View full case

BERT PASCUA Y VALDEZ v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

In this case, Bert Pascua, the petitioner, is challenging the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) which upheld the orders of the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Pascua is charged with violations of Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 for selling and possessing methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. Initially, Pascua pleaded not guilty, but later filed a motion to enter into a plea bargaining agreement. He offered to plead guilty to the lesser offense of violation of Section 12 of the same law. The RTC granted the motion but declared him ineligible for probation.

Pascua sought probation for the other criminal case, but the motion for reconsideration regarding eligibility for probation in the first case was denied. He appealed to the CA, which affirmed the RTC ruling. Pascua then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. The sole issue before the Court is whether the CA correctly ruled that the RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion in declaring Pascua ineligible for probation despite his guilty plea to the lesser offense.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not petitioner Pascua is eligible for probation after pleading guilty to the lesser offense of violation of Section 12, Article II of RA 9165.

  2. Whether or not the CA correctly ruled that the RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion in holding that Pascua is ineligible for probation.

RULING:

  1. The Court ruled in favor of the respondent RTC and CA. The CA correctly ruled that the RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion in holding that Pascua is ineligible for probation. The Court held that under A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC, persons charged with violation of Section 5 (drug trafficking and pushing) are not eligible for probation. The Court rejected Pascua's argument that probation is only prohibited if the accused is actually found guilty of sale of illegal drugs, and not when they are found guilty of the lesser offense of possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus, and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs. The Court deemed this interpretation as resulting in absurdity and defeating the purpose of the law. Additionally, the Court affirmed that probation is not a matter of right but a special privilege that is discretionary upon the court.

PRINCIPLES: