SC: Prosecutors must raise all objections to plea bargain
The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that prosecutors must raise all their objections during a plea bargain as any objections not raised are considered waived.
In a 14-page decision promulgated in January, the SC En Banc updated its Clarificatory Guidelines on Plea-Bargaining in Drug Cases, also known as the Montierro guidelines.
'In effect, where the prosecution's objection is anchored only on one or a few-but not all-grounds for opposing such proposal, all other possible grounds not thus raised shall be deemed waived,' the SC said.
The SC issued the remark as it found an individual guilty of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
He was initially charged for selling and possessing shabu.
The court said he asked the regional trial court (RTC) to allow him to plead guilty to illegal possession of drug paraphernalia, a lesser crime, for both charges.
The prosecution agreed to the possession charge but objected to the drug sale as it violated the rules of the Department of Justice (DOJ).
However, the RTC allowed the plea and convicted the man of the lesser crime.
The ruling was overturned by the Court of Appeals (CA), which said that the plea bargain required the prosecution's consent.
For its part, the SC disagreed with the Court of Appeals, citing the case of People v. Montierro, where it ruled that courts may reject the prosecution's objection to a plea bargain in drug cases if they are only objecting due to violations of DOJ rules.
However, the SC also clarified that courts do not have unlimited authority and cannot reject the objection if it is based on valid grounds.
The SC promulgated the following additional guidelines to supplement those already laid down in Montierro:
Where the prosecution's objection to an accused's motion for plea bargaining is grounded on only a few but not all possible grounds for opposing the motion, it is understood that the prosecution is waiving the grounds not thus raised
Where the prosecution has raised multiple grounds in its position, but the trial court only ruled in one but was silent with regard to the rest, the trial court shall be directed to rule on such pending issues in accordance with the principles in Montierro and this case
Where the records before the Court are incomplete to determine if it falls in any of the preceding scenarios, the trial court shall be directed to rule again on the matter following the principles laid down in Montierro and this case.
— RSJ, GMA Integrated News
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
GMA Network
a day ago
- GMA Network
Lawyer challenges DOJ circular on standards of evidence
A lawyer on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court (SC) to annul a circular of the Department of Justice (DOJ) that raised the standards of evidence. In an 8-page petition for certiorari, Hazel Meking challenged the DOJ circular dated July 2024 before the court, saying she was filing the petition on behalf of victims whose complaints have been dismissed and other lawyers. Under DC 15, dated July 2024, the standard of proof was raised from probable cause to prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction. 'Paano maging certain ang conviction, diba? Wala pang ebidensya, wala pang witness, wala pang trial. So napakahilaw pa ng kaso para i-dismiss,' Meking said in an ambush interview. (How can the conviction be certain, right? There's no evidence yet, no witnesses, no trial. So the complaint is still too premature to be dismissed.) Meking said that each prosecutor's office had a different way of implementing the circular. ''Yung iba, ang ginagawa nila, pagkakita pa lang nila, ah, walang certainty of conviction. 'Yung iba, nire-refer sa investigating prosecutor. 'Yung iba, nire-refer naman nila sa committee. Tapos doon nila tinitingnan, sila-sila lang, walang hearing. Tapos kino-close na 'yung kaso,' she said. (What others do is, upon seeing the case, they already conclude there's no certainty of conviction. Some refer it to the investigating prosecutor. Others refer it to the committee. Then they assess it among themselves, without any hearing. Then they just dismiss the complaint.) 'Yung iba, binabalik na agad sa mga impact nito sa mga biktima ng krimen dahil hindi ka makapush. Hindi makakaakyat sa korte,' she added. (Some complaints are returned to the victims. This has a huge impact on crime victims because they can't push forward. The complaint can't reach the court.) She expressed concern that some prosecutors may be using the circular as an excuse to not do their jobs. 'Kasi yung—pwede nating sabihin eh, walang certainty of conviction. 'Yun pala, nag-aayaw lang sila, dahil ayaw na lang ang trabaho nila,' she said. (Because—what we could say is, there's no certainty of conviction. But in reality, they just don't want to do the work anymore.) GMA News Online has asked the DOJ for comment. — BM, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
2 days ago
- GMA Network
SC directs Comelec to comment on NTF-ELCAC petition vs anti-discrimination reso
The Supreme Court (SC) has directed the Commission on Elections (Comelec) to comment on a petition filed by the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC) questioning the poll body's anti-discrimination resolution for Eleksyon 2025. 'Acting on the petition for Certiorai and Prohibition (With Application for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order [TRO]), the Court resolved, without giving due course to the Petition, to require the respondent to comment on the Petition and prayer for TRO within ten days from notice hereof,' the high court ruling dated May 30 read. In April, the NTF-ELCAC filed a petition for certiorari with the SC challenging Comelec Resolution No. 11116, which sets the anti-discrimination guidelines for the May elections. The resolution also declared that labeling groups and individuals as terrorists, dissenters, and criminals without evidence is considered an election offense in the 2025 midterm national and local polls. According to the poll body, labeling can be defined as "the act of categorizing, classifying, labeling, branding, associating, naming, and accusing individuals, groups and/or organizations as 'vocal dissenters' and activists or subversive group sympathizers or terrorists, or belonging to a criminal group/syndicate without evidence." These acts may be committed in person, through radio or television, newspaper publication, internet, and other similar mediums. However, the government's anti-insurgency body accused Comelec of allegedly committing grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it declared labeling as an election offense, saying there is no law penalizing it as an offense or a criminal act. 'Moreover, the implementation of Section 3, in relation to Section 2(j), of Resolution No. 11116 would not only prejudice the NTF-ELCAC'S legitimate efforts to unmask the true identities of members, affiliates, sympathizers, and collaborators of CTGs, but it would also disempower Filipinos from exercising their constltutiona lly guaranteed freedom of expression, including their right to expose, identify, and call out communist-terrorist groups based on reliable information,' it added. With this, the NTF-ELCAC asked the Court to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the Comelec resolution. It also wants to later declare the TRO permanent and for the SC to direct the Comelec to prohibit its implementation upon the rendering of judgement. Comelec to defend guidelines The Comelec, for its part, stood firm on its resolution, saying it is "ready" to defend its guidelines. "Discrimination has no place in a civilized society. It is outright despicable whether committed by state actors or private individuals," Comelec chairman George Garcia told GMA News Online. "It is both international and national issue. Our issuances fighting acts enumerated therein are our contribution to ensure orderly society even during an election and the basic fundamental human rights. We are ready to defend," he said. — RSJ, GMA Integrated News For more Eleksyon 2025 related content and updates, visit GMA News Online's Eleksyon 2025 microsite.
GMA Network
2 days ago
- GMA Network
SC advocates for protection of children vs. sexual abuse, exploitation
The Supreme Court (SC) announced Wednesday its collaboration with SaferKidsPH, an Australian government initiative, to protect Filipino children against online sexual abuse and exploitation (OSAEC). At the SaferKidsPH Culminating Event on Tuesday, Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo described SaferKidsPH as a 'beacon of hope' in the campaign against OSAEC. He said the SC will continue to 'hold the door open to a better tomorrow for every FIlipino child. Gesmundo also highlighted the High Court's efforts to strengthen judicial framework for child protection, including the establishment of an Anti-OSAEC TriCity Justice Zone in Cagayan de Oro City, Ozamis City, and Iligan City. 'As we celebrate these achievements, we recognize that our work is far from complete,' Gesmundo was quoted as saying in a statement. 'The Supreme Court remains steadfast in its commitment to this cause, collaborating with all stakeholders to ensure that every child is protected from harm, both in the digital realm and beyond,' he added. The SC said the event also involved the Department of Justice, the Department of Social Welfare and Development, and the Council for the Welfare of Children, among other organizations. — Joahna Lei Casilao/RSJ, GMA Integrated News
