Case 215 of 327: Did the trial court commit grave abuse of discretion when it allowed the accused to plea bargain without the prosecutor's consent in a drug case, challenging the essence of prosecutorial control over criminal actions?

      327 Cases Penned by Associate Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier: 2025 Bar Examination

Did the trial court commit grave abuse of discretion when it allowed the accused to plea bargain without the prosecutor's consent in a drug case, challenging the essence of prosecutorial control over criminal actions?

 

CASE TITLE:

People of the Philippines vs. Noel Sabater y Ulan, G.R. No. 249459 | June 14,2021

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Noel Sabater was charged with violating Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, which involved selling dangerous drugs (methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as "shabu") to a poseur-buyer during a buy-bust operation on November 4, 2016. The case was filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Naga City under Criminal Case No. 2016-0935.

During the trial, after the prosecution had formally offered its evidence, Sabater filed a motion to plea bargain, proposing to plead guilty to a lesser offense under Section 12 of RA 9165 (possession of drug paraphernalia). The prosecution opposed the motion, citing Department of Justice (DOJ) Circular No. 027, which only allowed plea bargaining to illegal possession of drugs under Section 11, not Section 12. Despite this, the RTC granted the plea bargaining motion, declaring DOJ Circular No. 027 as unconstitutional for encroaching on the Supreme Court's rule-making authority. Sabater was re-arraigned and convicted under Section 12, with a sentence of six months and one day to four years imprisonment, and a fine of ₱50,000.

The People, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), appealed to the Court of Appeals via certiorari, but their petition was dismissed for late filing. The OSG then filed a petition before the Supreme Court, claiming the late filing was due to procedural delays within the government bureaucracy and seeking leniency. Moreover, they argued that the trial court's acceptance of Sabater’s plea without the prosecution's consent violated the essence of plea bargaining, which should be consensual.

PRIMARY ISSUE:

Did the trial court commit grave abuse of discretion when it granted Sabater’s plea to a lesser offense without the consent of the prosecution?

SUPREME COURT DECISION:

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the People, reversing the decision of the Court of Appeals. It held that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion by allowing Sabater to plead guilty to a lesser offense without the prosecutor's consent. The Court reiterated that plea bargaining in criminal cases, especially under RA 9165, requires the prosecutor's approval as a condition precedent. The trial court's disregard of the prosecutor's objections undermined the essence of prosecutorial discretion in criminal prosecutions. Additionally, the Court clarified that DOJ Circular No. 027 did not infringe upon its rule-making powers, but served as a guideline for prosecutors in handling plea bargains.

The Supreme Court ordered the case remanded to the RTC for further proceedings and declared the judgment of conviction against Sabater void.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

The Supreme Court declared:

"ACCORDINGLY, the petition is GRANTED. The Resolutions dated January 28, 2019, and September 17, 2019, in CA-G.R. SP. No. 158342 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Judgment dated September 12, 2018, and the concomitant orders of the Regional Trial Court-Branch 24 Naga City in Criminal Case No. 2016-0935 are VOID for having been issued in grave abuse of discretion. The trial court is ORDERED to proceed with the criminal case against respondent Noel Sabater y Ulan with utmost dispatch. SO ORDERED."

Does the judiciary's power to rule on plea bargains encroach on the prosecutor's discretion, or is it a necessary check to ensure justice?

IMPORTANT DOCTRINES:

1. Plea Bargaining Requires Prosecutor's Consent (Section 2, Rule 116, Rules of Court) – Plea bargaining in criminal cases, especially those involving serious offenses like drug crimes, cannot proceed without the prosecutor's consent.
2. Prosecutorial Discretion in Criminal Prosecution – The prosecution controls the course of criminal proceedings, and the court must respect the prosecution's discretion when considering plea bargains, especially if the evidence at hand supports the original charge.
3. Doctrine of Grave Abuse of Discretion – When a court proceeds to approve a plea bargain over the prosecution's objection, it commits grave abuse of discretion, rendering its judgment void and unenforceable.
4. Immutability of Judgment Exceptions – Void judgments, such as those issued with grave abuse of discretion, do not attain finality and can be challenged even after the reglementary period has lapsed.
5. Interlocutory Orders and Final Judgments – The Supreme Court clarified that interlocutory orders (orders that do not decide the case on the merits, such as orders on plea bargaining) are not subject to certiorari or appeal. Only final judgments, which resolve the entire case, can be the subject of a petition. Piecemeal challenges to interlocutory orders are not allowed as they may cause undue delays in the judicial process.
6. DOJ Circular No. 027 vs. Supreme Court Rule-Making Power – DOJ Circular No. 027, which governs plea bargaining in drug cases, does not encroach on the rule-making power of the Supreme Court. Instead, it serves as a guideline for prosecutors to follow before consenting to plea bargains. It exists harmoniously with the Supreme Court's plea-bargaining framework (A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC), which was established to guide the courts in accepting plea bargains in drug-related cases.
7. Void Judgments Produce No Legal Effect – A judgment rendered with grave abuse of discretion, as in this case where the court allowed a plea bargain without the prosecution’s consent, is considered void. A void judgment has no legal effect and cannot become final or executory, even if the reglementary period for appeal has lapsed.
8. Prosecutor’s Duty to Prosecute the Proper Offense – The prosecutor’s role is not merely to agree to plea bargains but to ensure that justice is served by prosecuting the appropriate offense based on the available evidence. When a plea bargain to a lesser offense is offered, it is the duty of the prosecutor to evaluate whether the lesser offense is justified by the evidence, and the court must respect the prosecutor's judgment.

