[ G.R. Nos.

244413 & 244415-16, February 18, 2020 ]

NURULLAJE SAYRE Y MALAMPAD @ "INOL", PETITIONER, VS. HON. DAX GONZAGA

XENOS, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF
PANABO CITY, DAVAO DEL NORTE, BRANCH 34; HON. MENARDO I. GUEVARRA,
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
RESPONDENTS.

DECISION

CARANDANG, J.:

This is a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition1 under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assailing the
Order2 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, Branch
34, in Crim. Case Nos. CRC 416-2017, 417-2017, and 418-2017, the dispositive portion of which
reads:

WHEREFORE, the Motion to Plea Bargain is DENIED. Set the pretrial to 31 January 2018 [sic] at
1:00 p.m.

SO ORDERED.3 (Italics and underscoring in the original.)

In an Order4 dated January 23, 2019, the RTC denied the Motion for Reconsideration5 of Nurullaje
Sayre y Malampad @ "Inol" (Sayre).

The Antecedents

Sayre was charged with violation of Sections 5, 11, and 12, Article II of Republic Act No. (R.A.)
9165,6 in three separate Information,7 which respectively read as follows:

CRIMINAL CASE NO. CRC 416-2017

That on or about 09 June 2017, within the City of Panabo, Davao del Norte, Philippines and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law,
did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and willingly traded, delivered and sold zero point one zero
two nine (0.1029) grams of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu) which is a dangerous drug,
contained in a sachet marked as JSC-BB to PO2 Jefferjun Cabantuan who acted as poseur buyer in
a legitimate buy-bust operation, and received from said poseur buyer marked money consisting of
one thousand peso (P1,000.00) bill bearing serial number X114893 with the initials JSC on the
forehead of Vicente Lim.

CONTRARY TO LAW.8

CRIMINAL CASE NO. CRC 417-2017

That on or about 09 June 2017 within the City of Panabo, Davao del Norte, Philippines and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law,
did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, willingly[,] knowingly had in his possession, control and
custody of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu), a dangerous drug, contained in four (4)
separate heat sealed transparent [sic] cellophane with their respective markings:

Marking Weight

JSC-P1 0.087 zero point zero eight seven zero

JSC-P2 0.6543 zero point six five four three

JSC-P3 0.0545 zero point zero five four five

JSC-P4 0.0531 zero point zero [five] three one

CONTRARY TO LAW.9

CRIMINAL CASE NO. CRC 418-2017

That on or about 09 June 2017, within the City of Panabo, Davao del Norte, Philippines and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law,
did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, willingly[,] knowingly had in his possession, control and
custody, one (1) tooter, an equipment, instrument, apparatus and paraphernalia fit or intended for
smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting or introducing dangerous drugs into the
body.

CONTRARY TO LAW.10

On November 9, 2017, Sayre filed a Proposal for Plea Bargaining11 and manifested as follows:

Today, he wanted to plea bargain Section 5 and 11 to a lesser offense under Section 12, which
carries with [it] a penalty of imprisonment of six (6) months and 1 day to four (4) years. Moreover, for
Section 12, penalty of compulsory 6-month rehabilitation. These proposals are without prejudice
however to the guidelines on plea bargaining yet to be released by the Supreme Court, whichever is
most favorable and beneficial to the accused; x x x12

Pursuant to Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) Circular No. 90-2018, adopting the Court En
Banc Resolution dated April 10, 2018 in Administrative Matter (A.M.) No. 18-03-16-SC (Adoption of
the Plea Bargaining Framework in Drug Cases), Sayre filed a Motion for Approval of Plea-Bargaining
Proposal with Modification.13 Sayre proposed the following:

xxxx

4. That in the said Plea-Bargaining Framework for Drug Cases, the offense under Section
5 with quantity of shabu from 0.1 to 0.99 grams the same can be plea bargain under Section
12 of RA 9165 fro:m Life Imprisonment to 6 months and 1 day to 4 years;

