\R-r . -~~ ~=~f REP~JBt.Ir= pie~ ~f.1~5.5- ~
ott~t~ '1J~J" %s~~ k ~~()v.~~l~ ,~~s th {7 C() 1~11P ~i E~~-~E~N~:; IvE !)~t-7=.t~i;ER~-=~~JS t.=ff R. ~J<~S
c~:it.-y: c~f Le,~{ctZt)i! ~::i-: ti~})t)~ r:\~S : ~-jr-~ci v:..i ir~ tt:e jLJ r~ s(iict jc} r~ t)f
ti-kis ~-i c1 n c)ra bie t::c1t.~ rtf tl1 e a bf.; \f e-- rta rr~f:~ ci acct~ seci t r~c~ t ti(~ ir~ (~
i~J {/Vft~ I~:-/ ~3 L~t:-~-Jr i.z~?- ~'.i ~ . r) fJfJss;::s::.: CJr c~ t l--le r- t:\f~S e t.Jse d n :.t
t\~.gt~ldtf~d rirtJ~l ~ir1d v~!jtJ--~c1lJt t ~-~ 2 1: c1 1rt~~;j~lC=l1 c1ir~ f:1 Jjc s ri st~~ ()r
' ... , "-- : . -.' '~i.' ~ i--.. ; .-, ._ .._ ,._ rt,., r --. .-, : .-._ . -.. -.:. ;;.-.. J~ -i
+- 'r-. o.- ~ -.. ; .- r . ~ ..,. +-- ,-. i
i L 1 ~ t ;i_.;Ll:.:i y ' ;"I.
~t "::::' _.. ?il

,_ . .,
I! !.::. ~ii_;::~- ~-1't::~~-)~( Ji~ !~j~ i t~

1
i_Ji~Ut.::~! !li~::.' "\... i...)iitii,__.;%

r'
I
1
t
Page. 2-
T
-l"L-.
? i~...;flti t l l \i iDT")
-n.,at;o 1 "- 1 l_ .
NPS DOCKET NO.V-02- INQ-00044

-- - ----- - --- --- ---~- -- - --- ----- - -- - -x
r
CERTIFICATION
I
[
I hereby certify that the foregoi n ~1 information is fiied after a
prelirn lnary investigation had been conducted in accordance \Nith L:iitv
and ruies; that there is reasonable ground to believe th at the crirne
f chanJed has been cornrnitted and that the accused is probably guilty
' thur~ofl H-ld-t-
Li L H-,c.
\..11-......- 1 ,_, 1
---r c ;l l~ ;af"'
\.. t \.... Cl\.. ~ L4...s ,_.a.J ~
1"nf,-,,-
\'-'1l1,-,-!,::,,-l
\....'-~
'fV
c,f
'--' '-Lh1:::.
t t 1 ! "-'
,-omr1!""'1
\... }- 0
r-1~L u'.], !"-!(,-{
~t
of r'_ t-!A'-'
(:::vidence submitted against hirn and that he" was given the
opportunity to submit controverting evidence.
Legazpi City, Philippines: April 4: 2016
KRIS~ INE ivi. BERNARTE- HABLA

J1.ssociate Prosecution Attorney II
Roll !\lo. 59494/MCLE rV-0010544/ i2/20/2012
SUBSCRIBED AND SVVOfU'J to before me this 4th day of April 1

')lri~1F- -.t- l ei1d-711 L.,.-.l:+-u pi-11:1 ; .,,P.!'lrc
~ -'-' ClL ~ = ~ l- . Ly, ll-i- I e. .,.
D. RODRI GL1EZ - B 010!. f.\

CIA"f E CiTY PROSEC OR
.l1.PPROVED: LEG AZPI ClT Y
E fV-C1C11\).5~ti/ 12/20/ 20i2
- .. . . . . . .. "t ..
Ati::acnecl ne.reto is t1-ie
~
suppon]n~i a r- '
irnJav1 or:
i . P01 Von Lad Pepafio - Lega zpi City Police Station

..::.., .:..
rp~ ..... r - n ,., __ ____ . . ., ____
"UL _Jdf \i'~lfi r,, .h.idyDH -Lone
1
"t,
n-1~ -_ ...: ___ ,-.1r- ......qy
r<.e 0CdUOil .::;. _e, Df - '
Tl 1 Bitanor Legazpi City
3 . C!eofe M. Balinis Zone 4r Relocation Site, Brgy. 37,
Bitano 1 Legazpi City
4 . And others .
.li.ccused Saivador Estipona! Jr. a.k ,a. Jr. 1s a res ident

of Purok 1, Brgy. 34 Oro Siter Legazpi City "-5
Republic of the Phjlippin.es
Fifth .Judicial Region
BRANCH 3
Legazpi, Citv
4- . at
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPHiES,

Plaintiff,
CRIMINAL CASE No. 13586
FOR: VIOLATION OF SECTION 11 1
ARTICLE II OF R.A. 9165
-versus-
SALVADOR ESTIPOilA, JR. y

ASUELA
A.cc1t.sed,
x--------------------------------------------------x
MOTION TO .ALLOW THE ACCUSED T O EriTER INTO A PLEA

BARGAINING AGREEMENT
COMES NOW ACCUSED, :represer1ted by the Public Atto:rney's

Office, t..lirough the undersigned counsel and to friis Hono:rable Court,
most respectfully alleges that:
1. The accused is chare-ed

'-'
1Nit..ti Violation of Section 11 .
J\:rtide II of R.A. 9165 otherv;rise :lr..nown as n.i.e
Comp:reher.tsive Dangerous Drugs i~~ct of 2002, ivho ivas
'-~ i_
allegedly found in possession of 0.084 gram of

m.ethamphetamine hyd:rochlo:ride on Ma:rch 21, 2016 at
around 1:40 in the afternoon in Zone-4 Relocation Site
B:rf!v.
,__..... Bitru10,. Legazpi
'-' C.itv:
.....
2. The accused respectfulbr p:ravs th:rouf!h the undersiened

L7 i..1 i..1 i,_t
counsel that he be allml\red to enter into a plea bargaining .,

agreement and be permitted to enter a plea of guilty
under Section 12, i~sticle II of R.A. 9165 and be meted
with a penalty of :rehabilitation fo:r a period subject to the
disc:retion of the Honorable Court, in o:rde.r to affo:rd ti~e
accused another chance to refo:rm himself;
3. To rehabilitate the accused 1vould be more in keeping v;.r:i.th

the intent of the 18-1.1\T as p:ro\lided in pa:rag:raph 3, Section 2
of R.A. 9165 \ri.Thich states that one of the underlvi..~i=r ..... '-'
policies of th.e State is to "p:rovide effective mechanisms o:r
m.easu:res to :re-intef!:rate into societv
L. .J individuals Vi.Tho have
fallen victims of druP abuse o:r dru1e-erous drue-
.._. ;_1 L..
dependence through sustainable p:rog:rams of treatment

a..-fl.d rehabilitation;"
4. Hoivever, the provision under Section 23 of R.A. 9165

p:rosc:ribing the accused to ente:r into plea bargaining
agreement defeats the above mentioned policy and
vi.olates p:rocedural law ivhich only the Sup:reme Cou:rt
can p:romulgate as prov"'.i.ded for under paragraph five (5),
Section 5 of Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution which
states that "the Suprern e Court shall have the follmll;:ing
pmvers: (5) promulgate :rules concerning the protection
and e:r.t.fo:rcer.:ue:r1t of constitutional :rights, pleading,
p:ractice, and procedure in 8Jl courts, :>.:::-!x;"
5. 1\tloreover, Section 23 of R.A. 9165 \>'iolates the principle of

seoaratio:n
&
of pmvers omo:ne u
the tli...ree branches of the
government and encroaches upon the pov;rer of the
Supreme Court to promulgate rules of p:rocedu:re such as
the :rule on plea ba:rgfil.i.J.ine- in :relation to Section 1 of Rule
i-' ;,_r
118 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Pr"ocedu:re;
6. The accused humblv believes that the Cone-ress is. bereft

M U
of anv pm.~rer to n:rohibit

~ .....
plea barpai.i.line- in violation of
~ ~ ~
R.A. 9165 as it the sole prerogative of the Supreme Court

to p:romulgate procedural 1avir. Like11iTise, to :binder L.~e
accused from enterine- ,__. a .....plea of gu:iltv
.... to a lesser offense
'-~
\1irou1d frustrate the objective of tlie Comprehensive

Da.ne-erous
u
D:ruP 0
Act of 2002 to :rehabilitate drugu users
and p:rov.ide t..liem virith an opportunity to tu:rn over a na:<tr
leaf and be productive members of society.
7. In 'V'.l.e1~; of the fo:ree-oi.nq the accused throue-h th2

.._, ;_~J i._I -
undersigned, respectfully p:rays that he be allmved to

"l.vithdrmv his fo:rme.r plea of not guilty for Vioiation of
Section 11, R.A. 9165 arid be permitted to E;-n.ter a plea of
guilty under Section 12, .A...:rtide II of R.A. 9165 and be
eiven t..h.e o-opo:rtu:nitv to avail the benefit of :rehabilitation
L.' .L IL.'
as a first time offender and in consideration of tr1J.e

:minims1 qua..fltity of da..-rigerous drug that was allegedly
seized from his possession.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it 1s most :respect.fully

:ra1.
P . ,red unto th.e Honorable Cou:rt that this Motion be ~ranted. ~
Such ot..11.er :relief just and equitable under the premises iS

likewise prayed for.
RespecL.-Ully submitted, .June 15, 2016, Legazpi City.
PUBLIC ATTORNEY'S OFFICE