CLASSIFICATION OF THE CASE:

Criminal Law – The case primarily involves the prosecution of a violation under Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) and the issue of whether a plea bargain can be accepted without the prosecutor's consent, which is central to the control and discretion of the prosecution in criminal proceedings.

 

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 content 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.

CHAT WITH ME! (CLICK HERE)

Read the full text here

🎓 Welcome, future lawyers and legal professionals. Today, we dive into a compelling jurisprudence that sharpened the contours of plea bargaining in criminal law, particularly in drug-related cases. This content aims to highlight key doctrines from a Supreme Court ruling that reshaped the rules on prosecutorial consent in plea deals. The purpose is to assist law students and bar examinees in mastering essential doctrines and recalling them efficiently for recitation, bar review, or professional application.

 

📌 CASE NATURE & TITLE:

This is a Criminal Law case involving plea bargaining in drug prosecutions.

Title: People of the Philippines vs. Noel Sabater y Ulan

Parties: The People of the Philippines (Petitioner) vs. Noel Sabater y Ulan (Respondent)

G.R. No.: 249459

Date of Promulgation: June 14, 2021

 

📖 BRIEF CASE SUMMARY:

Sabater was caught selling ₱50,000 worth of shabu and was charged under Section 5 of R.A. 9165. He later proposed a plea bargain to Section 12 (possession of drug paraphernalia), which the trial court approved—despite the prosecution’s objection. The Court of Appeals dismissed the People’s petition for being filed late. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the trial court gravely abused its discretion by allowing the plea without the prosecutor’s consent and declared the RTC judgment void.

 

🤔 Should a judge have the final say in plea bargaining decisions—even when the prosecution opposes it in serious crimes like drug trafficking?

 

🔟 TEN IMPORTANT DOCTRINES (from G.R. No. 249459, June 14, 2021):

1. Prosecutor's Consent is Mandatory in Plea Bargaining
   → Under Rule 116, Sec. 2, the plea to a lesser offense requires the prosecutor’s consent. Courts cannot bypass this (Source: SC Decision, citing Rule 116).
2. Trial Court Cannot Override Prosecutorial Discretion
   → A court approving a plea over the prosecutor’s objection commits grave abuse of discretion (Source: Main Decision, SC ruling).
3. Judgments Rendered Without Jurisdiction Are Void
   → The SC ruled the RTC's conviction as void because it acted without proper jurisdiction (Source: Mercury Drug v. Huang cited in the ruling).
4. Plea Bargaining Must Involve a Lesser Offense Included in the Original Charge
   → The proposed lesser offense must be necessarily included in the original; Sec. 12 is not included in Sec. 5 (Source: Main Decision).
5. DOJ Circular No. 027 Is Not Unconstitutional
   → It doesn’t violate judicial rule-making authority; it's a guideline for prosecutors (Source: Sayre v. Xenos, cited in the decision).
6. Estipona Doctrine Allows Plea Bargaining in Drug Cases
   → But this does not remove the requirement of prosecutorial consent (Source: Estipona v. Lobrigo, discussed in the ruling).
7. Doctrine of Immutability of Judgment Has Exceptions
   → Void judgments are one of the exceptions; they never become final (Source: FGU Insurance v. RTC, cited in the ruling).
8. Final Judgment vs. Interlocutory Orders
   → Only final judgments are proper subjects of Rule 65 petitions—not interlocutory orders like plea bargaining grants (Source: People v. Majingcar, cited in the decision).
9. Courts Must Harmonize DOJ Guidelines with Supreme Court Rules
   → The RTC should have harmonized A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC with DOJ Circular 027, not nullify one (Source: Main Decision).
10. Judicial Discretion Must Be Sound and Not Arbitrary
    → Courts exercising discretion against express legal requirements commit grave abuse, amounting to lack of jurisdiction (Source: Neri v. Yu, cited in ruling).