5. That also, the offense under Section 11 par. 3 with quantity of shabu from .01 gram to
4.99 grams the same can be plea bargain under Section 12 of RA 9165 from 12 years and 1
day to 20 years to 6 months and 1 day to 4 years;

6. That finally, the offense under Section 12 can now be plea bargain under Section 15 from
6 months and 1 day to 4 years to: (1) 6 months treatment and rehabilitation (if accused
admits drug use, or denies drug use but found positive after drug dependency test); or
(b) Undergo counselling program at rehabilitation center (if accused is found negative for
drug use/dependency);

7. That on September 18, 2018, Dra. Rachel Jan Inojada submitted her Drug Dependency
Test (DDT) on accused Sayre and found him negative on shabu;

8. That in view thereof, accused Sayre is praying for the approval of his Plea-Bargaining
Proposal for the offense under Sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165 to Section 12 with a penalty of
6 months and 1 day to 4 years; and

9. That however, for the offense under Section 12, the plea bargaining under Section 15 be
approved with a modified penalty of "Undergoing counselling at the rehabilitation center" for
being negative on drug use.14 (Italics and underscoring in the original; citations omitted)

Sayre proposed that he be allowed to file an Application for Probation for the penalty of 6 months
and 1 day to 4 years considering that the maximum penalty therein is less than 6 years and that he
be released from the custody of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology City Jail upon its
approval.15 The proposal of Sayre is summarized as follows:

PLEA BARGAIN PROPOSED BY

Criminal Case
OFFENSE CHARGED SAYRE PURSUANT TO
No.
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER NO.
 18-03-16-SC
SECTION PENALTY SECTION PENALTY

CRC Sec. 5 Illegal Life Sec. 12 Imprisonment of

416-2017 Sale of Imprisonment Possession of 6 months and 1
Dangerous [to death] and a Paraphernalia day to 4 years
Drugs (0.1029 fine ranging for dangerous
gram of shabu) from drugs
P500,000.00 to
P10,000,000.00
(0.01-0.99 gram
of shabu)
CRC Sec. 11 Illegal 12 years and 1 Sec. 12 Imprisonment of
417-2017 Possession of day to 20 years Possession of 6 months and 1
Dangerous and a fine Paraphernalia day to 4 years
Drugs (0.0870 ranging from for Dangerous
gram, 0.6543 P300,000.00- Drugs
gram, 0.0545 P400,000.00
gram, and (0.01-4.99 gram
0.0531 gram of shabu)
of shabu)

CRC Sec. 12 6 months and 1 Sec. 15 Use of Penalty of

418-2017 Possession of day to 4 years Dangerous Compulsory 6-
Paraphernalia and a fine Drugs month
for Dangerous ranging from Rehabilitation
Drugs P10,000.00 to
P50,000.00

City Prosecutor Jennifer B. Namoc-Yasol (City Prosecutor Namoc-Yasol) filed a Comment and
Counter-Proposal16 in accordance with Department of Justice (DOJ) Circular No. 27 dated June 26,
2018, otherwise known as the "Amended Guidelines on Plea Bargaining for Republic Act No.
9165,"17 summarized as follows:

COUNTER-PROPOSAL BY THE
Criminal Case OFFENSE CHARGED PROSECUTION PURSUANT TO
No. DOJ CIRCULAR NO. 27
SECTION PENALTY SECTION PENALTY

CRC Sec. 5 Illegal Life Section 11 Indeterminate

416-2017 Sale of Imprisonment paragraph 3 Penalty of 12
Dangerous and a fine Illegal years and 1 day
Drugs (0.1029 ranging from Possession of to 14 years and
gram of shabu) P500,000.00 to Dangerous 8 months and a
P10,000,000.00 Drugs fine of
(0.01-0.99 gram P300,00018
of shabu)

CRC Sec. 11 Illegal 12 years and 1 Sec. 12 Imprisonment

417-2017 Possession of day to 20 years Possession of Penalty of 6
Dangerous and a fine Paraphernalia months and 1
Drugs (0.0870 ranging from for Dangerous day to 4 years
gram, 0.6543 P300,000.00- Drugs and a fine of
gram, 0.0545 P400,000.00 P25,000.0019
gram, and (0.01-4.99 gram
0.0531 gram of shabu)
of shabu)
CRC Sec. 12 6 months and 1 Plead to the Indeterminate
418-2017 Possession of day to 4 years crime as Penalty of 6
 Paraphernalia and a fine charged months and 1
for Dangerous ranging from day to 4 years
Drugs P10,000.00 to and a fine of
P50,000.00 P25,000.00

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 is the 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 P300,00.00. For the charge
under Section 11 (Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs), the City Prosecutor recommended the
plea of guilty to the offense under Section 12 (Illegal 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 to the charge under Section 12 (Illegal Possession of Drug
Paraphernalia), 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 P25,000.00.21

The relevant offenses and their corresponding acceptable plea bargain for each offense, pursuant to
A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC, are reproduced below:

Acceptable Plea
Offense Charged
Bargain Remarks
Section Penalty Quantity Section Penalty

Section 5. Sale, Life .01 gram to .99 Section 12. 6 month In all
Trading, etc. of Imprisonment grams Possession sand 1 instances,wheth
Dangerous to Death and (metamphetamine of day to 4 er or not the
Drugs fine ranging hydrochloride Equipment, years maximum period
(Methampetamin from or shabu only) Instrument, and a of the penalty
e hydrochloride P500,000.00 Apparatus fine imposed is
or shabu) to and Other ranging already served,
P10,000,000.0 Paraphernali from drug
0 a for P10,000 dependency test
Dangerous to shall be
Drugs P50,000 required. If
accused admits
N.B.: drug use, or
The denies it but is
court is found positive
given the after drug
discretio dependency test
n to he/she shall
impose a undergo
minimum treatment and
period rehabilitation for
and a a period of not
maximu less than 6
m period months. Said
to be period shall be
taken credited to
from the his/her penalty
range of and the period of
the his after-care
penalty and follow-up
provided program if
by law. A penalty is still
straight unserved. If
penalty accused is found
within negative for drug
the use/dependency,
range of he/she will be
 6 months released on time
and 1 served,
day to 1 otherwise,
year may he/she will serve
likewise his sentence in
be jail minus the
imposed. counseling
period at
rehabilitation
center. However,
if accused
applies for
probation in
offenses
punishable
under R.A. No.
9165, other than
for illegal drug
trafficking or
pushing under
Section 5 in
relation to Sec.
24 thereof, then
the law on
probation shall
apply.

1.00 gram and No plea

above bargaining
(methamphetamin allowed.
e hydro-chloride
or shabu only)
Section 11, par. 12 years & 1 .01 gram to 4.99 Section 12. 6 months In all instances,
3. Possession of day to 20 grams Possession and 1 whether or not
Dangerous years and fine of day to 4 the maximum
Drugs (Where ranging from Equipment, years period of the
quantity P300,000 to Instrument, and a penalty imposed
of shabu, opium, P400,000 Apparatus fine is already
morphine, and Other ranging served, drug
heroin, cocaine Parapher- from dependency test
is less than 5 naliafor P10,000 shall be
grams) Dangerous to required. If
Drugs P50,000 accused admits
drug use, or
N.B.: denies it but is
The found positive
court is after drug
given the dependency test,
discretio he/she shall
n to undergo
impose a treatment and
minimum rehabilitation for
period a period of not
and a less than 6
maximu months.Said
m period period shall be
to be credited to
taken his/her penalty
from the and the period of
range of his after-care
the and follow-up
penalty program if
provided penalty is still
 by law. A unserved. If
straight accused is found
penalty negative for drug
within use/dependency,
the he/she will be
range of released on time
6 months served,
and 1 otherwise,
day to 1 he/she will serve
year may his sentence in
likewise jail minus the
be counseling
imposed. period at
rehabilitation
Section 11, par. 20 years to life 5 grams to 9.99 Section 11, 12 years center. However,
2. Possession of imprisonment grams par. 3. and 1 if accused
Dangerous and fine Possession day to 20 applies for
Drugs (Where ranging from of years probation in
quantity P400,000 to Dangerous and a offenses
of shabu, opium, P500,000 Drugs fine punishable
morphine, ranging under R.A. No.
heroin, cocaine from 9165, other than
is 5 grams or P300,00 for illegal drug
more but not 0 to trafficking or
exceeding 10 P400,00 pushing under
grams) 0 Section 5 in
relation to Sec.
N.B.: 24 thereof, then
The the law on
court is probation shall
given the apply.
discretio
n to
impose a
minimum
period
and a
maximu
m period
to be
taken
from the
range of
the
penalty
provided
by law.