Counsel fo:r Lhe Accused
-P?J""P1. f'1+..,.
Lec10:...~ ry-,+..-: r.+
,_,. LL!: Ll!::JLL1-L
T
.L
,-lffi.r.-e
'-' ....
Hall of 3ustice Bldg., Regional. Site,

Rm;\ris, Legazpi City
GRACE~AORO
Public Attorney II
Roll No. 61960
IBP No. 10292791 /.A.lbav , a..
~.rrr< ., 1.__.omp
1\/1~. L-r. r< 1ia.nee N o. l.nu1 - 00~~~15
1J1 l
I'~OTICE OF HEARI NG
ATTY. ALICIA S. RIVIEMDADO

The Clerk of Court
RTC, B:ranch 3, Legazpi City
PROSECUTOR l\'IERLY A. CHAN

The Office of the City Prosecutor
Hall of .Justice Lega.zpi Cit-.;r
:i L'.,J
c~.c.P.tinac
Please submit the fo:reeo:Lnf.l fo:r L~e consideration of the
::r.L -~ c.-u . .i.... L..
Honorable Court upon :receipt hereof absent :further arguments from the
undersigned.
011
-RACE
LT .
- . f.IJJB~8~ TLA~U ~>
- RC
Copy fu.1nished:
Pros. f.,IJ:eily A. Chan

City Prosecution Office
Hall of .Justice
Leg2api Citv
..._1 11.
BRANCH3
LEGAZPI CITY
People of the Philippines,

Plaintiff,
-versus- Crim. Case No. 13586

For: Violation of R.A. 9165 /
/
Salvador A. Estipona, Jr., /,

Accused.
x-------------------------------x
COMMENT OR OPPOSITION
(TO THE MOTION TO ALLOW ACCU SED TO ENTER
INTO PLEA-BARGAINING AGREEMENT)
The Prosecution, by the undersigned, unto this Honorable Court, respectfully

submits this comment and opposition to the Motion to Allow Accused to Enter into
Plea-bargaining Agreement on the following grounds, to wit:
1. The Motion by the accused to enter into a plea-bargaining agreement is

contrary to law as plea bargaining is expressly prohibited by virtue of
Section 23 of RA 9165;
2. Although the Supreme Court has the power to promulgates rules concerning
procedural matters but it is not an encroachment of power by the Congress
when it expressly prohibit plea-bargaining as Congress has the prerogative
also to choose which offense it will allow plea bargaining.
Wherefore, from the above arguments and opposition, the Prosecution moves
that the Motion of the Accused to Allow to Enter into Plea-bargaining Agreement
be denied for lack of merit.
June 27, 2016, Legazpi City, Philippines.

~
I
J
ME
~ ssociateCit)} Prosecutor
Jtoll of Atto ey No. 53986
MCLJ;: Compl' ce No. V-0013993
Issh d February 12, 2016
Copy furnished:
BRANCH3
LEGAZPI CITY
People of the Philippines,

Plaintiff,
-versus- Crim. Case No. 13586

For: Violation ofR.A. 9165
Salvador A. Estipona, Jr.,
Accused.
x-------------------------------x
COMMENT OR OPPOSITION
(TO THE MOTION TO ALLOW ACCUSED TO ENTER
INTO PLEA-BARGAINING AGREEMENT)
The Prosecution, to this Honorable Court, states that Prosecution is open to

the Motion of the accused to enter into plea-bargaining to give life to the intent of
the law as provided in paragraph 3, Section 2 of RA 9165, however, with the express
mandate of Section 23 of RA 9165 prohibiting plea-bargaining, the Prosecution is
left without any choice but to reject the proposal of the accused.
Wherefore, the Prosecution moves that the Motion of the Accused to Allow to
Enter into Plea-bargaining Agreement be denied for being contrary to law ..
June 29, 2016, Legazpi City, Philippines.
Copy furnished:
Atty. Grace B. Balaoro

Counsel for the Accused
Public Attorney's Office, Legazpi District Office Ir
Hall of Justice Bldg., Rawis, Legazpi City
JD

Rer;niblic: of the Philipph1es

REGIO~UH..; TRiiH - COURT
Fifth ,Jurlici;3J Regi.o:e1
BRANCH 3
PEOPLE OF THE PHILI.PPiifES ~

-1"lc1.irct(fj~
CRITh:IINAL (;ASE L-lo. 13586
FOR: \TIOLATIOI'J OF SECTION
ARTICLE II OF R.A. 9165
-\re:rsus-
SALVADOR ESTIPONA~ JR. y

ASUELA
. .:4.c:c1tsecl_.
x--------------------------------------------------x
Iv!OTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
COI!JIES NOVJ A.CCUSED, the Public

(Jffice, tb.:rough the undersigned counsel a.nd to this Hono:rable C~ourt,
fTIOSt resvectfullv <-illef'es ti1.at:
..i.. .... t_~
-- ~ ~
i .-::
The 1i.Of10f8_ble c::rder datec1 ..!.:..'- .
~ ---
L'--:'
----. + .--~
'C.ll..LG.l.
u1to Ofl account of +1-,

i....l..;.
~ ~_,
11roitation 1i:nder Section 2 .3 of Republic . ~ct

. I~rJ_ ~;: 1 f;;5~
d..Iui:::r
'-'
offer1se."
~
decla.r&.tion Ho:no:ro_ble
bolstt:-red ir1 the case of Ja.i.rn.e D. Dela. Cruz vs. Pe:opfE of
r'i-.c-
, ,.._
pi-,;-;;,.)'"'1.,..-.
, u. t':I_ 1_,, _, ct: ~, _, ....w" .
..,. (-' i\T'.O
~
-;f1l"l-:,1n
, . ""- _. , , '+u, ,_,p;,1~, 11 11-11.'t
u. s .,;_..... , _,_. L ' .... _ , ,
-rPhF-r-"' +h;:.,
,, " ~~ .....~ ,~ '-'-
3up:r em e Court held, "in o:rder to effectively fulfill the

ii1tent of L't:i.e la\.v to :rehabilitate drue ,__. useis.. this Ccni:rt
..
thus calls 011 la1_!\r c-r.rforc:er~. c<l:1d prosec1ito:rs :tr1 (18.11.gt:r Cfl.J_ S
drul--,_:.s cases to exeicise -n-rop.
k' er discretion in fi.1.in.8' d1a.r8'e~~ L' .;. _,
v;rh en th.e preser1ce of d.a:nge.rous ,+rugs is o:.nly and solely

:i.r.l. Lt-ie fo:rm of :.residue a_nd the confir:mato:.r~v test :required.
l..111.d.er ::~ec. i5 is f1CJSit:i\re for USe of dfu~geroUS ti-rug:s . b.-1
afford the
+-r__...
of charges .lV.i OI i:tl~v""Ol ,1'iJ.J. @:
clJne 1.r~rher1
Err-iothe:r separo_tc: qus..ntit~t f.)f ds.r1gero11s dr1-l ~S:- other ti~Ctll
:rD..ti."e :residue:' is found iil tl1e fHJ ssess1c1f1 of tl-1e o_c:c-used as
u:r Jtli1.i ed f<)f ttl ~3 e c: . 15 .;:;
.~
' ,
4. ln the same m.8..:I.I...."flE.'1", tb.e Hono:rable c~ou:rt SI.8-1:.BQ w. its
;
n1Jii."'lq
u
":;o:::x l011i.rer courts a.se not v:recluded.
&
from :resolvins: _ ~-
v:rhcnEVef v1ra.:r:ranted, con~tirutional questions,:;.:;..::=:
I)
L."'l of the to:regoi.r.i.g, the accused :respectfl111y p:rays
'l.lle\i\7
th.at the Honorable Court :reconsider its .July 12, 2016
Order and that the ac cused be allmved t o ent er 1f1to .rz ;--.,l-=!"<. . . ~--
bargaining ag:reem.ent.
~V:f!EREFORE,
p:rem.1ses consid.e:red, it most :respecL."'Ully L;";,
p:rayed unto the Hono:rable Cou:rt that this Iviotion fo:r Recon~.ideration be
qr
'-'
anted.
~1-1c:.r1 ot.I1i_er relief just a11d. equit;3tb1e u11.(itL tt1e pre-r111ses 1s

M;;:e-1.vise prayed fo:r.
Respectfuliy sub:uutted, .July 13, 2016, Legazpi City.
PUBLIC ,li.:;.TTORN"E"Y' S OFF'ICE

Counsel for t.i~e Accused
Lee-a.zni Citv Dist rict I O:ffic e
i....' .l. ::.
Hali of .Justice Bldff. _ Reffiona1 Site, L' . i....'
GRACE
P-ubhc II
~ljALAORO
~J~~::rney
Roll No . 61960
fR P No
- - - - -
10')4'.:J7Qf!
- - -
A1h:=n.r
! - -
- - - --,..-'
- l - .
!iOTICE OF HEARING
The Clerk of Court

Le~a.zpi
;_r -
Citv :."
PROSECUTOR. MERLY A. CHAN

r-he ()ffice {::f the c=:it}r Prosec1itc-;:r
Hall of .Justice . Lee-a.zD:i Citv t._ Ji. '-'
G:reeti.nf-'.S . Please submit tr'le fo:regoL_.rig for t.."1-ie co:nsideiatio:n.

