Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 300 views

    Salvador Estipona, Jr. Y Asuela v. Hon. Frank E. Lobrigo Facts

    Uploaded by

    Krisel
    Petitioner Estipona Jr. was charged with a drug violation and sought to enter a plea bargain to plead guilty to a lesser charge due to being a first time offender with a minimal drug amount. However, Section 23 of the Anti-Drug Law prohibits plea bargaining in all drug cases. The Supreme Court ruled that Section 23 encroaches on the Court's exclusive power to promulgate procedural rules. It also held that the prohibition against plea bargaining in Section 23 is invalid until incorporated into the rules of procedure by an administrative circular. The Court did not resolve whether Section 23 violates equal protection to avoid preempting future discussion of the policy behind the section.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Salvador Estipona, Jr. Y Asuela v. Hon. Frank E. Lobrigo Facts

    Uploaded by

    Krisel
    300 views2 pages
    Petitioner Estipona Jr. was charged with a drug violation and sought to enter a plea bargain to plead guilty to a lesser charge due to being a first time offender with a minimal drug amount. However, Section 23 of the Anti-Drug Law prohibits plea bargaining in all drug cases. The Supreme Court ruled that Section 23 encroaches on the Court's exclusive power to promulgate procedural rules. It also held that the prohibition against plea bargaining in Section 23 is invalid until incorporated into the rules of procedure by an administrative circular. The Court did not resolve whether Section 23 violates equal protection to avoid preempting future discussion of the policy behind the section.

    Original Title

    11_Estipona v Lobrigo

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Petitioner Estipona Jr. was charged with a drug violation and sought to enter a plea bargain to plead guilty to a lesser charge due to being a first time offender with a minimal drug amount. However, Section 23 of the Anti-Drug Law prohibits plea bargaining in all drug cases. The Supreme Court ruled that Section 23 encroaches on the Court's exclusive power to promulgate procedural rules. It also held that the prohibition against plea bargaining in Section 23 is invalid until incorporated into the rules of procedure by an administrative circular. The Court did not resolve whether Section 23 violates equal protection to avoid preempting future discussion of the policy behind the section.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    300 views2 pages

    Salvador Estipona, Jr. Y Asuela v. Hon. Frank E. Lobrigo Facts

    Uploaded by

    Krisel
    Petitioner Estipona Jr. was charged with a drug violation and sought to enter a plea bargain to plead guilty to a lesser charge due to being a first time offender with a minimal drug amount. However, Section 23 of the Anti-Drug Law prohibits plea bargaining in all drug cases. The Supreme Court ruled that Section 23 encroaches on the Court's exclusive power to promulgate procedural rules. It also held that the prohibition against plea bargaining in Section 23 is invalid until incorporated into the rules of procedure by an administrative circular. The Court did not resolve whether Section 23 violates equal protection to avoid preempting future discussion of the policy behind the section.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Salvador Estipona, Jr. Y Asuela v. Hon. Frank E.

    Lobrigo
    G.R. No. 226679, August 15, 2017
    FACTS:
    Petitioner Estipona, Jr. was charged with violation of Section 11 of RA
    9165. On June 15, 2016, Estipona filed a Motion to Allow the Accused to
    Enter into a Plea Bargaining Agreement, praying to withdraw his not guilty
    plea and, instead, to enter a plea of guilty for violation of Section 12 of the
    same law, with a penalty of rehabilitation in view of his being a first-time
    offender and the minimal quantity of the dangerous drug seized in his
    possession.
    Petitioner argues that Section 23 of RA 9165 which prohibits plea
    bargaining in all violations of said law violates: (1) the intent of the law
    expressed in paragraph 3, Section 2 thereof; (2) the rule-making authority of
    the Supreme Court under Section 5(5), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution;
    and (3) the principle of separation of powers among the three equal
    branches of the government.
    ISSUES:
    Whether or not Section 23 of RA 9165 is unconstitutional as it
    encroached upon the power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules of
    procedure. (YES)
    Whether or not Section 23 of RA 9165 is unconstitutional for being
    violative of the Constitutional right to equal protection of the law.
    RULING:
    The Supreme Court held that the power to promulgate rules of
    pleading, practice and procedure is now their exclusive domain and no
    longer shared with the Executive and Legislative departments.
    The Court further held that the separation of powers among the three
    co-equal branches of our government has erected an impregnable wall that
    keeps the power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice and procedure
    within the sole province of this Court.  The other branches trespass upon this
    prerogative if they enact laws or issue orders that effectively repeal, alter
    or modify any of the procedural rules promulgated by the Court.
    Viewed from this perspective, the Court had rejected previous
    attempts on the part of the Congress, in the exercise of its legislative power,
    to amend the Rules of Court (Rules).
    The Supreme Court did not resolve the issue of whether Section 23 of
    R.A. No. 9165 is contrary to the constitutional right to equal protection of the
    law in order not to preempt any future discussion by the Court on the policy
    considerations behind Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165.
    Pending deliberation on whether or not to adopt the statutory provision
    in toto or a qualified version thereof, the Court deemed it proper to declare
    as invalid the prohibition against plea bargaining on drug cases until and
    unless it is made part of the rules of procedure through an
    administrative circular duly issued for the purpose.

    You might also like