10 grams and No plea

above bargaining
allowed

Meanwhile, the pertinent offenses of the guidelines for plea bargaining in cases involving R.A. 9165
set by the DOJ Circular No. 27 are reproduced below:

Offense Charged in Information Acceptable Plea Bargain

Section Penalty Section Penalty

Section 5 Sale, Life Imprisonment to Section 11, par. 3 12 yrs & 1 day to20 yrs
Trading, etc. of Death & Fine from Php Possession of and Fine from Php
Dangerous Drugs (No 500k to Php 10M Dangerous Drugs 300k to Php 400k
volume required)
(Plea bargaining is
allowed only if the
drugs involved are
"shabu" and/or
marijuana and the
quantity of "shabu" is
less than 5 grams and
the quantity of the
marijuana is less than
300 grams)
Section 11, par. 1 Life Imprisonment & No Plea Bargain
Possession of Fine from Php 400k to Allowed
Dangerous Drugs Php 500k
(Where quantity
of shabu is 10 grams or
more but less than 50
grams)

Section 11, par. 2 20 yrs and 1 day to Life No Plea Bargain

Possession of Imprisonment & Fine Allowed
Dangerous Drugs from Php 400k to Php
(Where quantity 500k
of shabu, opium,
morphine, heroin,
cocain, et al is 5 grams
or more but less than
10 grams; 300 grams
or more but less than
500 grams of
marijuana)

Section 11, par. 3 12 yrs & 1 day to 20 Section 12 Possession 6 months & 1 day to 4
Possession of yrs and Fine from Php of Equipment, years and a Fine
Dangerous Drugs 300k to Php 400k Apparatus & Other Ranging from Php 10k
(Where quantity of Paraphernalia for to Php 50k
"shabu", opium, Dangerous Drugs
morphine, heroin,
cocaine, et al is less
than 5 grams;
marijuana is less than
300 grams)
Section 12 Possession 6 months & 1 day to 4 Section 15 Use of 6 months Rehab
of Equipment, years and a Fine Dangerous Drugs (1st offense)
Apparatus & Other Ranging from Php 10k
Paraphernalia for to Php 50k (An alternative is to 6 months & 1 day to 4
Dangerous Drugs allow the accused to years and a Fine
change his plea to Ranging from Php 50k
"guilty" and avail of the to Php 200k (for
mitigating circumstance 2nd offense)
of voluntary plea of
guilty)

Since the parties failed to reach a consensus insofar as Criminal Case No. CRC 416-2017 for
violation of Section 5 of R.A. 9165 (Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs), the RTC deferred the pre-trial
to afford Sayre another opportunity to convince the prosecution to accept his proposal.22

Sayre reiterated his proposal to plea bargain the charge of Illegal 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 Circular No. 90-2018.23 On the other hand, the
City Prosecutor argued that they are bound by DOJ Circular No. 27, rejecting Sayre's plea bargain
from Illegal Sale of dangerous Drugs to Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, and insisting that "any
plea bargaining outs1de the DOJ circular is not acceptable."24