- "- ' t_i
{::,;f the
Lion-:r - bl. e_ "c.r'
.1.-.1. I~iJ i."i.. _.u-u~t
J.. 'ln
i_.l~ ._Tuh
~../ -,u
~.. ~ '! '"'Q
~ 1
'F ..., ,.. u:n_ .,u.1e
_.._ ,..._.Ju
~..:i, a.Lo ..h - m.o-r-:-~
\..,_lil.1. E.
G R C;.CE . .b~.L\~L~ORO
-Q r1~ ( '! c Y . ;, . ,::,

l.. ~- L ~ .L:, J ~' Lr f)
Hall of ,.Justice nATE: --- ---IDLL.!.__ 2mr------
HY:____ /~!=_'_fi_m_e.__s_:o_~_~
__,
)2
TABLE OF VIOLATIONS 1 AND PENALTIES 2 PROVIDED UNDER
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165
COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002
Provision Type of Violation Penalty Provided 3

Section 4, par I Unauthorized importation of Life imprisomnent to
any dangerous drug death
Section 4, par 2 Unauthorized importation of 12 years, I day to 20
any controlled precursor and years imprisomnent
essential chemical
Section 4, par 3 Importation of any dangerous Maximum penalty
drug, controlled precursor, or under this section4
essential chemical through the
use of a diplomatic passport or
any other means involving
official status intended to
facilitate unlawful entry of the
san1e
Section 4, par 4 Organizes, manages, or Maximum penalty
finances the illegal importation under this section
of dangerous drugs, controlled
precursor, or essential chemical
Section 4, par 5 Protector/coddler of any 12 years, I day to 20
violator of Section 4 years imprisonment
Section 5, par I Sale, trade, administer, Life imprisomnent to
dispense, giving, or distributing death
dangerous dn1g, or act as
broker in such transactions
Section 5, par 2 Sale, trade, administer, 12 years, I day to 20
dispense, giving, or distributing years imprisomnent
controlled precursor or
essential chemical, or act as Maximum penalty if a)
broker in such transactions transaction made within
I 00 meters from school ~
b) minors or mentally
incapacitated
individuals used as
nmners, couners,
messengers, or any
other capacity
com1ected with the
transaction; c) victim of
1
Does not include other violations by records custodian , law enforcement officials. government
officials, and prosecutors with regard to confidentiality of records, or testifying in, or prosecution of,
drugs cases (see Sections 72, 91 and 92)
2
Fines and accessory penalties (e .g., disqualification from office, etc) are omitted
3
If accused is a government official or employee, and is found guilty of the unlawful acts of R.A. No.
9165, the maximum penalty of such unlawful act is to be imposed (see Section 28)
4
"Maximum penalty" would refer to the maximum penalty provided in the section or provision referred J ,1
to , be it death or imprisonment for the stated number of years \ ./)
/
2
the offense is a minor or

mentally incapacitated
person, or dangerous
drug/controlled
precursor/essential
chemical is proximate
death of victim
Section 5, par 6 Organizes, manages, finances Maximum penalty
activities mentioned in Section under this section
5
Section 5, par 7 Protector/coddler of any 12 years, 1 day to 20
Section 6, par 1 Maintain den, dive, or resort Life imprisomnent to
where dangerous drugs are death
used or sold
Section 6, par 2 Maintain den, dive, or resort 12 years, 1 day to 20
where controlled precursor or years imprisonment
essential chemical is used or
sold Maximum penalty if
dangerous drug 1s
administered, delivered,
or sold to a minor who
1s allowed to use the
same in such place;
Death if dangerous
drugs is the proximate
cause of death of person
using said location
6
Section 7 Awareness by the 12 years, 1 day to 20
den/dive/resort employee or years imprisonment
visitor of said den/dive/resort
of the nature of the
den/dive/resort m connection
with activities mentioned m
Section 6
Section 8, par 1 Unauthorized manufachlfer of Life imprisonment to
any dangerous drug death
Section 8, par 2 Unauthorized manufacturer of 12 years, 1 day to 20
any controlled precursor and years imprisonment
essential chemical
14-
3

8
Section 9 Unauthorized diversion of any 12 years, 1 day to 20
controlled precursor or years imprisomnent
essential chemical
Section 10, par Delivery; possess10n with 12 years, 1 day to 20
1 intention to deliver~ or years imprisonment
manufacture with intent to
deliver equipment, instmment,
apparatus, and other
paraphernalia for dangerous
drugs, with the knowledge that
the same will be used to grow,
manufacture, prepare, test,
package, or store any
dangerous dn1g and/ or
controlled precursor and
essential chemical
Section 10, par If equipment etc. mentioned in 6 months, 1 day to 4
2 Section 10, par 2 are used to years
inject, ingest, inhale or
otherwise introduce dangerous
drug into the human body
Section 10, par Use of mmor or mentally Maximum penalty
3 incapacitated person to deliver under this section
such equipment etc for
dangerous dn1gs
Section 11 Unauthorized possess1011 of Life imprisonment to
dangerous dn1gs death if amounts are:
- 10 grams or more
of opium,
morphine, heroin,
cocaine/cocaine
hydrochloride,
marijuana resm
or marijuana
resin oil, or other
dangerous drugs
as detennined by
the Dangerous
Dn1gs Board
- 50 grams or more
of shabu
15
4
- 500 grams or
more of
..
marlJU3.11a
Life imprisonment if
shabu is 10 grams but
less than 50 grams
20 years, 1 day to life

imprisonment if opium,
morphine, heroin,
.. .
manJuana resm or resm
oil, shabu, or other
dangerous drugs as
detennined by the DDB
is 5 grams but less than
10 grams; 300 grams
but less than 500 grams
of marijuana
12 years, 1 day to 20
years imprisonment if
op mm, morphine,
heroin, marijuana resin
or resin oil, shabu, or
other dangerous dn1gs
as determined by the
DDB is less than 5
grams; less than 300
grams of marijuana
Section 12 Unauthorized possession of any 6 months, 1 day to 4
equipment etc fit or intended years of imprisonment
for smoking, consummg,
administering, injecting,
ingesting, or introducing
dangerous drugs to the body
Section 13 Unauthorized possession of any Maximum penalty
dangerous dn1g during a party, provided for in Section
social gathering, meeting, or in 11
the proximate company of at
least 2 persons
Section 14 Unauthorized possession of any Maximum penalty
equipment etc fit or intended provided for in Section
for smoking, consummg, 12
administering, injecting,
ingesting, or introducing
dangerous dn1gs to the body,
during a parties, social
gatherings, meetings, or m
5
proximate company of at least

2 persons
Section 15 Persons arrested for violations 1st offense - minimum
under R.A. No. 9165 other than of 6 months
Section 11 who tested positive rehabilitation 111 a
for use of any dangerous dn1g goven1ment center
in a confirmatory test
2nd offense - 6 years I
day to 12 years
Note: not applicable for imprisonment
persons arrested tmder any
other offenses other than
violations of R .A. No . 9165
(e.g., murder, rape, etc) - Dela
Cruz v People, GR No. 200748,
23 July 2014, citing Social
Justice Society v Dangerous
Dn1gs Board, GR No. 15 7870,
3 November 2008
Section 16, par Unauthorized planting, Life imprisonment to
1 cultivating, or culture of death
marIJuana, opmm poppy, or
any other plant classified as a,
or may be a source of
dangerous dn1g
Section 16, par Organizes, manages, or Maximum penalty
3 finances activities mentioned in under this section
Section 16
Section 16, par Protector/coddler of any 12 years, 1 day to 20
4 violator of Section 16 years imprisonment
Section 17 Practitioner, manufacturer, 1 year, 1 day to 6 years
wholesaler, importer, imprisonment
distributor, dealer, or retailer
who violates or fails to comply
with the maintenance and
keeping of original records of
transactions involving
dangerous drugs and/ or
essential chemicals 111
accordance with Section 40,
RA9165
Section 18 Unnecessary prescription of 12 years, 1 day to 20
dangerous dn1g to any person years imprisonment
whose physical or
physiological condition does
not require the use or in the
dosage prescribed therein, as
6
determined by the DDB

Section 19 Unauthorized making or Life imprisonment to
issuance of prescription or any death
other writing purporting to be a
prescription for any dangerous
drug
Section 26 Attempting or conspiring to a) Same penalty as
import, sell, trade, administer, prescribed for the
deliver, distribute, transport, or comm1ss10n of the
manufacture of dangerous unlawful act
drugs, controlled precursor, and
essential chemical; b) maintain
den, dive, or resort where
dangerous dn1gs are used; or c)
cultivation or culture of plants
that are sources of dangerous
drugs
Section 27 Any public officer or employee Life imprisomnent to
who misappropriates, death
misapplies or fails to account
for confiscated, seized or
surrendered dangerous dn1gs,
plant sources of dangerous
drugs, controlled precursors
and essential chemicals,
instn1ments/paraphernalia
and/or laboratory equipment
including the proceeds or
properties obtained from the
unlawful acts as provided for in
RA9165
Section 29 Person found guilty of planting Death)
any dangerous dn1g and/or
essential chemical
Section 32 Violation of any regulation 6 months, 1 day to 4
duly issued by the DDB years imprisonment
pursuant to RA9165
5
Only provision of R.A. No. 9165 where the straight penalty of death is imposed
Jg
~
"
t\ :
'---<
:
.I'"' '"' ,\ ~' ,,, ,, EY " l,
,t, .. ... '. :, 1
PERTINENT PROVISIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7659

AMENDING PROVISIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972
Section 13. Sections 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9, of Article II of Republic Act No. 6425,

as amended, known as the Dangerous Drugs Act 1972, are hereby amended to
read as follows:
"Sec. 3. Importation of Prohibited Drugs. - The penalty of reclusion

perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to
ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless
authorized by law, shall import or bring into the Philippines any
prohibited drug.
"Sec. 4. Sale, Administration, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation

of Prohibited Drugs. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a
fine from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be
imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall sell,
administer, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or
transport any prohibited dn1g, or shall act as a broker in any of such
transactions.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 20 of this Act to the contrary,

if the victim of the offense is a minor, or should a prohibited dn1g
involved in any offense under this Section be the proximate cause of the
death of a victim thereof, the maximum penalty herein provided shall be
imposed.
"Sec. 5. Maintenance of a Den, Dive or Resort for Prohibited Drug Users.

