[av_one_full first min_height=” vertical_alignment=” space=” custom_margin=” margin=’0px’ padding=’0px’ border=” border_color=” radius=’0px’ background_color=” src=” background_position=’top left’ background_repeat=’no-repeat’ animation=”]
[av_heading heading=’ABOVE THE LAW ‘ tag=’h3′ style=’blockquote modern-quote’ size=” subheading_active=’subheading_below’ subheading_size=’15’ padding=’10’ color=” custom_font=”]
BY AYIN DREAM D. APLASCA
[/av_heading]
[av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=”]
The age of plea bargaining
WHEN we were in law school, we were asked by our Criminal Law professor what were the salient features of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 or Republic Act 9165. Of course, one of our usual answers was that this special law does not grant plea-bargaining.
Plea bargaining is defined in Section 2, Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. It states that: “At arraignment, the accused, with the consent of the offended party and the prosecutor, may be allowed by the trial court to plead guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily included in the offense charged. After arraignment but before trial, the accused may still be allowed to plead guilty to said lesser offense after withdrawing his plea of not guilty. No amendment of the complaint or information is necessary.”
Plea bargaining is a process whereby the accused and the prosecution work out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case subject to court approval. In this process, the defendant pleads guilty to a lesser offense or to one or some of the counts of a multi-count indictment in return for a lighter sentence than that for the grave charge.
However, this salient feature is now declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court as enunciated in the case of Estipona vs. Hon. Lobrigo and People (GR No. 226679, August 15, 2017).
There were three reasons why this is “invalid, unconstitutional and repugnant to the 1987 Constitution.” First, the said feature is violative of the equal protection clause. Second, it being contrary to the rule-making authority of the Supreme Court in Article VIII, Section 5 (5) of the 1987 Constitution. Lastly, there will be early resolution of the cases that will lessen court dockets, especially when the prosecution does not object and both the prosecution and defense are open to the possibility of plea bargaining.
I strongly agree with this because it brings positive effects, especially in declogging of court dockets and the cooperation of small-time users or couriers to pin down drug lords. Also, there will be less jail congestion. In this way, allowing plea bargaining will also minimize the budget allotted for the drug offenders.
The setback? This new legal pronouncement may be used by big-time drug suppliers to get away with charges. Can the government’s war on drugs prevent this? Hopefully.
(Atty. Ayin Dream D. Aplasca practices her profession in Iloilo City. She may be reached thru ayindream.aplasca@gmail.com/PN)
[/av_textblock]
[/av_one_full]
