SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 255670. November 10, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.RICKY PEREZ y CANILLAS, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated10 November 2021which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 255670 (People of the Philippines v. Ricky Perez y Canillas). — Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assailing the Decision 2 dated June 5, 2020 and the Resolution 3 dated January 21, 2021 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 160442 which annulled and set aside the Orders 4 dated November 27, 2018 and February 12, 2019 of Branch 1, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Balanga City, Bataan, but only insofar as it declared Ricky Perez y Canillas (respondent) ineligible to apply for probation.
The Antecedents
On October 4, 2018, respondent was charged with violation of Section 5, 5 Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs of 2002," as amended. 6 The accusatory portion of the Information reads:
That on or about October 3, 2018, 7 in Morong, Bataan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, not being authorized by law, did then and there willfully sell, distribute, and give-away to another ONE (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing Methamphetamine hydrochloride commonly known as "shabu" weighing ZERO POINT ZERO FOUR SEVEN (0.047) GRAM, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 8
On November 27, 2018, respondent manifested in open court that he is willing to enter a plea of guilty to a lesser offense under Section 12, 9 Article II of RA 9165 pursuant to A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC entitled "Adoption of the Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases," which the prosecution objected to. 10
The RTC Ruling
In an Order 11 dated November 27, 2018, the RTC granted respondent's motion to plea bargain and convicted him of the lesser offense penalized under Section 12, Article II of RA 9165. However, it held that respondent is not eligible to apply for probation:
WHEREFORE, finding [respondent] Ricky Perez y Canillas guilty beyond reasonable doubt to the lesser offense penalized under Sec. 12, Art. [II] of RA 9165, he is hereby sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from Six Months and One Day, as minimum to THREE YEARS as maximum and to pay a fine of Php10,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
xxx xxx xxx.
Make it of record that [respondent] is ineligible to apply for probation.
xxx xxx xxx.
SO ORDERED. 12
This prompted respondent to file a Motion for Reconsideration 13 on December 6, 2018.
In an Order 14 dated February 12, 2019, the RTC denied respondent's Motion for Reconsideration. In so ruling, the RTC held that respondent technically was never convicted of violation of Section 12, Article II of RA 9165, although his sentence corresponds to the penalty imposed by Section 12 pursuant to A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC. Instead, he was convicted of violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 because the public prosecutor never consented to the court's order allowing respondent to enter a plea to a lesser offense. It held that the theory that the original information with which respondent was charged was never abandoned is based on Section 2, paragraph 2, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court which states that "[a] conviction under this plea shall be equivalent to a conviction of the offense charged for purposes of double jeopardy." Considering that Section 24, Article II of RA 9165 expressly provides that any person convicted of drug trafficking or pushing cannot avail of the privilege granted by the probation law, respondent is barred from applying for probation. 15
Aggrieved, respondent appealed to the CA. 16
The CA Ruling
In the Decision 17 dated June 5, 2020, the CA found the RTC to have grossly misapplied and misinterpreted A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC and Section 24, Article II of RA 9165, when it ruled that respondent was disqualified from applying for probation on the ground that he had been convicted of violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. The CA underscored that while respondent was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, he was actually convicted of the lesser offense, i.e., violation of Section 12, Article II of the same law, upon pleading guilty thereto. Furthermore, the CA held that the RTC erred in relying on Section 2, paragraph 2, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court, the provision having been deleted under the present Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. 18
Accordingly, the CA granted respondent's petition and declared that respondent is allowed to apply for probation, to wit:
FOR THESE REASONS, the instant petition is GRANTED and [respondent] Ricky Perez y Canillas is hereby allowed to apply for probation. The Orders dated 27 November 2018 and 12 February 2019 issued by Branch 1 of the Regional Trial Court of the Third Judicial Region of Balanga City, Bataan in Crim. Case No. 18996, only insofar as it declared [respondent] Ricky Perez y Canillas ineligible to apply for probation, are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The rest of the assailed Orders STAND.
SO ORDERED. 19
Undaunted, petitioner, through the Office of the Solicitor General, (OSG) filed a Motion for Reconsideration. 20 However, the CA denied it in a Resolution 21 dated January 21, 2021.