- The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five
hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any
person or group of persons who shall maintain a den, dive or resort where
any prohibited drug is used in any form or where such prohibited drugs in
quantities specified in Section 20, Paragraph 1 of this Act are found.

the maximum of the penalty shall be imposed in every case where a
prohibited drug is administered, delivered or sold to a minor who is
allowed to use the same in such place.
Should a prohibited drug be the proximate cause of the death of a person

using the same in such den, dive or resort, the maximum penalty herein
provided shall be imposed on the maintainer notwithstanding the
provisions of Section 20 of this Act to the contrary.
"Sec. 7. Manufacture of Prohibited Drug. - The penalty of reclusion

perpetua to death and fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to
/CJ
2
authorized by law, shall engage in the manufacture of any prohibited

dn1g .
"Sec. 8. Possession or Use of Prohibited Dn1gs . - The penalty of

reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred
thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person
who , unless authorized by law, shall possess or use any prohibited drug
subject to the provisions of Section 20 hereof
"Sec. 9. Cultivation of Plants which are Sources of Prohibited Dn1gs. -

The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five
person who shall plant, cultivate or culture any medium Indian hemp,
opium poppy (papaver somniferum), or any other plant which is or may
hereafter be classified as dangerous drug or from which any dangerous
drug may be manufactured or derived.
The land or portions hereof, and/or greenhouses on which any of said

plants is cultivated or cultured shall be confiscated and escheated to the
State, unless the owner thereof can prove that he did not know such
cultivation or culture despite the exercise of due diligence on his part.
If the land involved in is part of the public domain, the maximum of the
penalties herein provided shall be imposed upon the offender."
Section 14. Sections 14, 14-A, and 15 of Article III of Republic Act No. 6425 ,
as amended, known as the Dangerous Dn1gs Act of 1972, are hereby amended
to read as follows:
"Sec. 14. Importation of Regulated Drugs. - The penalty of reclusion

authorized by law, shall import or bring any regulated dn1g in the
Philippines.
"Sec. 14-A. Manufacture of Regulated Drugs. - The penalty of reclusion

ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, lmless
authorized by law, shall engage in the manufacture of any regulated dn1g.
"Sec. 15 . Sale, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Transportation

and Distribution of Regulated Drugs. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua
to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten
million pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized
by law, shall sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any regulated
drug.

if the victim of the offense is a minor, or should a regulated dn1g n
o(,o
3
involved in any offense under this Section be the proximate cause of the
death of a victim thereof, the maximum penalty herein provided shall be
imposed."
Section 15. There shall be incorporated after Section 15 of Article III of

Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, known as the Dangerous Dn1g Act of
1972, a new section to read as follows:
"Sec. 15-a. Maintenance of a den, dive or resort for regulated dn1g users.
- The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five
person or group of persons who shall maintain a den, dive or resort where
any regulated dn1gs is used in any form , or where such regulated dn1gs in
quantities specified in Section 20, paragraph 1 of this Act are found.

the maximum penalty herein provided shall be imposed in every case
where a regulated dn1g is administered, delivered or sold to a minor who
is allowed to use the same in such place .
Should a regulated dn1g be the proximate cause of the death of a person
using the same in such den, dive or resort, the maximum penalty herein
provided shall be imposed on the maintainer notwithstanding the
provisions of Section 20 of this Act to the contrary."
Section 16. Section 16 of Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended,
known as the Dangerous Dn1gs Act of 1972, is amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 16. Possession or Use of Regulated Dn1gs. - The penalty of

reclusion perpehrn to death and a fine ranging from five hundred
thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person
who shall possess or use any regulated dn1g without the corresponding
license or prescription, subject to the provisions of Section 20 hereof."
Section 17. Section 20, Article IV of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended,
known as the Dangerous Dn1gs Act of 1972, is hereby amended to read
as follows:
Sec. 20. Application of Penalties, Confiscation and Forfeiture of the

Proceeds or Instnunents of the Crime. - The penalties for offenses under
Section 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 of Article II and Sections 14, 14-A, 15 and 16 of
Article III of this Act shall be applied if the dangerous dn1gs involved is
in any of the following quantities:
1. 40 grams or more of opium;

2. 40 grams or more of morphine;
3. 200 grams or more of shabu or methylamphetamine
hydrochloride;
4. 40 grams or more of heroin;
5. 750 grams or more of indian hemp or marijuana; 2, /
4
6. 50 grams or more of marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil;

7. 40 grams or more of cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride; or
8. In the case of other dangerous drngs, the quantity of which is far
beyond therapeutic requirements, as determined and promulgated
by the Dangerous Drugs Board, after public consultations/hearings
conducted for the purpose.
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities,

the penalty shall range from prision correccional to reclusion perpetua
depending upon the quantity.
Every penalty imposed for the unlawful importation, sale, administration,

delivery, transportation or manufacture of dangerous drugs, the
cultivation of plants which are sources of dangerous drugs and the
possession of any opium pipe and other paraphernalia for dangerous
dn1gs shall carry with it the confiscation and forfeiture, in favor of the
Goven1ment, of all the proceeds of the crime including but not limited to
money and other obtained thereby and the instn1ments or tools with
which it was committed, unless they are the property of a third person not
liable for the offense, but those which are not of lawful commerce shall
be ordered destroyed without delay. Dangerous dn1gs and plant sources
of such dn1gs as well as the proceeds or instnnnents of the crime so
confiscated and forfeited in favor of the Government shall be turned over
to the Board for proper disposal without delay.
Any apprehending or arresting officer who misappropriates or misapplies

or fails to accotmt for seized or confiscated dangerous dn1gs or plant-
sources of dangerous drugs or proceeds or instn1ments of the crime as are
herein defined shall after conviction be punished by the penalty of
reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred
thousand pesos to ten million pesos."
Section 18. There shall be incorporated after Section 20 of Republic Act No .

6425, as amended, known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, a new section
to read as follows :
"Sec. 20-A. Plea-bargaining Provisions. - Any person charged under any

provision of this Act where the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua to
death shall not be allowed to avail of the provision on plea bargaining."
Section 19. Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, known as the
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, is hereby amended to read as follows :
"Sec. 24. Penalties for Goverrunent Official and Employees and Officers
and Members of Police Agencies and the Anned Forces, 'Planting' of
Evidence. - The maximum penalties provided for Section 3, 4(1), 5(1 ), 6,
7, 8, 9, 11 , 12 and 13 of Article II and Sections 14, 14-A, 15(1), 16 and
19 of Article III shall be imposed, if those found guilty of any of the said
22
5
offenses are government officials, employees or officers, including

members of police agencies and the anned forces.
Any such above government official, employee or officer who is found guilty of
"planting" any dangerous dn1gs punished in Sections 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 13 of
Article II and Sections 14, 14-A, 15 and 16 of Article III of this Act in the
person or in the immediate vicinity of another as evidence to implicate the latter,
shall suffer the same penalty as therein provided."
23
CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES
SENATE
SECOND REGULAR S ESSION

JULY 26 TO OCTOBER 5, 1993
VOLUME 1, NOS. 1 - 27
... . . ...
,,=-"' .
.:t'
Prepared by the Debate Reporters Division