 

📌 FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs):

1. Can a judge approve a plea bargain without the prosecutor's consent?

❌ No. Prosecutor's consent is required under Rule 116, Section 2.

2. What was Sabater originally charged with?

🔍 Violation of Section 5, R.A. 9165 – illegal sale of shabu.

3. Why did the SC void the RTC’s decision?

⚖️ The RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion by ignoring the prosecutor’s objection.

4. Is DOJ Circular No. 027 binding on courts?

📌 No, but it serves as a guideline for prosecutors and must be harmonized with Supreme Court rules.

5. What’s the consequence of a void judgment?

🚫 It produces no legal effect and does not become final.

 

📌 DISCLAIMER:

This video is for educational purposes only. The content was generated using premium AI tools and may not be infallible. Always consult official sources and jurisprudence when relying on legal doctrines.

 

📲 FOLLOW US FOR MORE:

🛒 Philippine Law Reviewers: https://www.raket.ph/lawrequisitesph

📱 TikTok: https://tinyurl.com/Lawrequisitesphtiktok

📘 Facebook: https://tinyurl.com/Lawrequisitesphfb

▶️ YouTube: https://tinyurl.com/Lawrequisitesph

 

🎓 Welcome, law students and bar reviewees! This quizzer is based on the landmark criminal case decided by the Supreme Court: People of the Philippines vs. Noel Sabater y Ulan, G.R. No. 249459, promulgated on June 14, 2021.

This case falls under Criminal Law, specifically focusing on plea bargaining in drug-related offenses. It centers around the critical issue: Can a court approve a plea bargain despite the prosecution’s objection?

In this case, Noel Sabater was originally charged with selling shabu, but the trial court allowed him to plead guilty to a lesser offense—even without the prosecutor’s consent. The Court of Appeals dismissed the People’s appeal for being late. However, the Supreme Court reversed this and declared the lower court's judgment void due to grave abuse of discretion.

In this quiz, you will test your understanding of the legal doctrines and rulings laid down in this jurisprudence. The answer key will be provided at the end of the video, so stay tuned and challenge yourself!

 

📚 QUIZZER: EASY LEVEL – HIGHER ORDER THINKING SKILLS (HOTS)

Choose the best answer from the options provided.

 

1. What is required for a valid plea bargaining in criminal proceedings?

A. Consent of the judge only

B. Consent of the accused only

C. Consent of both the prosecutor and the accused

D. Consent of the defense counsel only

 

2. When can a judgment be considered void in criminal procedure?

A. When the accused is absent during arraignment

B. When the judge denies a motion to bail

C. When the court approves a plea bargain without jurisdiction

D. When the information is not signed by the complainant

 

3. What was the primary legal issue in the case between the People and Noel Sabater?

A. The sufficiency of evidence for conviction

B. The constitutionality of R.A. 9165

C. The validity of a plea bargain without the prosecutor’s consent

D. The admissibility of the arrest warrant

 

4. What was the original charge filed against Noel Sabater?

A. Illegal drug importation

B. Possession of drug paraphernalia

C. Use of dangerous drugs

D. Sale of illegal drugs

 

5. Why did the Supreme Court reverse the Court of Appeals' dismissal of the People’s petition?

A. The appeal raised constitutional questions

B. The petition was not actually late based on proper reckoning

C. The accused recanted his plea

D. The prosecutor changed their mind

 

6. Which doctrine did the Supreme Court uphold in relation to plea bargaining?

A. The trial court has exclusive power to accept any plea

B. Prosecutor’s discretion is not necessary in plea bargains

C. Plea bargains must be consensual between court and prosecution

D. All plea bargains in drug cases are prohibited

 

7. What is the legal status of a judgment rendered with grave abuse of discretion?

A. Valid but irregular

B. Final and executory

C. Subject to amendment only

D. Void and without legal effect

 

8. What penalty did Sabater receive after the trial court approved his plea bargain?

A. Life imprisonment

B. Acquittal

C. Six months and one day to four years imprisonment

D. Community service only

 

9. What did the Supreme Court say about the DOJ Circular concerning plea bargaining?

A. It replaces the Supreme Court's rules

B. It is unconstitutional

C. It is a valid guideline for prosecutors

D. It is enforceable only if approved by Congress

 

10. What happens when a lesser offense is not necessarily included in the original charge, yet the plea is accepted?

A. The plea is deemed a confession

B. The accused is considered acquitted

C. The resulting judgment is void

D. The plea is automatically elevated to the original charge

 

ANSWER KEY - CLICK HERE