(s) Republic of the Philippines Supreme Court Manila EN BANC NURULLAJE SAYRE y GR. Nos, 244413, 24441516 MALAMPAD @ “INOL”, Petitioner, Present PERALTA, CJ, PERLAS-BERNABE, = versus LEONEN, CAGUIOA, A.REYES, JR, GESMUNDO, J. REYES, JR, LAZARO-JAVIER, INTING, ZALAMEDA, HON. DAX GONZAGA XENOS, in LOPEZ, his capacity asthe Presiding Judge of |DELOS SANTOS, and Regional Trial Court of Panabo City, GAERLAN, J Davao del Norte, Branch 44; HON. MENARDO I. GUEVARRA, Secretary of the Department of ustice; and PEOPLE OF THE, Promulgated "HILIPPINES, February 18, 2020 DECISION CARANDANG, Jit ‘This is @ Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition’ under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assiling the Order” dated December 6, 2018 of public respondent Hon, Dax Gonzaga Xenos (Presiding Judge Xenos), Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Panabo City, Davao del Norte, q Pemodby Ping ag Dx Gongs Xeni 27071Decision 2 GR Nos. 244413, DuAIS.I6 2017, the Branch 34, in Crim, Case Nos. CRC 416-2017, 417-2017, and 41 dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, the Moson to Plea Burgin is DENIED. Set the pretil to #1 January 2018 [ste ot :00 pm. ‘SO ORDERED? (lies and underscoring in the niga) Tn.an Order dated January 23, 2019, the RTC denied the Motion for Reconsideration® of Nurullae Sayre » Malampad @ “nol” (Sayre). ‘The Antecedents Sayre was charged with violation of Sections 5, 11, and 12, Article II of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9165, in three separate Information,” which respectively read as follows CRIMINAL CASENO.CRCS16.2017 ‘That on or about 09 June 2017, within the City of Panabo, Davao. del Nort, Philippines and within the jrisietion of this Honomble. Cour, the above-named ‘sects, witout being authorized by ly, id hen adhere, ‘Wf, unlflly abd wilingly ted, delivered nd sold re peint one. sero to nine (01029). grime, of Metiylarpbetamine Hydroclorige (Shabu) which is a dangerous dv, contained ina sachet marked at JSC-BB OD Jefe Cabanan who ated pose buyer in leptimatebuy-bus operation, an recived om sid poseur buyer marked money consisting of one thowsand peso (01,000.00 bi bearing sral number X114893 with the Inils JSC onthe forehead of Vicente Lim, CONTRARY TO LAW! CRIMINAL CASE NO. CRC417.2017 That on or about 09 June 2017 within the Chy of Panabo, Daveo del Nore, Philipines and within the Jutsiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named Aceused, without being thre hy I di then ne thre, ‘wlll, unlawlly, willing.) koowingly had in his possession, contol and ctsiody of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu), a dangerous dru, contained in fe (@) separate het seal trnsparent se} cellophane with thei respective markings: ronment Came Dmgron DAF"Desision 3 GR Nos. 244413, DAAIS.I6 aegis SCO ‘870 zero point zero ight seven 20 Is-P2 ‘9.46512 [eo pin sb ve four ewe 3SC-P5 ‘00545 [zero point nero ive four five (Eiseps (2.0531 [zero point ao [ve] three one CONTRARY TO LAW? CRIMINAL CASE NO, CRC 418-2017 “That on or sbow 09 June 2017, within the City of Pranabo, Davao del Note, Philipines and. within the jussdicton ‘of his Honorable Cour, he above-named {ecused, without being auorzed by a, dd then and there, wilful, unlewtuly, wing) knowingly had in his Possession, contol and cstedy, one (1) toot, an ‘equipment, instrument, apparatus and paraphernalia fit or Intended for smoking, consuming, aisteing, injecting, ingesting or introducing dangerous drags into the body. CONTRARY TOLAW."" ‘On November 9, 2017, Sayre filed 1 Proposal for Plea Bargaining! and manifested as follows: “Today, he wanted plea bargain Section Sand 11 to a ler offenie under Secon 12, whic eates wit it} « Penalty of imprisonment of sx (6) month and 1 day to four Ehren, Banewnen ix Sean 12, youly of cantlaery ‘month rchbiliaion, These proposals are without prejudice however tothe guidlines on pea barsaining yet {o be lesod hy the Supreme Court, whichever is most favorable and beneficial 1 the accused xx!" Pursuant to Office ofthe Court Administrator (OCA) Circular No. 90- 2018, adopting the Court En Bane Resolution dated April 10, 2018 in ‘Administrative Matter (A.M,) No. 18.03-16-SC (Adoption of the Plea Bargaining Framework in Drug Cases), Sayts fled a