and the
Legislative Publications Staff
Legislative Operations, Secretariat of the Senate
under the supervision of
SECRETARY EDGARDO E. TUMAN GAN
Wednesday, August 4, 1993 RECORD OF THE SENA TE !Jill Reimposing Dcarlz Penalty
Senator Maceda: Thank you. INDIAN HEMP, OPIUM POPPY (PAPA VER SOMNIFERUM)
OR ANY OTHER PLANT WHICH IS OR MA Y I-IEREAITER
The Presiding Officer ~Senator Aquino): May we hear BE CLASSIFIED AS A DANGEROUS DRU(! BY Tl-ff. DAN-
from the Sponsor. GEROUS DRUGS BOARD OR FROM WHICH ANY DAN-
GEROUS DRUG MAY BE MANUFACTURED OR DE-
Senator Herrera: We have no objection. But I thought RIVED ."
tliat, maybe, a compromise can be made, if the Gentleman from
Lagunaarn.l Manila would agree, that on tl1e state of presumptive The P1esicli11g Officer [Senator Aquino): Is there any
drug-trafficking, we can pu11ish mere possession under the objection? [Silence) Hearing none, the amcnLlment is approved.
caption "Possession nf Certain Dangerous Drugs in Substantial
Quantities." Senator Herrera: Section 14, Article 194 of the s:une Code
is hereby reenacted and <unended to read as follows:
Senator Maceda: Mr. President, does tJ1e Gentleman not
think tliat, considering tl1e seriousness oftl1e penalty that is being "ARTICLE 194. MAINTENANCE OF A DEN, DIVE,
imposed - life imprisonment to deatll - the better part or RESORT OR SIMILAR PLACE FOR DANGEROUS DRUG
discretion would be to wait for tl1e distingnished Chairnlirn to USERS. - THE PENALTY OF RECLUSION PERPETUA TO
make some studies on the matter mid let us know? I do not think DEATH AND A FINE RANGING FROM FIVE HUNDRED
it will take him weeb or months to do so. THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00) TO ONE MILLION FIVE
I-IUNDREDTt-IOUSAND PESOS (Pl,500,000.00) SHALL RE
Senator Herrern: I have no objection to that , Mr. Presi- IMPOSED UPON ANY PERSON OR GROUP OF PERSONS
dent. I am just guided by the statement of tl1e Chairmm1 of the WHERE THE USEOFTHEDANGEROUS DRUGS THERE-
Committee, published in the newspapers today, that he is AT IS THE PROX IM ATE CAUSE OF THE DEATH OF A
appealing that we approve this bill the soonest possible time. So PERSON OR WHERE SUCH DANGEROUS DRUG TS AD-
I Uiought that in line with the wishes and the appeal of our MINISTERED, DELIVERED OR SOLD TO A MINOR WHO
Chairman, and in that spirit, we will have to make a decision on IS ALLOWED TU USE THE SAME IN SUCH PLACE OR
this issue now . Anyway, as I said, I have no objection. WHERE SUCH DANGEROUS DRUGS IN QUANTITIES
SPECIFIED IN THE PRECEDING ARTICLE l lJ2 UF THJS
Senator Tolentino: Mr. President, I tl1ink there are otJ1er CODE ARE FOUND."
parts of thewnendments being proposed by Senator Herrera that
cm1 tie considered. I was asking for a suspension only of this The Presiding Officer [Senator Aquino): ls t11ere <m y
particular item. We have already two under reservation, the objection'! [Silence] Hearing none, the<une1H hnrn t isaprro ved.
question of religious anti another item, and this can be a th ire!
reservation . We can continue witJ1 the other p;1rts of the We now go ro the last amendment.
proposetl amendment:; of Senator Herrera.
Senator Herrera: Sec tion Vi, J\rticle 1~I '.'i of the s;une Code
The Pre.~iding Officer [Senator Aquino] : What we can Lio is hereby reenacted anu ;unended to read as rollows:
is hold in aheyance Article 192,,t'lut we can proceeu. There are
only U.1fee others. So, Senator Henera will continue with Article "ARTICLE t<J). MISCELLANEOUS f'!W\IISION. - ANY
193. PERSON CHARGED UNDER TW:'. PROVISlUNS OF THIS
'JTilJE OF THIS BOOK SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED TO
Senator Herrera: Thm1k you , Mr. President. Section J 3, J\V /\IL UF Tl-D::: PROVISION ON PLEA-B ARGAINING."
Article 1lJ3 of the same Code is hereby reena cted and amended
lo read as follows: The Presiding Officer [Senator Aquino] : ls there any
ob1ectiu111
"ARTICLE JlJ3. CULTIVATJON OF ?I.ANIS WHICH
ARE SOURCES OF DANGEROUS DRUGS. -THE PENALTY Senator Maceda: Mr. Presiden t..
OF RECLUSION PERPETUA TO DEATH AND A FINE
RANGING FROM. FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS The Presid ing Officer [Senator Aquino]: Senator Maceda
(P500,000 .00) TO ONE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOU- is recognized.
SAND PESOS (Pl,500,000.00) SHALL l3E IMPOSED UPON
ANY PERSON WHO SHALL KNOWINGLY PLANT, CUL- Senator Maceda: Mr. President, in the United States where
TIVATE, OR CULTITRE ON ANY MEDIUM 50 PLANTS OF we have had a little experience, there is such a thing formally
177
25
- -
- - -
.
""" t\.
RECORD OF THE SENAT E Vol. I. Nu. fi
c:t! kd pica bargaining . That is why I was asking til e distin- rllat the re is th i~ pro vision where the y plea-h:irgai11 for <1 lesse r
guished Chairman of the Committee on Jus tice, who is a offe nse . tu he ch;ugeJ for lesser otfr nse. Sc, kt us cllcck on 1J1 i,.
pr:1ctirioner. whe the r plea bargaining, which is stateu he n:, is
sw11 e1hing that is provided by exis1 in g laws in o ur jurisdiction. Out l would sugges1 tilat il'til erc is such a rrovi,ion, thi s ha s
Ami ifno1, am! 1he answer W<L' "wat1" or a "IJol" then. pro babl y to be ahroga ted in the case o r drug-related cases hec:1use th is is
11iis co ncep1 of plea bargaining has 10 be ddinell or explained. being abused. Th e truth of 1he matter is tlut !his panicul:1r
pro visi o n is a resull of our publi c hearing and 1ilis is th e prnposai
Senator Herrera: Mr. Preside nl , thi s is pro vided in 1l1t: of ou r police :1ge11Lie:-..
prucedure but cJ1ere is a rampan t abuse of plea barg;1ining. l
recall wheIJ we condueiell :1 sludy on rhe case of Q11 ezon Ci1y. Senator Maceda : M r. Pn:., ident. as ] said. in pri11,ip le l
in l 1J<J I , oul of 5<) cases. ;ill lwd he en downgr:llled ;111d rc.,ol ved cen ai nl y do no 1di s:1g rt'.c' with 11i:11in1he s;1111e w:1y :"we wrn1l d
:1.'i1 result of pl e: 1harg:1ini1Jg. This i,, :ilso Ill e complaint of m:111 y l ike lo see ;i s illl <llion wlie re 1hcn: i\ !Hl ple;1 bar_l!:iin ing from
or our police officers . Mally oft he cc1se., ha ve been downgr:nlc<.J. lllllrdcr to /Jomicide, k l US ,\[I)', o f pellpk of l.ht: C:1l ;1 u:1li Df Ille:
111ar is wliy rll ere w;1., , if I :un no r mistakeri, an agreemenr whi ch /'\fariki nn type or Ille normal plea h; ug:i illing of ilk12:tl re crni11;;r-:
later wa.-.; implemented hy l11e [kparun crH of Justice. rlwt gc uing away wirhju.-.;c ii min or vioJarioll of the Lahor Code. I:
/JeIJcd(mli. prnsec111or., should no r agree 10 any pk;1harga ining. is all 0 1er Ille la11dsc;1pe. TJJ cre is 11 0 ques ri on . Tlw is ;1 problem
111;11 is prescn1 in ourjudici;d .\'f'Slem .
Senaror Lina : Mr. Presidc..:11<.
B111;1s I s;11d. WL' ll ave ro he ; 1 li eUc careful now wJ;cn we: arl'
The Prt'.sidin.~ Officer [Se n:11or Aquino/: .)'e11:11 or Lin:1 i., 1:tlki11g nbllLll nor ;i i/owing <1 plea b:1rrain in;.> wlie11 lht de;11 1;
recogniZLd . pe11a /1y is invo!:cd.
St:'na tn r Lin:l : \Vill i tile pcrrr:.i:).\i\Hl or the ( lt111!unen Oil St: u ~Hor }-ie rr<:ra: ~Jr PrL' ""i. h~ ;1t :.: :1! ! h L' .1."k Uk' .";;.:crciari:d
Ii><' Floor. in tilt' Rules lli' Cou 1, there is no pruv i.-;i;rn .in plc;1 !{; )fuv jd \.. i.h \'.' '. l h tJ it l<11f..:.". . n1 { \ 1 i1 ~- ! )! ~ '. f !U '-.:UL: i !1t- i-., \ l ..: .
b:1rgaioiug. But in praL'licc. tlli:rc is thi~ informal :1rr<lfl!,!L'111::.n1
b,: tli'ee:1the ti.-;c al :ind !lit' f;1wyer o f the :iu :u.-;e d. or someti mts,
lli: :wtcn t!ie pol ice m:1n <lllU til e fr.c:d 10 ;ig r L'l' Clli till' ' fll.'<.:ific
,J.:1rge. T:\-tll this is i10[ in Cl>llS \lll<ll !CC With till' f~uic .'> '11.l'oun
.'11> 1hat it we in -.:oq1ornk :1 flrtl \ision in thi s proposed bill. ., . .u -.: ... :1 lt { I, :.' L.: ...: LT:~~- ,
.kknmvh:dgin~ l ht' pk -harg:1ining :1 rra11 ge rn c11 1. thi.:11 \1't' wii!
hl' f,;rn1ali zillg \I f kg:ili::in .~ 1!J e plc:1 h:trg:1i11ing th;!! is !i;ippv n ..
;n g, hu1 wllich i\ il kg;d . But -..1rictly ;pe al, in g. in !Ill' R11h: -.. ut' s~ ll;1L1: lit:iT;;' r :. : ~, : : 1. ,! ) . '' i1,;: dJ1 ; ~ ' ;: .:;>1 :.,,-, .> f
( 'o un , th ere is Ill> pL.:' a h:1rl!;1i ni n~. 1 i!L.: \ ~ eoo k 2 \)t ~he Re v i:-- l~-.. t ~l_. , ... l t 'i. itl \ :~ 11 \.\ .r -,,!;h.: li th~
pn.:ci:d i l i.~ ;1rticks ;ire p rup\>~.c d !'! l) l1 i cnH tt ..; r~:i:HJ ':'.. i i.i ~ 'PJU iH
S,; na tor Ma..:t:ch;:.
..
\\' l'll. ill<it SU1'i()Ofh
~l
wh;1; r l\';\ S :;;1 yini!.
- :u1d n1l1c: prnl:ihi 1ivc drug,:" !< ) ". '11ZT1\ [. : ;: : i:n_:., fl:l:t :ivc 1;;
l\!r. !'res itkm , 1h:1i l cm \Ce m y way ck:1r t1\w:inis :i;.:1'<.:l:i11:: 1,) I IA NC iL!-!.Ul.iS d11J~~s''.
1hi >. Dur tile .:rn iccpt olpk;1 h;1rg:tinin0. if it is hli1ig fnnn:ili1.d
1111dcr 1ilis hill. mu-;t now he formalized a 11d dc i illcd. !Vle:1!1ing The !'res iding Offinr IS1..'il:iltlr Aqui1wj : /\ !'~ ;!;vrc :1!1i'
to s:1y. we rder :1g<iin to the fact rh at 1;; i1he r i11 effic: ic'.l1l :111d/o r ohkc1i,l11< 1 i.\'t/('111'1' ] lle:1rin;,; li<llW. ti11'. :1111tlll1l.1l'!d i,; :1p
c,irrup t poliLe me n. :ind lih' ll prosecu tors hit r>llL' wi1h :1 111:1x i- PIO\'L' t C'
InlflllL'li:1rl!l', even if th e evidence d:ies nCH "'"1rr:u!l. m p r q1;;r:i
ri on fur plc: 1 h:1.rg:;ining. i ll1L':1n lt1 ~;i y. l crn tltl >L'C tl! i:, r,.;iliy
work in g <llll 1t' wt c:111 re aso n:ih ly ht.: ;1>,111-..:d 11i;11 wl!,:i ;,
prnsec uior files a c1s..: wh ich eniai ls pe1wlt y <lf dc:1il1. 1h:1: i., Se n a t or lif.:' t'l't: !:::1 { ij l" H ! f~ 1\ : : . i : .. 1:1 . '-l : :Ct:;.:t'i.lll :~:
reall y tJit \L'rio us charge w: u-ra 111 ed by lilt L'\'idcncL . l\11l 111 ~ e .: 1ion s ol 1hv hi P :1CL'( 1rdi ,;ci )
pr:1c1icc. mus1 of us know that reall y. t:ve n if the y do no t i1 :11 c
suffi c ien t cvidellL't, they wil l jus l file the m:1 xin11 1111 ca.-;c prcp: i- Thc l'rl'~ id in g OlTinr :\ . :::.t(ir ;\ "!" ' ' \. ~.: .Lt. . .
r:1tory to illlormal plea h;ug:iini ng. OlljL'C l H>lls'' iSf/ ,.!;1 '(' i I k :1:ir..
ill ' 11 . ' : i.. "'
prove d .
Senat o r Ht:'rrtra : Mr. Pres iuent , I think tlll\ !.\just :111 ;;1 t1 e:-
otci1ceking o ut. Thi\ isa usu :Ll prau ice, mu! I :1111 :1hi1 c(111Jidc111 The Majorily l .eadcr 1 ~ :n1io' 11i zed .
178
~ONGRESS OF THE l'tllLlrnnwv
, S ".' K A. T ~
:coRbS,:;i.'l'\ ii A HCH l v ES DIVJSION
' 1 -- Q .~ ~i ~-,:fL'1
l . .r - ~~uJ.. \ .t1. 1.. LJ
T'GM
5 Republic of the Philippines
SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES
S E N A T E
Manila
COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTION AL AMENDMENTS

