The prosecution is deemed to have waived objections to an accused’s motion for plea bargaining in drugs cases that are not timely raised, applying the principle behind the Omnibus Motion Rule

In People v. Montierro (G.R. No. 254564, 26 July 2022), the Supreme Court En Banc ruled that courts may overrule the objection of the prosecution to offers for plea bargaining in drugs cases if the objection is based solely on the ground that the accused’s plea bargaining proposal is inconsistent with the acceptable plea bargain under any internal rules or guidelines of the DOJ, although in accordance with the plea bargaining framework issued by the Supreme Court.

However, in the more recent case of Aquino v. People (G.R. No. 259094, 28 January 2025), the Supreme Court En Banc, promulgated additional guidelines supplementary to those set forth in the Montierro ruling. The following comprehensive guidelines shall be observed in plea bargaining in cases involving dangerous drugs:

1. Offers for plea bargaining must be initiated in writing by way of a formal written motion filed by the accused in court.
2. The lesser offense which the accused proposes to plead guilty to must necessarily be included in the offense charged.
3. Upon receipt of the proposal for plea bargaining that is compliant with the provisions of the Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases, the judge shall order that a drug dependency assessment be administered. If the accused admits drug use or denies it but is found positive after a drug dependency test, then they shall undergo treatment and rehabilitation for a period of not less than six months. Said period shall be credited to their penalty and the period of their after-care and follow-up program if the penalty is still unserved. If the accused is found negative for drug use/dependency, then they will be released on time served, otherwise, they will serve his/her sentence in jail minus the counselling period at the rehabilitation center.
4. As a rule, plea bargaining requires the mutual agreement of the parties and remains subject to the approval of the court. Regardless of the mutual agreement of the parties, the acceptance of the offer to plead guilty to a lesser offense is not demandable by the accused as a matter of right but is a matter addressed entirely to the sound discretion of the court. Although the prosecution and the defense may agree to enter into a plea bargain, it does not follow that the courts will automatically approve the proposal. Judges must still exercise sound discretion in granting or denying plea bargaining, taking into account the objections raised by the prosecution and other relevant circumstances, including the character of the accused.
5. In cases where the prosecution, in its comment or opposition to the accused’s motion to plea bargain, raised only a few but not all possible grounds for opposing the motion, it must be understood that the prosecution has waived such grounds not raised, similar to the principle behind the Omnibus Motion Rule.
6. The court shall not allow plea bargaining if the objection to the plea bargaining is valid and supported by evidence to the effect that:
   • the offender is a recidivist, habitual offender, known in the community as a drug addict and a troublemaker, has undergone rehabilitation but had a relapse, or has been charged many times; or
   • when the evidence of guilt is strong.
7. Plea bargaining in drugs cases shall not be allowed when the proposed plea bargain does not conform to the Court-issued Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases.
8. Judges may overrule the objection of the prosecution if it is based solely on the ground that the accused’s plea bargaining proposal is inconsistent with the acceptable plea bargain under any internal rules or guidelines of the DOJ, although in accordance with the Plea Bargaining Framework issued by the Court, if any.
9. If the prosecution objects to the accused’s plea bargaining proposal due to the circumstances enumerated in item no. 6, the trial court is mandated to hear the prosecution’s objection and rule on the merits thereof. If the trial court finds the objection meritorious, it shall order the continuation of the criminal proceedings.
10. The trial court shall hear and receive evidence on any and all grounds raised by the prosecution for opposing the motion to plea bargain and must rule on each ground accordingly.
11. If an accused applies for probation in offenses punishable under Republic Act No. 9165, other than for illegal drug trafficking or pushing under Section 5 in relation to Section 24 thereof, then the law on probation shall apply.
12. Where the prosecution has raised multiple grounds in its opposition, but the trial court only ruled on one but was silent with regard to the rest, either the appellate court or this Court shall direct the trial court to rule on such pending issues in accordance with the principles in Montierro and this case.
13. Where the records before either the appellate court or this 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.
14. As a result of the foregoing rule, if the trial court or the appellate court has ruled correctly on the issue, the correct judgment shall be reinstated or affirmed, as the case may be.
15. In cases where both the trial court and the appellate court ruled incorrectly on the issue (i.e., not in accordance with Montierro), a new judgment shall be entered by the Court directing the trial court to allow plea bargaining in the accused’s case and to render a guilty verdict accordingly.