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

While the prosecution agreed to the plea bargain in Criminal Case Nos. CRC 417-2017 (Illegal
Possession of Dangerous Drugs) and CRC 418-2017 (Illegal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia), to
one count each for possession of drug paraphernalia under Section 12 of R.A. 9165, there was no
agreement in Criminal Case No. 416-2016 (Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs).25 In an Order26 dated
December 6, 2018, the RTC denied Sayre's Motion to Plea Bargain and set the case for Pre-Trial.

Sayre filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration27 arguing that the RTC should abide by and follow
OCA Circular No. 90-2018 dated May 4, 2018.28 His Motion for Reconsideration was denied in the
Order29 dated January 23, 2019.

In the present petition, Sayre seeks to declare DOJ Circular No. 27 unconstitutional for being in
contravention with the provisions of OCA Circular No. 90-2018.30 Citing the case of Estipona v.
Judge Lobrigo,31 Sayre argues that OCA Circular No. 90-2018 is a rule of procedure adopted by the
Supreme Court under its constitutional mandate to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice,
and procedure in all courts. Therefore, OCA Circular No. 90-2018 is deemed incorporated in the
Rules of Court.32 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 Circular No. 90-
2018.33 Sayre argues that 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
unconstitutional as it repealed, altered, or modified the more favorable plea bargaining provision
under OCA Circular No. 90-2018.

In the Comment34 filed by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) and the Secretary of Justice, the
OSG moves to dismiss the petition as Sayre violated the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.35 In
justifying the issuance of DOJ Circular No. 27, the OSG argues that: (a) it is an administrative
issuance which enjoys the presumption of validity36; (b) the DOJ has the authority to issue and
implement it37; and (c) it did not repeal, alter, or modify OCA Circular No. 90-2018 and they can be
harmonized.38 The OSG posits that while A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC sets the limits to be observed in
plea bargaining in drugs cases, "Acceptable Plea Bargain" therein merely refers to the lowest
possible "lesser crime" the court may allow an accused to plead guilty to. Consequently, the OSG
opines that the trial court may allow a plea of guilty to a more serious offense but which is still lesser
than the offense originally charged.39

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
unconstitutional as it repealed, altered, or modified the more favorable plea bargaining
provision under OCA Circular No. 90-2018, a procedural rule promulgated by the Supreme
Court En Banc, in violation of the rule-making power of the Court under Section 5(5), Article
VIII of the 1987 Constitution; and

3. Whether 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 OCA Circular No. 90-2018.

The Court's Ruling

The petition is not meritorious.

Serious and compelling reasons justify the direct resort to the Court.

There are serious and compelling reasons to warrant direct resort to the Court. Considering that
what is invoked here is the constitutionality of DOJ Circular No. 27 that continues to be implemented
in the prosecution of cases involving dangerous drugs, Sayre is justified in seeking the immediate
action of the Court. The outcome of the present petition will certainly affect hundreds of on-going
plea bargaining in dangerous drugs cases.

Plea bargaining was required during pre-trial conference in all criminal cases cognizable by the
Municipal Trial Court, the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, the Metropolitan Trial Court, the RTC, and the
Sandiganbayan40 with the objective of promoting fair and expeditious trial. In Estipona v.
Lobrigo,41 the Court, speaking through the ponencia of then Associate Justice Diosdado Peralta,
now Chief Justice, explained:

x x x plea bargaining has been defined as "a process whereby the accused and the prosecution
work out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case subject to court approval." There is give-and-
take negotiation common in plea bargaining. The essence of the agreement is that both the
prosecution and the defense make concessions to avoid potential losses. Properly administered,
plea bargaining is to be encouraged because the chief virtues of the system - speed, economy, and
finality - can benefit the accused, the offended party, the prosecution, and the court.42 (Emphasis
supplied; citations omitted.)

