case 163 of 327 Cases Penned by Associate Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier: People of the Philippines vs. Naci Borras y Lascano G.R. No. 250295, March 15, 2021

Is the prosecutor's consent essential for a valid plea bargain in drug cases in the Philippines?

Case Title:

People of the Philippines vs. Naci Borras y Lascano

G.R. No. 250295, March 15, 2021

Facts of the Case:

In this case, Naci Borras y Lascano was charged with violating Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, for selling and possessing methamphetamine hydrochloride ("shabu"). He initially pleaded not guilty but later proposed to plea bargain to a lesser offense of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia under Section 12 of the same law. The prosecution, citing DOJ Circular No. 061-17, objected to the plea bargain because it prohibited such an arrangement after the prosecution had started presenting evidence.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Naga City allowed the plea bargain despite the prosecution's objection, declaring the DOJ circulars unconstitutional for contravening the Supreme Court's Estipona v. Lobrigo ruling, which allowed plea bargaining in drug cases. The RTC convicted Lascano based on his guilty plea to the lesser offense of possession of drug paraphernalia.

The People, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), challenged the RTC decision before the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the plea bargain was invalid without the prosecutor's consent. The CA affirmed Lascano’s conviction but removed the RTC’s declaration that the DOJ circulars were unconstitutional. The CA ruled that plea bargaining could proceed even without the prosecutor's consent if the only objection was that it would weaken the government’s campaign against illegal drugs.

Primary Issue:

Is the prosecutor's consent indispensable to a valid plea bargain in drug cases?

Supreme Court Ruling:

The Supreme Court ruled that the prosecutor's consent is essential in plea bargaining under Section 2, Rule 116 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. This provision requires the consent of both the prosecutor and the offended party before a court may allow an accused to plead guilty to a lesser offense. The Court emphasized that the prosecutor represents the State, which is considered the offended party in crimes involving illegal drugs. Thus, the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion when it allowed the plea bargain without the prosecutor's consent.

The Court further ruled that plea bargaining is not a right of the accused but is subject to the prosecutor’s consent and the court's discretion. The prosecutor’s role is to ensure that the proper offense is prosecuted based on the evidence available, and disregarding the prosecutor's objection undermines this function.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court invalidated the plea bargain and the consequent conviction, remanding the case to the RTC for trial on the original charges of violations of Sections 5 and 11 of RA No. 9165.

Dispositive Portion:

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the CA decision, and invalidated Lascano’s guilty plea and conviction. The case was remanded to the RTC of Naga City for the continuation of proceedings on the original charges.

Should courts have the power to approve plea bargains in drug cases even if the prosecutor objects, especially considering the seriousness of drug-related offenses?

Important Doctrines Discussed:

1. Prosecutor's Control in Plea Bargaining:
   The prosecutor must consent to plea bargaining since they represent the State, which is the offended party in drug cases. This ensures that the proper offense is prosecuted based on available evidence.

2. Plea Bargaining in Drug Cases (RA No. 9165):
   The Estipona ruling allowed plea bargaining in drug cases, but the Supreme Court clarified that this does not negate the need for the prosecutor's consent under the rules of criminal procedure.

3. Discretion of the Court in Plea Bargaining:
   While the court has discretion in allowing plea bargains, it cannot disregard the procedural requirement of obtaining the prosecutor’s consent, as this ensures that justice is served on behalf of the public interest.

4. Supreme Court's Rule-Making Authority vs. DOJ Circulars:
   The trial court and Court of Appeals initially invalidated the DOJ Circulars that restricted plea bargaining in certain drug cases. However, the Supreme Court clarified that while the judiciary has exclusive authority over procedural rules (under Article VIII, Section 5(5) of the 1987 Constitution), the DOJ Circulars were merely internal guidelines for prosecutors and did not infringe upon this judicial power. These circulars guide prosecutors in their conduct and decision-making but do not override the judiciary’s rule-making prerogative.

5. Equal Protection Clause in Plea Bargaining:
   The RTC had ruled that the DOJ Circulars violated the equal protection clause, as they allegedly created arbitrary distinctions among accused individuals in drug cases. The Supreme Court, however, found that the plea bargaining guidelines were based on reasonable classifications—specifically, the amount and type of drugs involved. These distinctions were designed to balance the gravity of the offense with opportunities for rehabilitation, which is aligned with the policy objectives of RA No. 9165.