~ (Bicameral Conference Co mm i ttee)
D A T E November 24, 19 9 3
T I M .E 8:00 PM r .,...,.. . ~
VENUE Senators' Lounge, Ma n i la Hotel
PRESENT (SENATE PANEL)
HON. ARTURO M. TOLENTINO - Chairman

HON. ERNESTO F. HERRERA - Member
HON. VICENTE C. SOTTO III - Member
HON. ERNESTO M. MACEDA - Member
(HOUSE PANEL)
HON. PABLO P. GA.RCIA - Chairman

HON. ROQUE R. ABLAN, JR. - Member
HON. ANTONIO V. CUENCO - Member
HON. ANDREA D. DOMINGO - Member
HON. LALLY Lfl.UREL - TRINIDAD - Member
SENATORS STAFF
MS. LUZVIMINDA Sebastian - Office of Sen. Tolentino

MS. VERONICA A. WONG - - do -
MS. EMILY CASIS - - do -
MS. VICAR TOLENTINO - - do -
MR. JOSHUA TOLENTINO - - do -
MR. GERRY LAURETA - Office of Sen. Rasul
MS. MARY ANN MARIREZ - - do -
M.R. VIC VITTO - Office of Sen. Herrera
MR. HISULER - - do -
MS. TITA NICOLAS DO
MR. RAY OLAGDER --Office of Sen.-Biazon
MR. ARMAND SEBASTIAN - Office of Sen. Romulo
SECRETARIAT (SENATE)
ATTY. ROGELIO M. TA-ASAN - Leg. Committee Secretary

MS. AIDA R. GUINHAWA - Leg. Commi ttee Stenographer
MS. LILIA A. SAPIDA - - do -
MS. MARIA T. CAJANDAB - - do -
MR. CELERINO ABAD - - do -
MR. GINO CABANDING - Leg. Page
MS. AYNS BARHIOS - EDP
MR. HIZAR SA.7{MIENTO - Audio
MR. JOSE M. LANUZA - Audio
SECRETARIAT (HOUSE)
MS. GLORIA R. MADERAZO-ALDEGUER - LSO VI

MS. MA. TERESITA A. ROSARIO R. ELEAZAR - LSO VI
MR. HECTOR L. SINAJON - Com. Res. III
MR. GIL E. CORTES - Com. Res. III
MS. JEAN M. BARREOO - Stenographer
MS. BETH S. BONGON - Stenographer
MS. LOLIT ZP.MORA - Stenographer
:NOT TO BE TAKEN OUT OF THE

I:E '.:.:Ol:DJ J\ND l..::CIIIVES DIVISION
() }
') .
DE ATH PENALTY BILLS
L . Sapida Il -2 l~ov. 2Ll 1 1993 9~02 p . m. 4.
SEN. SO 'l"l'O . Kung ta wag in nga k.am:L ni -- Sen2to1:
( 1- ":...l' ',_,;' C' h 1-\.... ,......-::> 1-

:J ,;.1 .)
/
REP . CUENCO.
THE CHAIRMAN (SEN . TOLE NTINO). Teka , t eka muna,
baki t meron tayong procedure dito
THE CH AIRMAN (REP . GARCIA). Ha? What page?

1
r:f fJ E CHAIR MAN ( SE J~J . TOLENTINO) I torHJ
Ple a - Ba.r~ga:Lnin. 9 .
..---.. THE ( .R,..,P

! C.1
. Cl-\.HCIJl.. ) . ba. iyan l"' ;
.J. ..i..
Senator Herrera? (laughing) .
REP~ CUE NCO. That's new .
TEE CH AIRMAN ( SEN . TO LENT I NO) . l"lal a ~ba r yar1 sa
c :c ig inal l avl'?
THE CH AIRMAN (REP . GARCIA) . No, it ' s not thera.
SEI~ .. I-IERRE :R.A . May isang problema dito like in 19 S l
n a g -co ndu ct kami ng study n 1 yan. L\l c1 rn rn -o sa fift ~}'-- ni n. e
cases in Quezon City lah a t p ur o p lea- bargaining? Ang
puro downgrade d . Diyan sa Maka t i of the
fifty-eight, fifty-se~en.
Neron lang konting correction . Si guro itong sa Page
1
r1atir1 ' y ung 0
s ;! l ~an}-:- ~Jcov- i 1~3ior1 i f.
THE CHAIRMAN (REP . GARCIA). 001 t ha t's good .
11 C\t i n. ! yu11 -9 _p iece Of ev ide11ce n.
THE CHAIRMAN ( REP . GARC I A) . Oo, sige take note, 19.
SE~ . HER L~ER J\. .. And after 6 inser t natin ' y ung 7 . Sa
Section 24 - The maximum penalties provide d for i n Sect i ons
3, 4, 5, 6 and then 7 . Nagkul ang ang 7, e . Dito naman sa

'Y
..
'(' ""I , "
I
D ~ ATH PE NAL~Y BILLS
II-2 9: 0 2 LJ . rn . "
.,;
13'' . So it should be DRUGS PUNIS EED I N SECTIONS 3 , 4, 8, 9
and then "AND 13" .
THE CHAIRMAN (REP . GARCI A). Anc bang thirteen?
SEN . HERRE:RA . Sec t i or1. One yar1, sectio~1 .
I - dele t e natin 'yung ll a.nan 9 "AND 1

Yun
lang. s (
grammatical error lan:J.
THE CHAIRMAN (REP . GARCIA ) . Yeah, Plant ing Evid ence.
SE N. SOTTO . So wha t is t h e pr e v ision or feedback cf
P lea - Bar gaini ng ?
THE CHAIRMAN (REP. GAR CIA) . I t 's e1i iTI i na t c d .
r H.. E" C ..w_.

T-T , T P, 1..n ,,~1 ( .:~~-t.~' l\' rp--
'"1. ;' "1:r.
1'1 f_, ]_, .. o )
. "_1 J. ".- r7
~asi i~o
"' ang ina~u
so,
SEN . SOTTO. No more compromi a es?
SEN . r1ERRSR2.I. .
na t in dito sa judi c ial system natin kasi ' yang rnga
SE N . SO'.I"l'O . La h at ng mahirap kulong , J.a h at ns
may aman plea - bargain .
'I'HE CHA I RMl'~i:J ( .l"\.., .,p

.!..!.i - GA RCIA) . The courts allov
plea - bargaining even in illegal p ossession of f~rearms?
SEN . HERRERA . Yes.
TEE C I-V\IRl'iJAN (REP . GARCIA) Becau se of th~;;
st iff penaJ.ty, plea - bargain too k u s hook .
REP. CUENCO. Para huwag na tay ong lapitan.
THE CH AIRMAN (.SEN . TO LENTI NO). Ma ra ming lumalapit sa
ati.r1 , e.,
li '.l , r1a.1c u , l a. p i t ng l ea 6 e r , .t;.~ t1r1 t a h a r:
J~ aag ad, r;) ueCie ba rlS,4 tawaga.!1 rn~.) ' :1ur1; }~ l:t\Ja. 11 ' ga.nuor1 . Sc).bihi r1
REP . CU ENCO . No more plea- ba ~gain ing .