Plea bargaining is a 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 the accused benefit. The plea bargaining mechanism affords speedy disposal and
cost efficiency which significantly contribute to the restorative justice process. By shortening the time
between the original charge and the disposition, it enhances the rehabilitative prospects and
redeeming characteristics of the offender when the trial court approves the plea bargain to a lesser
offense.

We adopt the view of Justice Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen in his Separate Opinion in Estipona v.
Lobrigo43 that the aim is to rehabilitate, not punish, drug offenders. Citing his ponencia in People v.
Holgado,44 he stated:

It is lamentable that while our dockets are clogged with prosecutions under Republic Act No. 9165
involving small-time drug users and retailers, we are seriously short of prosecutions involving the
proverbial "big fish." We are swamped with cases involving small fry who have been arrested for
miniscule amounts. While they are certainly a bane to our society, small retailers are but low-lying
fruits in an exceedingly vast network of drug cartels. Both law enforcers and prosecutors should
realize that the more effective and efficient strategy is to focus resources more on the source and
true leadership of these nefarious organizations. Otherwise, all these executive and judicial
resources expended to attempt to convict an accused for 0.05 gram of shabu under doubtful
custodial arrangements will hardly make a dent in the overall picture. It might in fact be distracting
our law enforcers from their more challenging task: to uproot the causes of this drug menace. We
stand ready to assess cases involving greater amounts of drugs and the leadership of these
cartels.45

While it is the government's mandate to "pursue an intensive and unrelenting campaign against the
trafficking and use of dangerous drugs and other similar substances,"46 it is equally important to
highlight "the policy of the State to provide effective mechanisms or measures to re-integrate into
society individuals who have fallen victims to drug abuse or dangerous drug dependence."47 In
consonance with the State policy of restorative and compassionate justice, the confusion created by
DOJ Circular 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
rehabilitate 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 courts.

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, did not contravene the Plea
Bargaining Framework found in A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC.
The rule-making authority of the Court under Section 5(5), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution states:

Sec 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:

xxxx

(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading,
practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and
legal assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive
procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and
shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and
quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.48 (Emphasis
supplied.)

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 R.A. 9165.

Nonetheless, a plea bargain still requires mutual agreement of the parties and remains subject to the
approval of the court. The acceptance of an offer to plead guilty to a lesser offense is not
demandable by the accused as a matter of right but is a matter addressed entirely to the sound
discretion of the trial court.49

Section 2, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court expressly states:

Sec 2. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense. - At arraignment, the accused, with the consent of the
offended party and the prosecutor, may be allowed by the trial court to plead guilty to a lesser
offense which is necessarily included in the offense charged. After arraignment but before trial, the
accused may still be allowed to plead guilty to said lesser offense after withdrawing his plea of not
guilty. No amendment of the complaint or information is necessary. (Emphasis supplied.)

The use of the word "may" signifies that the trial court has discretion whether to allow the accused to
make a plea of guilty to a lesser offense. Moreover, plea bargaining requires the consent of the
accused, offended party, and the prosecutor. It is also essential that the lesser offense is necessarily
included in the offense charged.

Taking into consideration the requirements in pleading guilty to a lesser offense, We find it proper to
treat the refusal of the prosecution to adopt the acceptable plea bargain for the charge of Illegal Sale
of Dangerous Drugs provided in A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC as a continuing objection that should be
resolved by the RTC. This harmonizes the constitutional provision' on the rule making power of the
Court under the Constitution and the nature of plea bargaining in Dangerous Drugs cases. DOJ
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
R.A. 9165 did not violate the rule-making authority of the Court. DOJ Circular No. 27 merely serves
as an internal guideline for prosecutors to observe before they may give their consent to proposed
plea bargains.

Presiding Judge Xenos did not act 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 OCA
Circular No. 90-2018.

