Consti II case digest: PEOPLE VS JUDGE VILLARAMA

Double Jeopardy:  requisites

FACTS:

The petitioner herein did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously have in his possession, custody and control 0/08 grams of Methampethamin Hydrochloride wrapped in aluminum foil, which is a regulated drug.

During the arraignment petitioner plead not guilty. Thereafter, trial ensued, and the counsel for the petitioner on that time, was willing to change the please of not guilty to guilty to the lesser offense of violation of Section 17 RA No 6425, as amended. The trial judge of the lower court granted the plea of guilty to the lesser offense

The prosecutor however, filed Opposition to the Request to Plead Guilty to a Lesser Offense on the grounds:

1. the prosecution already rested its case.

2. the possibility of conviction of private responded for the crime originally charged was high because of strong evidence of the prosecution.

3. the valuable time which the court and the prosecutor had expended would be put to waste.

Hence this petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent judge erred in convicting private respondent of the lesser offense of violation of section 17, RA No. 6425, as amended, instead of the offense originally charged of violation of Section 16 of the same law, in view of the absence of a valid change of plea.

HELD:

Plea bargaining in criminal cases is a process whereby the accused and the prosecution work out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case subject to the approval of the court. It usually involves the defendant's pleading guilty to a lesser offense or to only one or some of the counts of multi-count indictment in return for a lighter sentence than that for the graver charge.

Section 2: Plea of guilty to a lesser offense - The accused, with the consent of the offended party and the fiscal, may be allowed by the trial court to plead guilty to a lesser offense, regardless of whether or not it is necessarily included in the crime charged, or is cognizable by a court of lesser jurisdiction than the trial court. No amendment of the complaint or information is necessary.

A conviction under the plea of guilty to a lesser offense, shall be equivalent to a conviction of the offense charged for purposes of double jeopardy.

The Supreme Court held that the rules allow such plea only when the prosecution does not have sufficient evidence to establish guilt of the crime charged. 

The counsel for the private respondent maintains that the private respondent's change of plea and his conviction to the lesser offense of violation of Section 17, RA No 4625, as amended is no longer open to review otherwise his constitutional right against double jeopardy will be violated.

Such disposition has no basis. The right against double jeopardy given to the accused in Section 2, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court applies in cases where both the fiscal and the offended party consent to the private respondent's change of plea. Since this is not the situation here, the private respondent cannot claim this privilege.

Section 7, Rule 117 is more applicable.

However the conviction of the accused shall not be a bar to another prosecution for an offense which necessarily included the offense charged in the former complaint or information under any of the following instances..

1. ....,

2. ....,

3. The plea of guilty to the lesser offense was made without the consent of the Fiscal and the offended party.

Under this rule, the private respondent could still be prosecuted under the original charge of violation of Section 16 of RA No 6425 as amended because of the lack of consent of the Fiscal who also represents the offended party.

Wherefore, the petition is granted.