Motion for Approval of Plea-Bargaining Proposal with Modification." Sayre proposed the following: 4, Tht in the said Pea-Bargaining Framework for Drug Ces, the offense under Section $ with quantity of shabu fiom 6.11 0.99 grams the sams can be pea bars under Section 12 of 9165 fom Life mpeisonment 106 mons snd Layo years, 5. That also, the offense under Section LL pat. 3 with quantity of sab fom- 01 gram 0499 grams theses rer Notatachedto era, fe, 510. cearereyDesision 4 GR. Nos. 244413, 244S15-16 ‘heplea bargain under Section 12 of RA 96S fom 12 yeas td I day 020 year to 6 months and | day to years 6 Tht finaly, the offense ander Seston12can now be ple basin und Seton 18 ftom 6 ments and day 14 years 10: (I) 6 months treatment and rekabiltaion (accused its dg se, o denies drug tse bot found postive afer rug dependeney ts); or) Under couneling moran Srehabliation center (i secased found negative or du, tse dependency 7. That on September 18, 2018, Dra. Rachel Jan Tnojada ‘utmited her Drag Depeadsney Test (DDT) on accused ‘Sayre and found him negative on sha That in view thereof, accused Sayre is praying forthe approval of his Plea-Bargaining Proposal forthe offense under Sections § and 1.9 RA 9168 to Seton 12 with « penalty of month and I dy to years: and 9. That however, forte offnse under Sesion 12, the ples bargining under Section 15 be approved with a modified ponalty of “Undergoing counseling at the rchabilitation enter” for boing ogatve on drug use. (Hales and ‘eerscoring inthe orginal citations emited) Sayre proposed that he be allowed to file an Application for Probation forthe penalty of 6 months and | day to 4 years considering thatthe maximum penalty therein is less than 6 years and that he be released from the custody of fhe Bureau of I ‘The proposal I of Sayre is summarized as follows: ~PLEA BARGAIN | Management and Penology City Jail upon its approval? PROPOSED BY SAYRE Criminal] OFFENSE CHARGED PURSUANT TO Case No. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER NO. 1843.16.8C SECTION [PENALTY | SECTION” |” PENALTY See. 8 bite See. 12 | Imprisonment Tegal Sale| mpisonment_| Possession of | of 6 ons ‘of Dangerous | to death] anda Paraphernalia | and 1 day to 4 Drugs| Gnerangina | for yea cre , SG, | (01029 gram | fom dangerous ‘of shabu) | PS00,000.00 | drugs 1.0,000,000.00 (01-099 {pram of shabu See. 1112 year and {| Ses, 12 [peo angen | Hezal day to 20 years | Possession of | of 6 months | Possession of |anda fine | Paraphernalia | qDesision 5 GR. Nos. 244413, | BHAIS16 | Dangerous ranging fom | for and dayiot | Drugs 300,000.00~ | Dangerous | years | (0.0870 | ¥400,000.00 | Drugs | ‘eram, 0.6543 | (0.01-4:99 | | ‘gram, 0.0545 | gram of shabu) | ‘gram, and | 0.0531 gram ‘of shabu) | i Sec. 12 | @monthsand See. 15 Penalty of Possession of | day to 4 years | Use of ‘Compulsory | crc | Paraphemalia| endatine | Dangerous | 6-month | 418-2017 | for ranging from | Drugs Rehabilitation | Dangerous | #10,000.00 to Drugs 50,000.00, City Prosecutor Jennifer B. Namoc-Yasol (City Prosecutor Namoe- Yasol) filed a Comment and Counter-Proposal'® in. accordance with Department of Iustice (DON) Circular No, 27 dated June 26, 2018, otherwise | kknovn as the "Amended Guidelines on Plea Bargaining. for Republic Act No. 9165," summarized as follows: | ‘COUNTER-PROPOSAL | : BY THE PROSECUTION | Criminal | OFFENSE-CHARGED | ys GrsuaNt TO DOs | i ‘CIRCULAR NO. 27 | SECTION [PENALTY [SECTION | PENALTY | Sec. § Tife See. 1, [Indeterminate | | Micgal Sale | Imprisonment | paragraph 3 | Penalty of 12 | of Dangerous | and fine legal years and 1 | CRC_ | Drogs ranging from | Possession of | day 0 14 | 416-2017 | (0.1029 gram | P500,000,00t0 | Dangerous | years and 8 | ‘of shabu) | P10,000,000.00| Drugs months and ¢ | (091-0. fine of L sram of shabu) £300,000" | See. 11 [12 years and 1 [See.12__| Indeterminate legal day to 20 years | Possession of | Penalty of 6 Possession of |and a fine | Paraphernalia | months and 1 | Dangerous ranging trom | for day to 4 years | crc | Pres 17300,000.00~ | Dangerous | anda fine of “gts | (0.9870 | 400,000.00 | Drugs 25,000.00" | gram, 0.6543 | (0.01-4:99 gram, 0,0545 | gram of shabu) gram, and 0.0531 gram | of shabu) | " ibmetDecision 6 GR Nos. 244413, idsts06 f See 12___ 6moniis and [Plead the [Indeterminate Possession of| day to4 years |erime as | Penalty of 6 Rc | Paraphemalia| anda fine |eharged | months and 1 | | 418.2017 | for ranging from day 04 yeas | Dangerous |P10,000.00t0 anda fine of | Drugs| 50,000.00 925,000.00 City Prosecutor Namoc-Yasol recommended that for the charge under ‘Section 5 (Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs), the plea bargain prescribed in DOJ Circular No. 27 isthe offense under Section 11, paragraph 3 (Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs) with an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) ‘years to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months and a fine of P300,00 0. For the charge under Section 11 (Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs), the City Prosecutor recommended the plea of guilty tothe offense under Section 12 legal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia with an indeterminate penalty of six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and a Fine of P25,000.00, as prescribed in DOJ Circular No, 27. As othe charge under Section 12 (egal Possession of Drug Paraphemalia), the City Prosecutor recommended that Sayre plead guilty to the crime as charged with an indeterminate penalty ranging from six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and a fine of 1P25,000.00."" “The relevant offenses and their corresponding acceptable plea bargain foreach offense, pursuant to AM. No, 18-03-16-SC, are reproduced below: ‘Offense Charged ‘Accepiale Pea Bargain | Remarks ‘Section | Penalty | Quantiiy Section [Penalty Section 5 Tite] Ol gram | Seeton (2. | @months and | Inall Sale, Trading | imprison | 10.99 | Possession of | day tod | instances, eof rmentto. | grams | Equipment” | yearsand a | whether Dangerous | Deatand | (seam |Jnsoument, | Soe ranging | ornotthe Drust fineranging | phetamin | Apparanas | fom sain (@etamphera- | “tom and Other | P10,000% | m period ie 500,000.00 | nycrocho | Parapher- | 50.000" | atthe Indvochlride | "to. | lords or | nla for emt forshaba) | P10,000,00, | “atubs | Dangerous | NB The | Imposed oD nls) | Drugs | courts | ialready given the | soned, | ‘isretion | dive Impose a | dependen minimum | eytet period and. shall be required 1 sccused therange of | admits the penalty | drug us, provided by_| or denies fama |ebutis straight | oundGR Nos. 244413, 2415-16 penal ‘within the rnge of sont and 1 day to 1 year ‘may likewise be imposed poative er drug Aependen eyes, hele stall undergo wot rehabilita “on for apeied ‘tot Tess than 6 monihs Suid peiod Ball be credited ‘ohisher ena andthe petod of sane ce and followup program ‘spenaly sinseved 7 sccused ‘sfound negative fords we dependen % teahe vn be released served, thervise heise ‘sill sene his injil rinse ‘ounelia period ebabiita However,Decision GR Nos. 244813, BHAIS-I6 Noplen ‘ating allowed T recused plies probation eases Prnisabl under RAN. 3165, ote than for legal waffckin gor Section 5 relation toe. 24 thereot, then the Taw on prckation ‘all ‘Section I, pr 3. Postesion of Dangerous Drugs (Where ‘quanto sha, opium, ‘morphine hin eesine is less than 5S eams) Sesion 1 Possession of| hall ‘wheter crntthe mpetiod ofthe penalty Imposed ialready served, aru, ‘ependen gta Sal be required, t secused miteDecision ° GR Nos. 244413, DHAIS-16 ie penaliy | Fagan | provided by. | ordenies Twa | Rout is stright | found pematy | postive ‘vithintbe | afer deus Tange of | dependen months and | | eyes, ‘ay to I yea | belshe ray likewise | shall heimposed._| undergo ‘Sesion par | 2Oyearsve | Serams | Seeion [12 years and treatment 2 Pouesson| lie | 10599 | pars day 020° and ‘of Dangerous | imprisonment | grams | Powsession of | yearsanda | retail Drugs (Where | and fine Dangerous | Goeranging | ion for ‘quantity of | ranging om Drugs| from apeiod habe, opium, | Pa00,000 300,000 | of not ‘morphine, 500,000 40,000 | less han eon, cosine moms is 5 ams oF Na: The | Sa more butt ‘covrtis | period ‘exceeding 10 fventhe | shall be ams) srt to | credited imposes | tonisher rminimum | penalty Peviod anda | andthe maximum | period of Period tobe | his st- fiken trom | car and theraage of follow-up the penalty | program provided by | ispenlty Iw ‘ssi unserved 1 ‘ecused istound pegatve fordiug ts) ependen