6. Estipona v. Lobrigo and the Plea Bargaining Framework:
   In Estipona v. Lobrigo, the Supreme Court struck down Section 23 of RA No. 9165, which previously prohibited plea bargaining in all drug cases. However, the Estipona ruling did not completely open the door for unfettered plea bargaining in drug-related offenses. The prosecutor’s role in the plea bargain process was still upheld, and the judicial discretion in approving such bargains remains subject to the procedural rules requiring mutual consent from both the prosecution and the defense.

7. Grave Abuse of Discretion by Trial Courts:
   The Supreme Court reiterated that while judges have wide discretion in accepting or rejecting plea bargains, they must still adhere to established legal standards. When a trial court ignores the prosecutor’s objection in a drug case—particularly when that objection is based on sound legal grounds, such as the strength of the evidence or public policy concerns—the court commits grave abuse of discretion. This oversteps judicial authority and undermines the principles of due process.

8. Rule 116 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure – Plea of Guilty to a Lesser Offense:
   Section 2, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court governs pleas of guilty to lesser offenses. It mandates the consent of both the prosecutor and the offended party before a court can accept such a plea. In drug cases, the "offended party" is the State, and the prosecutor acts on behalf of the public in safeguarding the community from the dangerous effects of illegal drugs. This ensures that plea bargaining serves the interests of justice, not merely the convenience of the accused.

Classification of the Case:

This case falls under Criminal Law, specifically dealing with violations of Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and procedural rules on plea bargaining in criminal cases.

In cases involving dangerous drugs, should the law be more lenient in allowing plea bargains to encourage rehabilitation, or should the strict approach be maintained to reinforce the seriousness of drug offenses and protect public safety?

By reflecting on these doctrines and the ruling, one must consider the delicate balance between the need for rehabilitation and the State's interest in combating illegal drugs effectively.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Looking for a reliable and affordable study companion for the 2025 Bar Exams? The Law Requisites PH offers expertly curated digital case digests designed specifically for bar examinees, law students, and legal professionals. With concise, organized content tailored to support your review and legal practice, you can now access these powerful tools for only ₱499. Start strengthening your preparation today by visiting https://beacons.ai/thelawrequisitesph. Your bar success begins with the right resources—get yours now!

📢DISCLAIMER:

This video is for educational purposes only and does not guarantee the infallibility of the legal content presented. All content was created using premium AI tools and reviewed for accuracy to the best of our abilities. Always consult a qualified legal professional for legal advice.

🎓 Welcome, future abogados and baristas! In this content, we will discuss the Supreme Court’s landmark case People of the Philippines vs. Naci Borras y Lascano, G.R. No. 250295, promulgated on March 15, 2021. This Criminal Law case centers on a key procedural controversy: Is the prosecutor’s consent indispensable in plea bargaining under drug cases governed by R.A. 9165?

Our purpose is to help law students and bar reviewees recall and digest the most essential doctrines laid down in this case, especially those relevant to plea bargaining, prosecutorial discretion, and the limits of judicial authority in criminal litigation.

In this case, Naci Borras y Lascano, originally charged with violations of Sections 5 and 11 of R.A. 9165 (illegal sale and possession of drugs), entered a plea bargain to plead guilty to a lesser offense of possession of drug paraphernalia under Section 12—without the consent of the prosecution. The trial court allowed it, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but deleted the part that declared DOJ circulars unconstitutional.

However, the Supreme Court reversed both lower courts, holding that the prosecutor’s consent is essential in plea bargaining. The judgment emphasized that the prosecutor represents the State—the offended party in drug crimes—and therefore must agree to any plea to a lesser offense.

 

Do you believe the court should have the power to override the prosecution’s objection in plea bargains, especially in minor drug offenses?

 

📚 10 IMPORTANT DOCTRINES IN People v. Lascano (G.R. No. 250295):

1. Prosecutor's Consent Is Required in Plea Bargaining
   Under Rule 116, Sec. 2, the prosecutor’s consent is a mandatory requirement for a valid plea to a lesser offense. [p. 61-62]
2. State Is the Offended Party in Drug Offenses
   The Court reiterated that in violations of R.A. 9165, the Republic is the injured party, represented by the prosecutor. [p. 63]
3. Plea Bargaining Is Not a Right of the Accused
   A plea to a lesser offense is not demandable and depends on both prosecutorial agreement and judicial discretion. [p. 63-64]
4. Judicial Discretion Has Limits
   A judge cannot override prosecutorial objections based on internal agency guidelines unless such objection is clearly unreasonable. [p. 67]
5. Grave Abuse of Discretion by Trial Court
   The RTC committed grave abuse by allowing plea bargaining without the prosecutor’s consent and declaring DOJ circulars unconstitutional. [p. 68]
6. DOJ Circulars Are Valid Internal Guidelines
   DOJ Circular No. 027-18 was upheld as an internal tool for prosecutors—not a judicial rule subject to invalidation by the courts. [p. 69]
7. Estipona v. Lobrigo Did Not Remove Prosecutorial Consent
   The ruling in Estipona only struck down the absolute bar against plea bargaining in drug cases but retained procedural requirements. [p. 67]
8. A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC Is Not Self-Executing
   This Supreme Court framework for plea bargaining does not negate the prosecutor’s role in agreeing to plea deals. [p. 67-68]
9. Retroactive Application of Resolutions Not Allowed
   The Peralta Resolution (2019) cannot be applied retroactively to support Lascano's 2018 plea bargain. [p. 66]
10. Double Jeopardy Does Not Attach to Invalid Pleas
    Because the plea was made without proper consent, the conviction was void and not a bar to further prosecution. [p. 70]

