Scribd Logo
Загрузить

Добро пожаловать в Scribd!

  • Estipona Case Digest

    Загружено:

    Jun Jun
    83 просмотров1 страница
    Estipona was charged with a drug offense and wanted to enter a plea bargain, but the judge did not allow it because Section 23 of RA 9165 prohibits plea bargaining for drug cases. Estipona argued Section 23 was unconstitutional. The court agreed, holding Section 23 violated equal protection by treating drug offenders differently than other criminals. It also violated separation of powers by limiting the Supreme Court's rule-making authority over procedural matters like plea bargaining.

    Исходное описание:

    Estipona cASE

    Авторское право

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Доступные форматы

    DOCX, PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd

    Этот документ был вам полезен?

    Это неприемлемый материал?

    Пожаловаться на этот документ
    Estipona was charged with a drug offense and wanted to enter a plea bargain, but the judge did not allow it because Section 23 of RA 9165 prohibits plea bargaining for drug cases. Estipona argued Section 23 was unconstitutional. The court agreed, holding Section 23 violated equal protection by treating drug offenders differently than other criminals. It also violated separation of powers by limiting the Supreme Court's rule-making authority over procedural matters like plea bargaining.

    Авторское право:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Скачайте в формате DOCX, PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    83 просмотров1 страница

    Estipona Case Digest

    Загружено:

    Jun Jun
    Estipona was charged with a drug offense and wanted to enter a plea bargain, but the judge did not allow it because Section 23 of RA 9165 prohibits plea bargaining for drug cases. Estipona argued Section 23 was unconstitutional. The court agreed, holding Section 23 violated equal protection by treating drug offenders differently than other criminals. It also violated separation of powers by limiting the Supreme Court's rule-making authority over procedural matters like plea bargaining.

    Авторское право:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Скачайте в формате DOCX, PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    из 1

    CASE DIGEST: SALVADOR A. ESTIPONA, JR., Petitioner, vs. HON. FRANK E.

    LOBRIGO, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Legazpi City, Branch 3, and
    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

    FACTS: Estipona was charged with an offense under RA 9165. He wants to enter into a plea
    bargaining agreement but Judge Lobrigo did not allow him to do so because Section 23
    specifically prohibits plea bargaining in drugs cases. Estipona argues that Section 23 is
    unconstitutional.

    ISSUE:

    Is Section 23 of RA 9165, which prohibits plea-bargaining in drugs cases, unconstitutional?

    HELD: Yes, Section 23 of RA 9165 is unconstitutional for two reason. First, it violates the
    equal protection clause since other criminals (rapists, murderers, etc.) are allowed to plea
    bargain but drug offenders are not, considering that rape and murder are more heinous than
    drug offenses. Second, it violates the doctrine of separation of powers by encroaching upon
    the rule-making power of the Supreme Court under the constitution. Plea-bargaining is
    procedural in nature and it is within the sole prerogative of the Supreme Court

    Вам также может понравиться