o. Ilse willbe released served, taberwise hele ‘vl serve his inj minis the eounsein speiodDesision GR Nos. 244413, DeaEI516 rehab However, i sccused spies tr probation otenses ‘nisl under RA.No 165, saber than for legal ang teffiekin aor pushing Tnder Section 5 relation tose. 24 thereat lwo probation shall amp Werams and above ‘Noplea argining allowed ‘Meanwhile, the pertinent offenses ofthe guidelines for plea bargaining in cases involving RA. 9165 set by the DOJ Circular No. 27 ae reproduced below: ‘Offense Charged in Information | Aeceplable Plea Bargain Section Penal Penal Section 5 ite Imprisonment, Tied [12yn @T dave Sale, Trading et. | to Death Fine | Possession of | 20 yrsandFise of Dangerous | fom Php $00kt0 | Dangerout Drage | fom Pp 300K 0 Drage Php 10M Php 400k (Xo volume (Pies bargaining is required) allowed ony ifthe rugs involved are “babu” andor sanju and the {sess than 5 grams andthe quan of| the marjuana Tess ‘an 300 grams)Decision u OR Nos. 244413, 2a15-16 ‘Sesion 1, par 1 [Le impesonmant”] No Plea Bargain Possesion of | &Fine rom Pap | Allowed angrous Drage | 400K to Php SO (Where quantity of shabu 10 grams frmore bat less than $0 grams) Section II, par 2 |20yrsand 1 day | No Plea Baan Poseston of |Lielmprisonmeat_| Allowed | Dargurons Dragr | & Fine om Php (Where quantity of | 400K to Php SOK shub, opium, ‘morphine, ton, | coca etal is 3 trams oF moze but | fess than 10 grams 300 grams oe more but estan 500 of marijuana) L Section par | TZyiw&T day to | Seton 12 monks €T day Ponessionof|2DsrsandFine | Possession af | to4yearsanda Dangerous Drage | fom Php 300k 0 | Equpment Fine Ranging fom (ere quantity of | Pap 400k “Apparats & Other | Php 10k to Pap “shabu opium, Paraphernalia for | Sk sori, arin, Dangerous Drags ‘societal ses ‘a seams ‘arijana is ess fn 300 gram Seeton 72 ‘Simons RT day | Section TS ona Raab Powessionaf —_|to4yearanda | Usea/Dangerous | (1 offense) Epupaen, Fine Ranging fom | Drage Apparatus & Other | Php 1k to Pp SO | Srmonths & 1 day Paraphernalia for Can atenaive to | tyes Deangerons Drags alle the accused to | Fine Ranging om ange hispleato | Php SOk wo Php Sty and avail | 200K for 2™* ofthe mitigating | ofene) Sreumsiance of ‘olumary ples of sil) Since the parties filed to reach a consensus insofar as Criminal Case No. CRC 416-2017 for violation of Section 5 of R.A. 9165 (lilegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs), the RTC deferred the pre-trial to afford Sayre another ‘opportu 10 convince the prosecution to accept his proposal Sayte reiterated his proposal to plea bargain the charge of llegal Sale ‘of Dangerous Drugs to the lower offense of Possession of Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs under Section 12 in accordance with the guidelines provided by the Court in OCA Cireulae No, 90-2018. On the other hand, the Deed by Presi ie Dex Gonzaga Xen io 48,Decision 2 GR Nos. 20413, 24a45-16 City Prosecutor argued that they are bound by DOJ Circular No. 27, rejecting Sayte’s plea bargain from Illegal Sale of dangerous Drugs to Possession of Drug Paraphermalia, and insisting that “any plea bargaining outside the DOE circular is not acceptable." Ru of the Regional Trial Court ‘While the prosecution agreed tothe plea bargain in Criminal Case Nos. CRC 417-2017 (legal Possession of Dangerous Drugs) and CRC 418-2017 {llegsl Possession of Drug Paraphemalia, fo ane count each for possession of drug paraphemalia under Section 12 of R.A. 9165, there was no agreement in Criminal Case No. 416-2016 (Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs).* In an Ordes:* dated December 6, 2018, the RTC denied Sayre’s Motion to Plea [Bargain and set the case for Pre-Tiial Sayre filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration” arguing that the RIC should abide by and follow OCA Circular No, 90-2018 dated May 4, 20182" His Motion for Reconsideration was denied in the Order dated Tanwary 23, 2019. In the present petition, Sayre secks to declare DOJ Circular No. 27 ‘unconstitutional for being in contravention with the provisions of OCA Circular No. 90-2018." Citing the case of Estipona v. Judge Lobrigo," Sayre argues that OCA Circular No, 90-2018 isa rule of procedure adopted by the Supreme Court under its constitutional mandate to promulgate