 

⚠️ DISCLAIMER:
This content is for educational purposes only. While created using premium AI, we do not guarantee infallibility. Always refer to the full decision or consult a legal expert for authoritative guidance.

📌 For More Resources:
Philippine Law Reviewers: https://www.raket.ph/lawrequisitesph
TikTok: https://tinyurl.com/Lawrequisitesphtiktok
Facebook: https://tinyurl.com/Lawrequisitesphfb
YouTube: https://tinyurl.com/Lawrequisitesph

 

Welcome, future lawyers and bar takers! In this short quizzer, we will test your understanding of an important Criminal Law case: People of the Philippines vs. Naci Borras y Lascano, G.R. No. 250295, promulgated on March 15, 2021.

This case involved a critical procedural issue in drug-related prosecutions: Can an accused validly enter a plea bargain without the prosecutor’s consent? The trial court allowed such a plea bargain over the prosecution's objection, and even declared several DOJ circulars unconstitutional. The case went up to the Court of Appeals, and eventually reached the Supreme Court, which ruled that the prosecutor's consent is essential in plea bargaining, especially in drug cases, as the State is the offended party.

This quizzer aims to help law students and bar reviewees reinforce their knowledge and engage in higher-order thinking skills (HOTS). The correct answers will be provided at the end of this content, so be sure to stay until the conclusion!

---

🧠 QUIZZER: EASY DIFFICULTY HOTS MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS

1. Which legal actor represents the State in criminal prosecutions and must consent to a valid plea bargain?
   A. The presiding judge
   B. The private complainant
   C. The public prosecutor
   D. The defense counsel

2. What was the offense originally charged against the accused in the case?
   A. Theft and drug use
   B. Illegal possession and sale of dangerous drugs
   C. Obstruction of justice
   D. Use and sale of regulated chemicals

3. Why did the trial court allow the plea bargain despite the prosecution's objection?
   A. It found the DOJ circulars outdated
   B. It ruled that the accused was entitled to rehabilitation
   C. It declared the DOJ circulars unconstitutional
   D. It had the sole discretion under judicial independence

4. What was the lesser offense the accused pleaded guilty to in this case?
   A. Drug trafficking
   B. Use of illegal drugs
   C. Possession of drug paraphernalia
   D. Possession of marijuana

5. What did the Court of Appeals do with the trial court’s declaration on DOJ circulars?
   A. Affirmed and expanded it
   B. Reversed it completely
   C. Deleted that part from the ruling
   D. Upheld it with a partial dissent

6. What was the Supreme Court’s final ruling regarding the accused’s plea bargain?
   A. It upheld the plea bargain as valid
   B. It invalidated the plea bargain for lack of mutual agreement
   C. It remanded for sentencing
   D. It modified the sentence but kept the plea

7. In plea bargaining, who is legally considered the “offended party” in drug-related crimes?
   A. The arresting officer
   B. The general public
   C. The State
   D. The community

8. According to the decision, what is the nature of the accused's right to plea bargain?
   A. A fundamental constitutional right
   B. A discretionary privilege, not a demandable right
   C. An automatic entitlement in minor offenses
   D. A statutory right independent of judicial discretion

9. What was one key reason the Supreme Court invalidated the plea bargain?
   A. It was submitted via affidavit
   B. It was entered before the preliminary investigation
   C. It lacked the required prosecutorial consent
   D. It violated double jeopardy rules

10. What did the Supreme Court say about the DOJ’s guidelines for prosecutors?
    A. They are binding on all courts
    B. They are judicial rules of procedure
    C. They are internal guidelines that do not usurp the Court’s rule-making power
    D. They are unconstitutional and should be disregarded

ANSWER KEY! CLICK HERE