Case Plaintiff/ Defendant/ Facts Issue Ruling Important provisions

no./Date Petitioner Respondent

GR no Primcias Ocampo Date: 1952 Whether or not Yes, a trial with the aid of assessors is an absolute ¹ Substantive law and adjective
L6120 Petitioner was charged with: the right of the substantive right. The trial with the aid of law, distinguished. – Substantive
June 1. Chartered the Philippine vessel without the petitioner to a assessors as granted by section 154 of the Code of law creates, defines and
30,1953 president’s approval (C.A.#606) trial with the aid Civil Procedure and section 2477 of the old regulates rights, or that which
2. Failure to submit to the collector of customs the of assessors is an Charter of Manila are parts of substantive law and regulates the rights and duties
manifestand certain authenticated documents for absolute as such are not embraced by the rule-making which give rise to a cause of
the vessel “Antarctic”, and failure to obtain the substantive right, power of the Supreme Court. The aid may be action. Adjective or remedial law
necessary clearance from the Bureau of customs and the duty of invoked in the manner provided in the Code of prescribes the method of
prior to departure the court to Civil Procedure, and this right has been declared enforcing rights or obtains
provide assessors absolute and substantial by this Court in several redress for their invasion. As
On April 23, 1952, before the trial of said criminal cases, is mandatory. cases where the aid of assessors had been invoked. applied to criminal law,
petitioner filed a motion praying that assessors be The intervention of the assessors is not an empty substantive law is that which
appointed to assist the court in considering the questions formality which may be disregarded without declares what acts are crimes
of fact involved in said cases as authorized by section 49 violating either the letter or the spirit of the law. It and prescribes the punishment
of Republic Act No. 409 which provides that "the aid of is another security given by the law to the litigants, for committing them, as
assessors in the trial of any civil or criminal action in the and as such, it is a substantial right of which they distinguished from the
Municipal Court, or the Court of First Instance, within cannot be deprived without vitiating all the procedural law which provides
the City, may be invoked in the manner provided in the proceedings. or regulates the steps by which
Code of Civil Procedure." This motion was opposed by The contention of respondents we reckon is one who commits a crime is to be
the City Fiscal. predicated on the assumption that the provisions punished .
On April 28, 1952, the court issued an order denying the on assessors of the Code of Civil Procedure had
motion holding in effect that with the promulgation of been impliedly repealed. Such is not the case. We ² Evidence—the mode and
the Rules of Court by the Supreme Court, which became have already pointed out that the basic provisions manner of proving the competent
effective on July 1, 1940, all rules concerning pleading, on the matter partake of the nature of substantive facts and circumstances on which
practice and procedure in all courts of the Philippines law and as such they were left intact by the a party relies to establish the fact
previously existing were not only superseded but Supreme Court. in dispute in judicial
expressly repealed. The Supreme Court, having been t is therefore the opinion that the respondent Judge proceedings. It is identified with
vested with the rule- making power, expressly omitted acted with abuse of discretion in denying and forms part of the method by
the portions of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding petitioner his right to the aid of assessors in the which, in private law, rights are
assessors in said Rules of Court. Believing that this order trial of the two criminal cases now pending in the enforced and redress obtained,
is erroneous, petitioner now comes to this court imputing Court of First Instance of Manila. and, in criminal law, a law
abuse of discretion to the respondent Judge. transgressor is punished.
Rule denying accused of his right to confront (Criminal procedure refers to
and cross-examine the witnesses against him in a pleading, evidence and practice.)
preliminary investigation held to be only an
adjective law and therefore constitutional
(preliminary investigation — not essential part of
due process). Bustos vs Lucero
GR no Estipona Lobrigo Petitioner was charged with the offense under RA9165 Is Section 23 of Yes, Section 23 of RA 9165 is unconstitutional for RA9165 AN ACT
226679 He wants to enter into a plea bargaining agreement but RA 9165, which two reasons. INSTITUTING THE
15Aug201 Judge Lobrigo did not allow him under Sec 23 of prohibits plea- 1. it violates the equal protection clause COMPREHENSIVE
7 RA9165. bargaining in since other criminals (rapists, murderers, DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT
Estipona argues that it is unconstitutional. drugs cases, etc.) are allowed to plea bargain but drug OF 2002, REPEALING
unconstitutional? offenders are not, considering that rape REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425,
and murder are more heinous than drug OTHERWISE KNOWN AS
 offenses.
2. 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.
THE DANGEROUS DRUGS
ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED,
PROVIDING FUNDS
THEREFOR, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES
Section 23. Plea-Bargaining
Provision. – Any person charged
under any provision of this Act
regardless of the imposable
penalty shall not be allowed to
avail of the provision on plea-
bargaining.

Rule 118 of the Rules of Court

insofar as it allows plea
bargaining as part of the
mandatory pre-trial conference
in criminal cases.

 Is DOJ Circular No. 27

unconstitutional for
being inconsistent with
OCA Circular 90-18?

No. The Supreme Court in another recent

landmark case of Nurullaje Sayre @
“Inol” vs. Judge Xenos; (En Banc) G.R.
Nos. 244413, 244415-16; February 18,
2020 ruled that DOJ Circular No. 27 is not
inconsistent with OCA Circular 90-18. It
merely serves as an internal guideline for
the prosecutors to observe before they
give their consent to the proposed plea
bargains.

Since plea bargaining is a mutual

agreement between parties, DOJ Circular
No. 27 also serves as the counter-proposal
of the prosecutor to the offer of plea of
guilty to a lesser offense by the accused.

GR no Gomez SA Gomez-
156284 for Augusto samson et al
Feb 6,2007 Gomez
(intestate)