,.
~ ' R ~} ~ 1~-<li ~%1/

~l.J;;.1 $:_ ;:: ":~ = ttt
11\ '

SENATE
TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST REGULAR SESSION
JANUARY 14 APRIL 30, 2002
VOLUME Ill
Prepared by the Legislative Debate Reporters Service

and the
Legislative Publications Service
SECRETARY OSCAR G. YAB ES
JO
Wednesday, January 16, 2002 RECORD OF THE SENA TE lnterpellations re S. No. 1858
Senator Cayetano. I would like to thank the gentleman for Senator Barbers. Before the gentleman changes, Mr.
that, Mr. President, because we have to make this very clear. President, I stand corrected. I stand corrected for my response
because it is very clear in this provision that delivering is to be
So if X boyfriend who is a pusher gives his girlfriend five considered as pushing. So even if a boyfriend delivers a
grams of shabu for love and not for any other consideration, would dangerous drug or gives it away to a friend, he could still be
he be considered a pusher? considered as a pusher.
Senator Barbers. Without any consideration, he could not Senator Cayetano. As far as that transaction is concerned.
be considered a pusher, Mr. President, but he could be charged
as a user. Senator Barbers. As far as this definition is concerned.
Senator Cayetano. No, no. Here is a known pusher, Mr. Senator Cayetano. Yes, as far as that particular transaction
President, who sells to somebody for a price. But he has a girlfriend is concerned.
and in this particular transaction, he was apprehended and is being
prosecuted. His defense is, "You know, I gave five grams of sh abu Senator Barbers. Yes, Mr. President.
not for any money or material consideration but as a gift because
I love my girlfriend." Now, would he be considered a pusher only Senator Cayetano. I thank the sponsor for that, Mr. President.
in that particular transaction? As I said, we have to make this very clear because, as we all know,
this is exactly what is happening.
Senator Barbers. Well, if he delivers the drugs to his
girlfriend, he could be considered a pusher as mentioned in this
Let me go to another section on page 15 , line 22 .
definition. When one delivers, administers or dispenses, he could
be considered a pusher.
Mr. President, it says here "Plea-Bargaining Provision." It
prohibits plea bargaining where the penalty is life imprisonment
Senator Cayetano. So it does not matter whether there is
to death . Plea bargaining is not allowed.
material consideration or not.
Mr. President, I have a strong reservation on this . Because
Senator Barbers. That is correct, Mr. President.
from the information that we have gathered-and I am sure even
my good friend and sponsor who once upon a time was the
Senator Cayetano. For as long as he is a pusher.
secretary of the Department of the Interior <mdLocal Government
also knows-most of the plea-bargaining cases happen not on
Senator Barbers. That is correct.
offenses penalized by life imprisonment or death but rather on
offenses penalized by imprisonment of less than, let us say, 12
Senator Cayetano. Now, here is a user whose penalty by
years or less than six years or thereabout.
the way is rather lenient. In fact, the first offense is merely
rehabilitation. Here is a known user; he gives away to his girlfriend
I recall that about two years when I was the chairman of the
five grams of shabu. Will that usernow become a pusherunder the
Committee on Justice and Human Rights and I was in Dumaguete,
gentleman's definition?
some of the judges there complained to me that many of those
Senator Barbers . Well, ifthe intention is not to deliverornot pushers who have been apprehended, with the consent of the
to administer but just to give away, I do not think he could be prosecutors, have engaged in plea bargaining simply because that
considered a pusher. is the law. When one engages in plea bargai ning, what happens
really is, ifa penalty, let us say, without plea bargaining involves
Senator Cayetano. He will still be a user. more than six years, a person cannot be subject to probation. But
because of plea bargaining, the crime and the penalty are reduced
Senator Barbers. A user. so much so that when the plea bargaining is approved, with the
consent of the prosecutor, the imposable penalty, more often than
Senator Cayetano. The importance of that distinction is, I not, is six years or at least not more than six years . And thereafter,
think, already quite clear because there is definitely a distinction because of the law on probation, Mr. President, this person or
in the bill between a pusher and a user. A user can escape pusher applies for probation. The lament and the complaint of
prosecution if he gives away five grams of shabu to a friend even many of the judges are, "We cannot get rid of the pushers simply
for a material consideration. Suppose I change somewhat my because the Jaw allows plea bargaining except on offenses penalized
hypothetical example. by life or death ."
69
c9 /
lnterpe/la1ions re S. No. 1858 RECORD OF THE SENA TE Vol. Ill, No. 45
So what I am pointing at, Mr. President, is, at the proper time, Also in line l 0 of the same page-"(b) Applicants for permit
would the gentleman, my good friend and sponsor, consider an to carry firearms outside of residence... ."
amendment to this-that in all cases, as long as it involves
dangerous drugs , there should be no plea bargaining at all in order Does it mean, Mr. President, that if one has a license to
to precisely make this law effective. Otherwise, if we retain ... possess, he need not be subjected to mandatOI)' drug testing
before he is given this license to possess? Because here it speaks
By the way, Section 22 of this present bill is really found in the of permit to carry firearms outside of residence.
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. It is in fact a verbatim reproduction
on plea bargaining. I am just looking at the section of the law. Senator Barbers. What is contemplated, Mr. President, is
that when one has a license to possess firearms and one does
Senator Barbers. Section 20 . not have a permit to carry the same outside of his residence, it
Senator Cayetano. Section20 of the law, ofRepublic Act No. would simply mean that he will leave his firearms in his
6425. I think this is the bane of the present provision of the law residence. So there is no dariger ofusing his fireanns in any traffic
which allows plea bargaining precisely on imposable penalty or violation or any vehicular accident for that matter. That is why
offenses punishable by life imprisonment to death. we are very specific in saying that we need random drug test
on persons applying for permit to carry firearms outside of
So at the proper time, I was wondering if my good friend and their residence.
sponsor would consider an amendment to precisely completely
disallow plea bargaining when it comes to any provision of this Senator Cayetano. I thank the gentleman for that clarification.
particular bill.
Senator Barbers. Because they are allowed to carry their
Senator Barbers. The observation of the gentleman is well- firea rms outside of their residence now. That is where the danger
taken, Mr. President. I am amenable to his proposal. We cross the lies, Mr. President.
bridge when we come to it.
Senator Cayetano. In line 18, it says: "Students ofelementary,
Senator Cayetano. Thank you, Mr. President . secondary and tertiary schools ... "
I have a few more questions, but just another point of Again, it is just a matter of clarification, Mr. President.
clarification.
Would this include all students of elementary, secondary and
On page 20, Mr. President, on mandatory drug testing. tertiary schools of public and private?
First of all, I would like to congratulate the sponsor of this bill Senator Barbers. That is correct, Mr. President. That is the
for this, Mr. President. contemplation of our proposal. As a matter offact, in the foll owing
section, we also mentioned officers and employees of public and
"(a) Applicants for driver's license." Will this apply, Mr. private offices at the same time.
President, to both professional and nonprofessional driver?
Senator Cayetano. In line 23, Mr. President, it says : "Office rs
Senator Barbers. In this particular section, Mr. President, and employees of public and private offices." I can appreciate
there is no distinction. So the application is to both professional officers and employees of public agencies, departments, bureaus
as well as nonprofessional. and offices, but I wonder about the legality ofrequiring mandatory
drug testing for employees of private entities .
Senator Cayetano. Will this also apply to applicants of
student license? This may create some constitutional problems as far as the
Senator Barbers. It will still apply, Mr. President, because private employees are concerned. They may invoke, for instance,
even ifhe is not applying for a driver's license, it is also provided freedom from search and seizure; they may invoke their freedom
that students of elementary, high school and terti ary schools of the ri ght to be left alone; and so on and so forth . Because they
should also be subjected to a random test. can say that they are being paid by private funds, they are
employed in private offices and companies and therefore there is
Senator Cayetano . I am glad, Mr. President, that my good no reason for them to undergo mandatory drug testing, except
friend has clarified that. Maybe lateron, as an editorial matter, we when the private employers themselves would require this as a
ca n make that very clear. condition of employment or continuing employment.
70


SENATE
TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST REGULAR SESSION
MAY 6 - JUNE 6, 2002
VOLUME IV
Prepared by the Legislative Debate Reporters Service

and the
Legislative Publications Service
SECRETARY OSCAR G. YABES
33
.. - '~ '
Full Text of Conf Cllee.
Reporl on S. No . 1858/H. No . 4433 RECORD OF THE SENATE Vol. JV. No. 82
ho wever into consideration the agreement to cut 24. The Conferees adopted Section 24 of the
do wn the time e lement in the procedure reconciled bill which both came from the Senate
conc erning the burning and destruction of the and House versions since they are identic al.
subject items . Mo reover, the Conferees agreed
that the manne r of disposition of the subject 25. T he Conferees adopted Section 25 of the
items which is stipulated in paragraph (b) Section reconciled bill which came from the Senate
55 on the Po wers of the Board under House version.
version shall be incorporated to some extent and
be synchronized with Section 21 of the Sen:i te 26. The Conferees adopted Section 26 of the
version , including therein the participation of a reconciled bill which came from the Senate
representative from the Department o f Just ice in version since there was no counterp art provision
every step of the procedure . in the House version .
T he Co nferees further adopted a transitory 27. T he Conferees adopted Section 27 of the