rules conceming pleading, practice, and procedute in all courts. Therefore, OCA Circular No. 90-2018 is deemed incorporated inthe Rules of Court." Denying his offer to plea bargain the charge against him for illegal sale of shabu with A total weight of 0.1029 gram to illegal possession of drug paraphernalia, Presiding Judge Xenos acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction when he disregarded the provisions of under OCA Cireular No, 90-2018. Sayre argu that the provision in DOJ Cireular No.27 pertaining to plea bargaining under Section 5 to Section 11 of R.A. 9165, penalized with imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from P300,000,00 to P400,000.00, is unconstitutional as it repealed, altered, or modified the more favorable ples bargaining provision under OCA, Circular No. 90-2018, Fp. 2627 al. 830,Decision B OR. Nos, 244413, 2adsi5.16 In the Comment filed by the Office ofthe Solicitor General (OSG) and the Seretay of Justice, the OSG moves to dismiss the petition as Sayre Violated the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.” In justifying the issuance of DOI Circular No. 27, the OSG argues that: (2) it isan administrative issuance ‘which enjoys the presumption of valiity™; (b) the DOJ has the authority to jssue and implement it”; and (6) it did not repeal, alter, or modify OCA. Circular No. 90-2018 and they can be harmonized.” The OSG posits that while A.M, No. 18-03-16-SC ses the limits o be observed in plea bargaining, indrugs cases, “Acceptable Plea Bargain” therein merely refers to the lowest possible “lesser erime” the court may allow an accused to plead guilty 10 Consequently, the OSG opines thatthe trial court may allow a plea of guilty toa more serious offense but which is stil lesser than the offense oxiginally charged? ‘The Issues ‘The issues to be resolved are: 1 Whether petitioner violated the doctrine of hierarchy of courts by filing his petition directly with the Supreme Court 2, Whether the provision in DOJ Circular No. 27 pertaining to plea- bargaining under Section 5 to Section 11 of R.A. 9165, penalized with imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from P300,000.00 to P400,000.00, is uuncofstnuttonal as It repealed, altered, or modifled the more favorable plea bargaining provision under OCA Circular No. 90-2018, procedural rule promulgated by the Supreme Coust En Banc, in Violation of the rule-making power of the Court under Section S(5), Article VIIL of the 1987 Constitution; and 3. Whether Presiding Judge Xenos acted without or in excess of {urisdition or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in ‘excess of jurisdiction when he disregarded the provisions of OCA Circular No, 99-2018, ‘The Court's Ruling ‘The petition is not meritorious. Serious_and_compelling reasons iusife the direct resort o the Court. ‘There are serious and compelling reasons to warrant direct resort tothe Court. Considering that what is invoked here is the constitutionality of DOJ icular No, 27 that continues to be implemented in the prosecution of eases 2 wares » feats SereDesision 4 OR Nos. 244413, 24641516 involving dangerous drugs, Sayre is justified in seeking the immediate ation ‘ofthe Court The outcome ofthe present petition will certainly affect hundreds ‘of on-going plea bargsining in dangerous drugs cases. Plea bargaining was required during pre-trial conference in all criminal ‘cases cognizable by the Municipal Trial Cour, the Municipal Cireuit Trial Cour, the Metropolitan Trial Cour, the RTC, and the Sandiganbayan'® with the objective of promoting fair and expeditious tal. In Estipanav. Lobrigo' the Court, speaking through the ponencia of then Associate Justice Diosdado Peralta, now Chief Justice, explained: xxx plea bargaining hasbeen defined a6 “a process whereby the accused and the proscution work oul a tutually satisfactory disposition ofthe case subject to ‘court approval” There is give-andtake negotiation ‘common n pea bargaining. The essence ofthe agreements that bork the prosecution and te defense make concessions to avoid potential loses. Properly administered, plea ‘bargaining i to be encouraged because the chief virtes ‘ofthe system speed, economy, and finality ~ean benefit {he accused, the offended par, the prosecution, and