REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

10th Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 19
Cagayan de Oro City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CR FMY NO. 2017-1386

Plaintiff,
-versus- FOR

BRIAN CAGALINGAN y BACLIG, VIOL. OF R.A. No. 9165,

JOHN KENNEDY CANOTO, ART. II, SEC. 5
GREALYN SALAMANGA
Accused.
x-----------------------------------------------/

JUDGMENT

Accused JOHN KENNEDY CANOTO stands charged for violation of Sec. 5, Art.
II of Republic Act No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,
for illegally selling 1 heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white
crystalline substance found out to be Shabu, with the total quantity of 0.0923 gram.
Accused Canoto filed a modified motion that he would like to plea bargain by
pleading guilty to the lesser offense of violation of Sec. 12. Prosecution filed an
Opposition to the Motion to Enter into Plea Bargaining.

Plea bargaining is already allowed in drugs cases pursuant to the ruling of the
Supreme Court in Estipona v. Lobrigo (G.R. No. 226679, 15 August 2017) which
declared Sec. 23 of R.A. No. 9165 unconstitutional. Subsequently, the Supreme
Court issued A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC, 20 April 2018, which adopted the plea
bargaining framework proposed by the Philippine Judges Association.
In the SC-approved framework, plea bargaining is allowed for offenses involving
Sec. 5, Art. 11, RA 9165 provided that the quantity involved is less than 1 gram for
Shabu or less than 10 grams for Marijuana. Plea bargaining is also allowed for
offenses involving Sec. 11, supra, wherein the quantity involved is less than 5 grams
for Shabu or less than 300 grams for Marijuana. In both offenses, the lesser offense
to which the accused may plead guilty is a violation of Sec. 12, supra, which carries
the penalty of imprisonment from 6 months & 1 day to 4 years and fine from
PhP10,000.00 to PhP50,000.00.
As a rule and by jurisprudence, the consent of the prosecutor and the offended party
— or in case of public crimes wherein there is no offended party, the consent of the
arresting officer — is required. The consent requirement is not, however, a
mechanism to countermand the discretionary power of the court to grant or approve
plea bargaining. It is rather an opportunity given to the prosecution to challenge the
proposed plea bargaining if it would detract the court from its duty to administer
justice in a manner consistent with the objective for the enactment of the penal law
violated. As instructed by Crespo v. Mogul, G.R. No.L-53373, 30 June 1987, once
a complaint or information is filed in Court any disposition of the case as to its
dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the accused rests in the sound discretion
of the Court. The power to exercise such

1
judicial discretion is exclusive and is not shared by the prosecutor or the arresting
officer.
Sec. 2 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 articulates the purposes
for the enactment the anti-illegal drugs law to be the following:
a) To safeguard the well-being of the citizenry particularly the youth from the
harmful effects of dangerous drugs;
b) To pursue an intensive and unrelenting campaign against trafficking and the use
of dangerous drugs and similar substances;
c) To provide effective mechanism or measure to re-integrate into society
individuals who have fallen victims to drug abuse or drug
dependence through treatment and rehabilitation.

The plea bargain framework crafted by the Philippine Judges Association and
adopted by the Supreme Court precisely adheres to the foregoing purposes for the
enactment of R.A. No. 9165. It makes drug dependency examination (DDE) a
mandatory requirement for plea bargaining, and depending on its results,
rehabilitation or counselling is an imposed condition of the plea bargaining.
The approval of the plea bargaining would achieve the two-fold purpose of the law;
vindicate public order with the conviction of the accused, and give him a chance to
be rehabilitated and re-integrated into the society as a productive individual.
THE FOREGOING CONSIDERED, the Court finds the plea bargaining proposal
to be in accord with the rationale of the law and the wisdom of A.M. No. 18-03-16-
SC. Consequently, the plea bargaining is APPROVED and for which Accused
JOHN KENNEDY CANOTO is imposed the penalty of 2 years, 4 months and 1
day to 4 years and 2 months which is the medium period of Prision Correccional,
and to pay a fine of Php30,000.00. Moreover, Accused JOHN KENNEDY
CANOTO is also ordered:
1.To undergo a drug dependency examination (DDE) at the Department of
Health -Treatment and Rehabilitation Center, Cagayan de Oro City within 3
days from receipt of this Resolution. The BJMP is thus directed to bring
the accused to such facility for drug dependency examination.
2. Depending on the results of the drug dependency examination, the
accused shall undergo rehabilitation, whether out-patient or in-house as
recommended, or counselling if the accused would turn out negative for
drug dependency.
The period with which accused has been detained shall be credited in the service of
his sentence pursuant to Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Done this 4th day of September 2018, in Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines.

EVELYN J. GAMOTIN-NERY
Presiding Judge