pro v ision unde r this Section whi ch reads as reconciled bill wherein the first para grap h was
fo llows: ta ken from the Sena te version whil e the se cond
paragraph was taken from the House ve rsio n.
"8) Transi tory Provision. a) W ithin
twenty-four (24) hours from the effectivity 28. The Conferee s adopted Section 28 of the
of this Act, dangerous drugs defined herein reconciled bill whi ch came from the Senate
which are presently in the possess ion of version.
[drug enforcement agency] law enforcement
agencies shall , with leave of court, be burned 29. The Conferees adopted Section 29 of the
or destro yed , in the presence of represen- reconciled bi ll whi ch came from the Senate
ta tives of the Court, Department of Justi ce, version wherein the Conference Comm ittee
Department of Hea lth and the accused and/or agreed to thi s prov ision stating that:
his/her counsel , and, b) Pending the organi -
zation of the PDEA, the custody, disposi- "Sec. 29 . Criminal Liability for Plan ting
tion, and burning or destruction of seized/ a/Evidence. - Any person who is found guilty
s urrendered dangerous d ru gs provided or "planting" any dangerous drug and/or
under this Section shall be implemented by controlled precursor and essential chemica l,
the Department of Health." rega rdl ess of quantity and purity, shall suffer
the penalty of death. "
Moreo ve r, in subparagraph (5) of this Section,
there was an approved amendment to replace the It would be significant to note that at this point
word "will " with the word "w ith''. In addition, the Conference Committee has agreed to include ,
the pluase "drug enforcement agency" shall be "p lanting of evidence" in the defi nition of terms
replaced with the phrase "law enforcement in Section 3, Article I taking into consideration
agencies" , which is found in the transitory the utmost concern on this issue b y the membe rs
provisions under subparagraph (8) of this of both panels.
Section, in orde r to cover all the other concerned
agenc ies . 30. The Conferees adop ted Section 30 to Section 32
of the reconciled bill which came from the Sena te
22 . The Conferees adopted Section 22 of the version .
reconciled bill which came from the Senate
version, but with the amendment to insert the 31 . The Conferees adopted Section 33 to Section 35
word "reward" between the words "compen- of the reconciled bill which came from the Senate
sation" and "and award" . version since there was no counterpart provis ion
in the House version .
23. The Conferees adopted Section 23 of the
reconci led bill which came from the Sena te 32 . The Conferees adopted Section 36 of the
version . reconci led bill which came from the Senate
506
c34-
Republic of the Philippines )
Legazpi City, Albay ) S.S.
\~~
N ''
IEX ''----
,l ;...
AFFIDAVIT of MERIT
I, SALVADOR A. ESTIPONA, JR., of legal age and currently

incarcerated at the BJMP Legazpi City, Albay, after having been duly
sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose that:
1. I am presently charged for violation of Section 11, Article II of

R.A. No. 9165 before the Regional Trial Court of Legazpi City, Branch
3, and I am the petitioner in the case Salvador A. Estipona, Jr. vs Hon.
Frank E. Lobrigo and People of the Philippines to be filed before the
Supreme Court.
2. On 12 July 2016, the Regional Trial Court, through Presiding

Judge Hon. Frank E. Lobrigo, denied my prayer to be allowed to plea
bargain for the lesser crime of violation of Section 12, Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165 . The denial was premised on Section 23 of R.A.
No. 9165, which prohibits plea bargaining in drug offenses. As fully
explained to me by my counsel, Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165 is
questionable for being unconstitutional.
3. I believe that I should be allowed to plea bargain especially

since I am willing to reform myself and join the government's drive to
end the drug menace in the country.
4 . Moreover, not being given the opportunity to plea bargain, I

continue to be tried for the higher offense of violation of Section 11,
Article II of R.A. No. 9165; hence, I no longer have the chance to be
released earlier, upon serving of a reduced sentence, and undergo
rehabilitation as needed, or to apply for probation. The continuation of
the criminal proceedings, if not restrained, would definitely work
injustice and irreparable damage to me.
5. In support of my petition and application for provisional relief,

I am willing to comply with what the Honorable Court may direct.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand t~ft- 1-5- 2016

September 2016, in Legazpi City, Albay.
/'
f2 ~ti/t7J11f
SALVADOR A. ESTIPONA
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this

S EP \ s 2016' , in Legazpi City, Albay, affiant personally
appearing before me and having been identified by his
pri{Dn numbtr 1//, ~ H bearing his name, ~ hotograph, and signature.
~ A- Aa1twu
IGRA2:E B'. BALAORO
Public Attorney II
(Pursuant to R.A. No. 9406) 3:)
1
REPUBLIKA NG PILIPINAS
KAGAWARAN NG KAT ARUNGAN
TANGGAPAN NG MANANANGGOL NG BAYAN
(PUBLIC ATIORNEY'SOFFICE)
DOJ-Agencies Bldg., NIA Rd., cor. East Ave. 1104 Diliman, Quezon City
Telephone Nos. 929-90-10/929-94-36 Fax No. 927-68-10/926-28-78
COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002 (R.A. 9165)

2011 to 2016
1st Sem. of
Judicial Services 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 TOTAL
2016
Cases Pending, Beginning 40,297 36,271 34,911 37,965 48,103 60,847 40,297
New Cases Received 9,251 13 ,781 20,529 30,583 37,030 40,168 151,342
pt~t1iw~:t1~11~-ti;~f~:~~~$'.1.!~n~t~aJu~n8~1:u~1:&M w~~1sArs: n~PJ()~l ~fa~$~:4~_p; %~~1~~ :1r:fMf*$;;:c~j~~ \;~:irn:1inJ.;o.t; 1?t1~1:~: ~~;
Favorable Dispositions 4,319 5,523 7,061 9,028 11,542 4,967 42,440
Unfavorable Dispositions 246 408 677 1,123 1,863 1,295 5,612
OtherDispositions 8,712 9,210 9,737 10,294 10,88 1 12,187 61,021
r;t;9. ~~1;f11~:rm1~~t~~:~~:a-~~t.rU:1~n.~,$~1ipfj'.$)rnint; :X~R:iz%~,: ~i..;:r.4x; g-~1~7i47:: :~;~Q'#:*~-$ r.,%dg~4:~~~~, ;f::C\~1;~~JJ$:}i;fp,~(~;l.Q2~o}t~'.
Cases Pending, End 36,271 34,911 37,965 48, 103 60,847 82,566 82,566
1st Sem. of
Non-Judicial Services 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 TOTAL
2016
Documents/PleadingPrepared 15,064 16,493 21,761 21,042 26,094 ll,251 111,705
OathsAdministered 10,789 11 ,812 15,583 15,069 11 ,953 5,070 70,276 ~' ..
Clients Counseled 34,961 38,276 50,497 48,831 69,227 38,309 280, 101
AssitedDuringCustodialinterrogation 816 893 1,178 1,139 1,483 507 6,0 16
AssitedDuringinquestlnvestigation 1,591 1,741 2,297 2,221 6,447 3,576 17,873
rt~i~l.i!tiffitJtjit?.~fil~r9.!J~l.J~1$r~~~~fl~a-~.;tfl;~~ui%t.;~~h ~;~~J~~X:I ~r~9;~1~. {:9.,~;axfi: ~~,~~~~'ii: ~g:1'.t:s?2"olt: '~t\fJ:~~~;vii.i~ lU:~s..~;.~:~J)
Prepared by:
{k/~
Charj,~ Laquindanum l
Statistician I
[ ~
-

RTC order prohibiting plea bargain in drug case challenged

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

RTC order prohibiting plea bargain in drug case challenged

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION

This is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of

Ultimately, the present petition seeks to have Section 23 of

SECTION 5. The Supreme Court shall have the

xxx xxx xxx

(2) Review. revise. reverse. modify. or affirm on

(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity

xxx xxx xxx

(e) All cases in which only an error or question of

xxx xxx xxx"

As the constitutional issue posed herein has far-reaching

The pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court requiring the

The Republic is in the grip of an intensified anti-drug

challenged the limits of the legal fundamentals of due process

" No person shall be deprived of fife, liberty, or property

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL DATES

1. On 12 July 2016, the Regiona l Trial Court, throug h

2. On 14 July 2016, petition er filed his Motion for

3. This petition is being filed within t he reglementary period .

4. Petitioner SALVADOR A. ESTIPONA, JR., of legal age,

Estipona versus Hon. Lobrigo 4

corner East Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City, where notices and

s. Respondent, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, is

6. Public respondent HON. FRANK E. LOBRIGO (Judge

STATEMENT OF THE MATTERS INVOLVED

7. Salvador Estipona was charged for violation of Section 11,

"That on or about the 21st day of March, 2016, in

CONTRARY TO LAW. " 1

The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 13586.

s. On 15 June 2016, the petitioner (accused in Criminal Case

9. The prosecution, in its Comment or Opposition dated 27

"Section 23. Plea-Bargaining Provision. - Any

10. On 12 July 2016, the RTC, presided by Judge Lobrigo,

have on the prosecution of illegal drugs cases pending before it. 5

"WHEREFORE, the motion to allow the accused

Hence, the present petition.

GROUNDS FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF THE PETITION

12 . Public respondent Judge Lobrigo committed grave abuse of

14. Furthermore, the assailed Orders being interlocutory in

1s. In view of the constitutional issue posed herein, direct

16. Not to mention, the instant case involves pure questions of

ISSUES PRESENTED FOR RESOLUTION

WHETHER SECTION 23 OF REPUBLIC ACT

WHETHER SECTION 23 OF REPUBLIC ACT

SUPREME COURT TO PROMULGATE RULES

WHETHER THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, AS

SECTION 23 OF R.A. NO. 9165

11. For emphasis, Section 23 of R.A . No. 9165 or the present

"Section 23. Plea-Bargaining Provision. - Any

1a. Meanwhile, Section 1, Article III of the 1987 Constitution

"No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or

19. "The equal protection clause means that no person or class of

to be reasonable, it must be shown that (1) it rests on substantial

2 i. It m ust be stressed that th e prohibition aga inst plea

22. Those accused of other heinous crimes such as Murder,

"Section 1. Pre-trial; mandatory in criminal cases. - In all

(a) plea bargaining

xxx xxx xxx"

But not those accused of violation of our present anti-drugs law .

23. At the very least, if plea bargaining is indeed not allowable

2s. That being said, we invite the attention of this Honorable

"Section 18. There shall be incorporated after Section 20