Hence, the Petition raising the very same issues 22 that were raised before the CA.
The Court's Ruling
Upon careful examination of the case, the Court resolves to deny the petition for failing to show any reversible error in the assailed CA Decision and Resolution as to warrant the Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
To begin with, the CA correctly rejected the OSG's position that an appeal, not a petition for certiorari, is the proper remedy to question the RTC Orders. Under Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 968 or the "Probation Law of 1976," the filing of an application for probation "shall be deemed a waiver of the right to appeal" and that "[a]n order granting or denying probation shall not be appealable." Thus, upon denial of the RTC of respondent's application for probation, he had no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law except for the special civil action of certiorari. 23 Moreover, while jurisprudence recognizes several instances 24 where an accused may pursue an appeal simultaneously with an application for probation, none of these instances, however, are present in the case.
In Pascua v. People, 25 the Court elucidated that with respect to Section 24, 26 Article II of RA 9165 and the provisions of the Probation Law, "what is essential is not the offense charged but the offense to which the accused is ultimately found guilty of." Thus, regardless of what the original charge was in the Information, the judgment would be for the lesser offense to which the respondent pled guilty 27 — that is, a violation of Section 12, Article II of RA 9165.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated June 5, 2020, and the Resolution dated January 21, 2021 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 160442 are AFFIRMEDin toto.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 10-32.
2.Id. at 39-56; penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybañez with Associate Justices Rafael Antonio M. Santos and Walter S. Ong, concurring.
3.Id. at 57-58; penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybañez with Associate Justices Rafael Antonio M. Santos and Walter S. Ong, concurring.
4.Id. at 59-61; 62-64; issued by Judge Angelito I. Balderama.
5. Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.
6.Rollo, p. 12.
7. Year was erroneously stated as "2019" in the Petition for Review on Certiorari and the CA Decision; rollo. pp. 12, 40.
8.Id. at 75.
9. Section 12. Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs. — The penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and a fine ranging from Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) to Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess or have under his/her control any equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body: Provided, That in the case of medical practitioners and various professionals who are required to carry such equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia in the practice of their profession, the Board shall prescribe the necessary implementing guidelines thereof.
The possession of such equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia fit or intended for any of the purposes enumerated in the preceding paragraph shall be prima facie evidence that the possessor has smoked, consumed, administered to himself/herself, injected, ingested or used a dangerous drug and shall be presumed to have violated Section 15 of this Act.
10.Rollo, p. 40.
11.Id. at 59-61.
12.Id. at 60-61.
13.Id. at 76-81.
14.Id. at 62-64.
15.Id.
16.Id. at 14.
17.Id. at 39-56.
18.Id. at 48-51.
19.Id. at 55.
20.Id. at 65-74.
21.Id. at 57-58.
22. Specifically, petitioner contends that: (1) respondent's direct resort to a special civil action of certiorari is improper as the remedy of appeal is available to him; (2) there is no grave abuse of discretion that can be attributed to the orders of the RTC; and (3) respondent is ineligible for probation. Id. at 16-30.
23.Heirs of the Late Francisco Abueg v. Court of Appeal, 292 Phil. 72, 78 (1993).
24. An accused may still be allowed to apply for probation even if he has filed a notice of appeal, provided that such appeal is limited to the following grounds: (1) when the appeal is merely intended for the correction of the penalty imposed by the lower court, which when corrected would entitle the accused to apply for probation; and (2) when the appeal is merely intended to review the crime for which the accused was convicted and that the accused should only be liable to the lesser offense which is necessarily included in the crime for which he was originally convicted and the proper penalty imposable is within the probationable period. See Dimakuta v. People, 771 Phil. 641, 663-664 (2015), citing Colinares v. People, 678 Phil. 482 (2011).
25. G.R. No. 250578, September 7, 2020.
26. Section 24. Non-Applicability of the Probation Law for Drug Traffickers and Pushers. — Any person convicted for drug trafficking or pushing under this Act, regardless of the penalty imposed by the Court, cannot avail of the privilege granted by the Probation Law or Presidential Decree No. 968, as amended.
27.Id.