the court (Emphasis supplied citations omitted) Plea bargaining is vital component of restorative justice. In giving preference to working out a mutually satisfactory resolution of the case sanctioned by the court over lengthy and protracted trial, both the state and fe cvised benefit. The plea bargaining mechaniam affords speedy dispocal and cost efficiency which significantly contribute to the restorative justice process. By shortening the time between the original charge and the Gisposition, it enhances the rehabilitative prospects and redeeming characteristics of the offender when the tral court approves the plea bargain toa lesser offense, ‘We adopt the view of Justice Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen in his Separate Opinion in Estipona v. Lobrigo" thatthe aim is to rehabilitate, not punish, drug offenders. Citing his ponencia in People v. Holgado," he tated: Sy the Nasal Tal Cow Minha hat” Co q Meron Tl Cu Rein Tal Cut nr Sandi ‘hee oie a aspament rer relents NG le targa (©) staat oF (Ghd fe encion of ie of pais {@) Watertobectom nasi of ene and {GS i poms peti Saran Soerancst se Go).Decision 15 GR Nos. 244413, 2aH415-16 Ie fs lamentable that while our dockets are clogged with proseutions ander Republic Aet No. 9168 involving alle dug utes and rears, we are seriously abort of prosecutions involving the peoveibial "big fish” We are ‘ramped with case involving small fry who have been frrested for miniscule amounts While hey are cetiny bane or soe, stall etal are but low-lying fis in an exceodingly vast network of drug catls. Both law enforcers and prosecutor should realize that tbe more feoctive and efficient suategy so focus resources more on the source and true leadership of these nefarious ‘organizations. Otherwise, all these executive and judicial resources expended to atom Lo evict an accused For 0.05 fam of shabo under dowbfl custodial arangements will arly make a dentin the oveal pet. Imig in fet be Aisectng ou law enfeos from thee more challenging tasks uproot the causes of this drug menace. We stand ‘ready io ates anes involving greater amounts of rugs and the leadership of these earls While itis the government's mandate to “pursue an intensive and unrelenting campaign against the trafficking and use of dangerous drugs and other similar substances," itis equally important to highlight “the policy of the State to provide effective mechanisms or measures to re-intograte into society individuals who have fallen victims to drug abuse or dangerous drug dependence.” In consonance with the State policy of restorative and compassionate justice, the confusion ereated by DOJ Cireular No, 27 must immediately be clarified in order to guide the trial courts in addressing offers of the accused to plea bargain in drugs cases and afford offenders an ‘opportunity to rchabilitate and become productive members of society again, In view of the urgency posed by the issuance of DOJ Circular No. 27, there are sufficient justifications to deviate from the strict application of the doctrine of hierarchy of cours. ‘The provision in DOJ Circular No, 22 pertaining to plea-bargaining under Section 5 to Section LI of BA__9165, penalized — with (C2) vears and one (1) day to twenty, (20) years and a fine ranging from 300,000.00 to PA00,000.00, did ot contravene the Plea Bargaining Ecamework found in AM, No. 18 t68C.Decision 6 GR.Nos. 244413, Baaaisa6 “The rule-making authority of the Court under Section 5(5), Article ‘VII ofthe 1987 Constitution sates: See 5, The Supreme Court shall have the following ‘pore! (6) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and tcnforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practic, land procedure in all courts, the dmision to he pmactce of lav, the Iterated Bar, and Tegal assistance to the Underpivileged. Such als tll provide simplified and inexpensive procedare forthe spesty dsposion of cass, shal be uniform forall courts ofthe same grade, and shall tot diminish, Incosce, or modify substantive sighs. Rules lof proedre of special courts and quns uci bodies shall ‘emain effective unless approved by the Supreme Court * (Cmphasis upped) In this petition, A.M. No, 18-03-16-SC is a rule of procedure established pursuant to the rule-making power of the Supreme