Associate Judge Amy Lazaro-Javier agreed and said, "The DOJ simply used its right as the repressive arm of the state by announcing its own pleading rules." "Circular 27 of the DOJ on acceptable pleadings for Section 5 of R.A. 9165 not to violate the rule and authority of the Court of Justice," the Supreme Court said in a February 18 decision, but only recently released. "In reality, it is the way the court says that the trial will only accept a plea if it is consistent with the specific arguments provided for," Caguioa said. In oral argument, an accused is charged with violating Section 11 of RA 9165 for possession of dangerous drugs, less than 5 grams (shabu, opium, morphine, heroin and cocaine and less than 300 grams for marijuana) with a sentence of 12 years and one day to 20 years in prison and a fine between PHP300,000 and 400,000 PHP400,000, he or she can apply for an offence in Section 12 on possession of equipment, instrument, device, etc. with a sentence of six months and one day up to four years in prison and a fine of PHP10,000 to PHP50,000. 1. Give an order containing the plea that has been received2. More information on the civil aspect of the case; and three. Court`s judgment, including civil liability or damages duly established by the evidence. "Any executive broadcast that goes against the Supreme Court`s power over the rules of existence, practice and procedure in all courts, including the adoption of the framework for the trial of oral arguments before the regional court, is unconstitutional," Caguioa said. MANILA — The Supreme Court (SC) In Banc has ordered all courts to adopt a new negotiating framework for oral arguments in illicit drug cases, which would allow an accused to commit a lesser offence for a lighter sentence.
"The goal of decimating judicial defendants with a simplified, economic and rapid disposition of cases simply will not happen, and the issuance of the negotiating framework for oral arguments by the court will sound hollow and be reduced to a wasteful exercise," said Caguioa. For violating Section 14 for possession of dangerous drug equipment, devices and other utensils at parties, meetings or meetings, he or she may be pleased with a section 15 violation on the use of dangerous drugs to reduce the sentence from up to four months in prison to six months of treatment and rehabilitation. (PNA) Plea`s negotiations are also not authorized in accordance with Section 5 of RA 9165 on the sale, trade, administration, exemption, supply, distribution and transportation of all kinds of dangerous drugs, the SC found. The SC said that oral arguments are not allowed in drug cases where the sentence is life imprisonment or death. The argument negotiation framework was adopted by the SC as an out of its August 15, 2017 decision, which declared Comprehensive Dangerous Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 unconstitutional in violation of the Power of Dominance of The High Tribunal s. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). Section 23 of RA 9165 provides that anyone charged under the law, regardless of the unenforceable sentence, should be denied a plea for negotiation or guilty of a minor offence. If an accused of possession of equipment, devices and other dangerous drug utensils is charged under Section 12, he or she may plead for violation of Section 15 or the use of dangerous drugs in order to reduce the sentence from six months and one day to four years in prison and fine from PHP10,000 to PHP50,000 to six months of treatment and rehabilitation if he admits or consumes drugs or is deemed positive after using drug/addiction test. What happened? In April 2018, the Supreme Court adopted an administrative case (A.M) No.
18-03-16-SC, or the framework of arguments in drug cases.