Estipona v. Lobrigo (G.R. No. 226679; August 15, 2017)

CASE DIGEST: SALVADOR A. ESTIPONA, JR., Petitioner, vs. HON. FRANK E. LOBRIGO, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Legazpi City, Branch 3, and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

FACTS: Estipona was charged with an offense under RA 9165. He wants to enter into a plea bargaining agreement but Judge Lobrigo did not allow him to do so because Section 23 specifically prohibits plea bargaining in drugs cases. Estipona argues that Section 23 is unconstitutional.

ISSUE:

Is Section 23 of RA 9165, which prohibits plea-bargaining in drugs cases, unconstitutional?

HELD: Yes, Section 23 of RA 9165 is unconstitutional for two reasons. First, it violates the equal protection clause since other criminals (rapists, murderers, etc.) are allowed to plea bargain but drug offenders are not, considering that rape and murder are more heinous than drug offenses. Second, it violates the doctrine of separation of powers by encroaching upon the rule-making power of the Supreme Court under the constitution. Plea-bargaining is procedural in nature and it is within the sole prerogative of the Supreme Court.
For more reliable news, please visit http://news.abs-cbn.com. Ina Reformina writes for ABS-CBN News: [Start of quote] The ruling is in favor of Salvador Estipona, Jr., currently detained in Legazpi, Albay for possession of .084 gram of shabu in March 2016.

Assisted by the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO), Estipona had urged the high court to thumb down the provision in September 2016.

Though the high court has yet to release its full decision, voted on August 15, it said on Friday the provision is “unconstitutional for being contrary to the rule making authority of the [SC] in Article VIII, Section 5 (5) of the 1987 Constitution.”

In his petition, Estipona argued that “[t]hose accused of other heinous crimes such as murder, some acts of rape, and other crimes where the maximum imposable penalty is either life imprisonment, reclusion perpetua, or death, are allowed into plea bargaining under Section 1, Rule 118 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure."

He lamented how those accused of violations of RA No. 9165 have not been allowed to strike plea bargain deals. Estipona’s motion for plea bargain was junked twice by the Legazpi City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 3.

"This, despite the fact that the various pertinent violations under RA 9165 do not bare out any reason to consider a person accused under the said law as a separate and distinct specie that would exempt from plea bargaining,” his petition read.

He stressed the prohibition encroached upon the power of the high court to promulgate rules of procedure in criminal cases.

"Section 23 of RA 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 declogging 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," the petition read.

At the time the petition was filed, some 82,000 persons were detained on drug charges.

PAO chief Atty. Persida Acosta hailed the high court’s ruling.

"Ako ay masaya at patunay ito sa kagustuhan natin (government) na buhay ang ating mga kababayang nawawala sa landas… maipagamot at matulungang magbagong buhay.

“May pag-asa na ngayon ang 82,000 mga kababayan nating nakapiit na makalaya,” Acosta said. [End of quote]