Practice question
A drug-case plea proposal complies with the Supreme Court's applicable plea-bargaining framework. The prosecutor objects solely because an inconsistent old DOJ policy forbids that bargain, offering no other supported ground. The judge claims the objection is an absolute veto. Under Aquino and Aguiling, which assessment is correct?
- Every prosecution objection is an absolute veto
- All drug-case proposals must be accepted without examination
- The DOJ may replace the Court's framework by circular
- The court may overrule that policy-only objection and must apply the Court's framework and relevant qualifications
- The accused may select any offense regardless of the framework
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/rc_110-127_crim.html — Rule 116 §§1–8 (arraignment, pleas, searching inquiry, counsel); Rule 115 §1.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2025/feb2025/gr_263038_2025.html — Aguiling v. People, G.R. No. 263038, February 17, 2025, MAIN decision (plea bargaining in drug cases; judicial framework and objection based solely on inconsistent DOJ policy).
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2025/jan2025/gr_259094_2025.html — Aquino v. People, G.R. No. 259094, January 28, 2025, EN BANC MAIN decision (drug-case plea bargaining framework and objections).
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.