Court that serves as a framework and guide to the trial courts in plea bargaining violations of RA. 9165. Nonetheless, a plea bargain still requires mutual agreement of the partios and remains subject to the approval ofthe court. The acceptance of an ‘offer to plead guilly to leser offense is not demandable by the accused as a ‘matter of right but is a matte addressed entirely to the sound discretion ofthe ‘rial court. Section 2, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court expressly states: f gily to lesser offnse, — At nthe consent ofthe offended parey and the prosecutor, may besllowed by the wil cour to plead guy toa lesser offense which is necessarily Included in the offense charged. After eaigament but before lth accused may stil be allowed o plead uty tostidlerser offense afer withdrawing his ples of not guilty Noamendment ofthe complaiat or information ines) (Ganphasis supplied) ‘The use ofthe word “may” signifies thatthe trial court has discretion whether fo allow the avcused to make a plea of guilty to a lesser offense ‘Moreover, plea bargaining requires the consent ofthe accused, offended party, and the prosecutor. It is also essential thatthe lesser offense is necessarily included in the offense charged. Dan v Sonos 57 Pl 368,Desision ” GR. Nos. 244413, BuAIsi6 ‘Taking into consideration the requirements in pleading guilty toa lesser offense, We find it proper to teat the refusal ofthe prosecution to adopt the ‘acceptable plea bargain for the charge of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs provided in AM. No, 18-03-16-SC as a continuing objection that should be resolved by the RTC. This barmonizes the constitutional provision onthe rule ‘making power of the Court under the Constitution and the nature of ples bargaining in Dangerous Drugs cases. DOI Circular No. 27 did not repeal, alter, or modify the Plea Bargaining Framework in A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC. ‘Therefore, the DOJ Circular No, 27 provision pertaining to acceptable plea bargain for Section 5 of RA. 9165 did not violate the rule-making authority of the Court. DOJ Circular No. 27 merely serves as an intemal uideline for prosecutors to observe before they may give their consent proposed plea bargains. without or in excess of jurisdiction ‘or with grave abuse of discretion ‘amounting (o Tack oF in excess of iurisdiction_ when he disregarded ‘the provisions of OCA Circular No 90.2018, ‘Ther is grave abuse of discretion when anaes: (1) dane contrary to the Constitution, the law or jurisprudence; or (2) executed whimsical, caprciously or arbitrarily, out of malice, il! wil or personal bias *® Manifest disregard of the basic rules and procedures constitutes a grave abuse of discretion" In this ease, Presiding Judge Xenos did not act without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of disereton amounting to lack or in excess of juristition in not approving the plea bargain of Sayre. There was 2 continuing objection on the part of the prosecution. Because of this Continuing objection, the parties filed to arive ata “mutually satisfactory disposition ofthe ease that may be submited for the court's approval. The RIC cortedy ordered the continuation ofthe proceedings because there was so mutual agreement o plea bargain, WHEREFORE, the Pestion for Certiorari and Prohibition is DENIED. The Regional Trial Court of Panabo City, Davao del Norte, Branch, 34 is hereby ORDERED to proceed with the eriminal cases filed against petitioner Nurullae Sayre y Malampad @ “nol.” “Alina ce Scrat, 14 Ml 17,169 (81), ‘Gin. asl 812 a 174207, cig hao oJ Agri Crparaton raspnu sis one)Desision i GR Nos. 244413, SO ORDERED. Ee i CRRAND: “Associate Justice We concuR: Qy Out DIOSDADO M, PERALTA, Chief hl ihien bacaee\ = Ly seman Napsan i Aen “Associate Justice hin « . ch Goon svonafiifltves ‘i tare . Pagse see Greennes fetes ae lan a Welt, Sepanaly ee fe Plott ce fee Dosen, ot pee aaa dain “Associate JusticeDesison 9 GR. Nos. 244413, 2adai5-l CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 13, Article VII ofthe Constitution, I certify that the onlin inthe above Decision had ben each conutacon before ‘was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Cc wp DIOSDADOW. PERALTA Cie sie (CERTIFIED TRUE CoPY