There is grave abuse of discretion when an act is: (1) done contrary to the Constitution, the law or
jurisprudence; or (2) executed whimsically, capriciously or arbitrarily, out of malice, ill will or personal
bias.50 Manifest disregard of the basic rules and procedures constitutes a grave abuse of
discretion.51 In this case, Presiding Judge Xenos did not act without or in excess of jurisdiction or
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction in not approving the plea
bargain of Sayre. There was a continuing objection on the part of the prosecution. Because of this
continuing objection, the parties failed to arrive at a "mutually satisfactory disposition of the case"
that may be submitted for the court's approval. The RTC correctly ordered the continuation of the
proceedings because there was no mutual agreement to plea bargain.
WHEREFORE, the Petition 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 criminal cases
filed against petitioner Nurullaje Sayre y Malampad @ "Inol."

SO ORDERED.

Peralta, C. J., Perlas-Bernabe, A. Reyes, Jr., Gesmundo, J. Reyes, Jr., Hernando, Inting, Delos
Santos, and Gaerlan, JJ., concur.

Leonen, J., See separate opinion (concurring)

Caguioa, J., See Dissenting Opinion.

Lazaro-Javier, J., Please see Concurring Opinion.

Zalameda, J., With Separate Concurring Opinion.

Lopez, J., Please see Concurring Opinion.

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that on February 18, 2020 a Decision, copy attached herewith, was rendered by
the Supreme Court in the above-entitled cases, the original of which was received by this Office on
July 2, 2020 at 3:20 p.m.

Very truly yours,

(SGD) EDGAR O. ARICHETA

Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1 Rollo, pp. 3-29.

2 Penned by Presiding Judge Dax Gonzaga Xenos; id. at 70-71.

3 Id. at 71.

4 Penned by Presiding Judge Dax Gonzaga Xenos; id. at 77.

5 Id. at 72-74.

6 Otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."

7 Rollo, pp. 32-34.

8 Id. at 32.

9 Id. at 33.

10 Id. at 34.

11 Not attached to the rollo.

12 Rollo, pp. 9-10.

13 Id. at 55-58.

14 Id. at 56-57.

15 Id. at 57.

16 Id. at 60-61.

17 Id. at 68

18 Id. at 61.

19 Id.

20 Id.

21 Id.

22 Penned by Presiding Judge Dax Gonzaga Xenos; id. at 62-63.

23 Id. at 64-65.

24 Id.

25 Id.

26 Supra note 2.

27 Rollo, pp. 72-74.

28 Id. at 73.

29 Supra note 4.

30 Rollo, pp. 26-27.

31 816 Phil. 789 (2017).

32 Rollo, pp. 18-20.

33 Id. at 21.

34 Id. at 112-152.

35 Id. at 119-121.

36 Id. at 125.

37 Id. at 125-128.

38 Id. at 128-130.

39 Id. at 139.

40 Section 2 of R.A. 8493 states:

Sec. 2. Mandatory Pre-Trial in Criminal Cases. - In all cases cognizable by the

Municipal Trial Court, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Regional
Trial Court, and the Sandiganbayan, the Justice or judge shall, after arraignment,
order a pre-trial conference to consider the following:
 (a) Plea bargaining;

(b) Stipulation of Facts;

(c) Marking for identification of evidence of parties;

(d) Waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence; and

(e) Such other matters as will promote a fair and expeditious trial.

41 Supra note 31.

42 Id. at 813.

43 Supra note 31.

44 741 Phil. 78 (2014).

45 Id. at 100.

46 R.A. 9165, Sec. 2.

47 Id.

48 CONSTITUTION, Sec. 5.

49 Daan v. Sandiganbayan, 573 Phil. 368, 377 (2008).

50 Almario v. Executive Secretary, 714 Phil. 127, 169 (2013).

51 Cruz v. People, 812 Phil. 166, 174 (2017), citing Crisologo v. JEWM Agro-Industrial
Corporation, 728 Phil. 315 (2014).