ERNESTO GALICIA Y VILLARASA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 254972
- Promulgated: 2025-08-28
Doctrine
## Facts of the Case Ernesto Galicia y Villarasa (Galicia) was charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs (shabu) under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, involving 0.054 gram, following a buy-bust operation. After pleading not guilty and the prosecution presenting its evidence, Galicia filed a Motion for Plea Bargaining to plead guilty to the lesser offense of illegal possession of equipment for dangerous drugs under Section 12 of Republic Act No. 9165, invoking A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC. The prosecution objected based on DOJ Circular No. 61 (later Circular No. 27), which prohibited plea bargaining for Section 5 violations. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted Galicia's motion, ruling that the DOJ Circulars encroached on the Supreme Court's rule-making power and were contrary to A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC. Despite the prosecution's continued objection and motion for reconsideration, the RTC allowed Galicia to withdraw his plea, plead guilty to Section 12, and subsequently rendered judgment finding him guilty of illegal possession of paraphernalia for dangerous drugs. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that a plea bargain requires prosecutorial consent and that the RTC failed to determine if the evidence of guilt was strong. The CA granted the OSG's petition, setting aside the RTC's orders and judgment, and directed the RTC to proceed with the reception of defense evidence, finding that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion by allowing the plea bargain without the prosecution's consent and without evaluating the strength of the evidence. Galicia then appealed to the Supreme Court. ## Issues 1. Did the Court of Appeals gravely err in holding that the consent of the prosecution is a condition sine qua non for the validity of a plea bargaining agreement in drug cases? ## Decision / Rationale **Issue 1:** The Court of Appeals gravely erred in holding that the consent of the prosecution is a condition sine qua non for the validity of a plea bargaining agreement in drug cases. The Supreme Court **GRANTED** Galicia's petition, reversing and setting aside the CA's decision, and reinstating the RTC's orders and judgment. The Court applied the expanded guidelines for plea bargaining in drugs cases as established in **Aquino v. People**, which built upon **Montierro v. People**. Under these guidelines, particularly number 8, judges may overrule the prosecution's objection if it is based solely on internal DOJ rules (such as DOJ Circular No. 27, which had been revoked by **DOJ Circular No. 18**), and not on grounds specified in the Court-issued Plea Bargaining Framework. The Court found that the prosecution's sole ground for objection, which was DOJ Circular No. 27, had lost its legal basis due to its revocation by **DOJ Circular No. 18**. The latter circular now mandates that the acceptable plea bargain for a violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 is Section 12 of the same law, which was what Galicia availed of. Furthermore, under the revised guidelines (item number 5), if the prosecution raises only specific grounds for objection and waives others, it cannot raise new grounds on appeal. Since the prosecution's only objection was rendered invalid, and no other valid grounds were raised, there was no basis to remand the case for further determination of the plea bargain's propriety. The Court reiterated from **Montierro v. People** that while party consent is necessary, the approval of a plea of guilty to a lesser offense is ultimately subject to the sound discretion of the court. The trial court's duty is to evaluate the qualifications of the accused and the circumstances or evidence of the case. The Court also held that re-opening the case would violate Galicia's right against **double jeopardy**. The first jeopardy had already attached because Galicia was charged under a valid information, the RTC had jurisdiction, he was arraigned and pleaded, and…