G.R. No. 244413, February 18, 2020,
♦ Decision,
Carandang, [J]
♦ Concurring Opinion,
Leonen, [J]
♦ Dissenting Opinion,
Caguioa, [J]
♦ Concurring Opinion,
Lazaro-Javier, [J]
♦ Concurring Opinion,
Zalameda, [J]
♦ Concurring Opinion,
Lopez, [J]
EN BANC
[ 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.
D E C I S I O N
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:
x x x x
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:
Criminal Case No. |
OFFENSE CHARGED |
PLEA BARGAIN PROPOSED BY SAYRE PURSUANT TO ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER NO. 18-03-16-SC |
|
SECTION |
PENALTY |
SECTION |
PENALTY |
CRC 416-2017 |
Sec. 5 Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs (0.1029 gram of shabu) |
Life Imprisonment [to death] and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00 (0.01-0.99 gram of shabu) |
Sec. 12 Possession of Paraphernalia for dangerous drugs |
Imprisonment of 6 months and 1 day to 4 years |
CRC 417-2017 |
Sec. 11 Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs (0.0870 gram, 0.6543 gram, 0.0545 gram, and 0.0531 gram of shabu) |
12 years and 1 day to 20 years and a fine ranging from P300,000.00-P400,000.00 (0.01-4.99 gram of shabu) |
Sec. 12 Possession of Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs |
Imprisonment of 6 months and 1 day to 4 years |
CRC 418-2017 |
Sec. 12 Possession of Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs |
6 months and 1 day to 4 years and a fine ranging from P10,000.00 to P50,000.00 |
Sec. 15 Use of Dangerous Drugs |
Penalty of Compulsory 6-month Rehabilitation |
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:
Criminal Case No. |
OFFENSE CHARGED |
COUNTER-PROPOSAL BY THE PROSECUTION PURSUANT TO DOJ CIRCULAR NO. 27 |
SECTION |
PENALTY |
SECTION |
PENALTY |
CRC 416-2017 |
Sec. 5 Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs (0.1029 gram of shabu) |
Life Imprisonment and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00 (0.01-0.99 gram of shabu) |
Section 11 paragraph 3 Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs |
Indeterminate Penalty of 12 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months and a fine of P300,00018 |
CRC 417-2017 |
Sec. 11 Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs (0.0870 gram, 0.6543 gram, 0.0545 gram, and 0.0531 gram of shabu) |
12 years and 1 day to 20 years and a fine ranging from P300,000.00-P400,000.00 (0.01-4.99 gram of shabu) |
Sec. 12 Possession of Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs |
Imprisonment Penalty of 6 months and 1 day to 4 years and a fine of P25,000.0019 |
CRC 418-2017 |
Sec. 12 Possession of Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs |
6 months and 1 day to 4 years and a fine ranging from P10,000.00 to P50,000.00 |
Plead to the crime as charged |
Indeterminate Penalty of 6 months and 1 day to 4 years and a fine of 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:
Offense Charged |
Acceptable Plea Bargain |
Remarks |
Section |
Penalty |
Quantity |
Section |
Penalty |
Section 5. Sale, Trading, etc. of Dangerous Drugs (Methampetamine hydrochloride or shabu) |
Life Imprisonment to Death and fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00 |
.01 gram to .99 grams (metamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu only) |
Section 12. Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs |
6 month sand 1 day to 4 years and a fine ranging from P10,000 to P50,000
N.B.: The court is given the discretion to impose a minimum period and a maximum period to be taken from the range of the penalty provided by law. A straight penalty within the range of 6 months and 1 day to 1 year may likewise be imposed. |
In all instances,whether or not the maximum period of the penalty imposed is already served, drug dependency test shall be required. If accused admits drug use, or denies it but is found positive after drug dependency test he/she shall undergo treatment and rehabilitation for a period of not less than 6 months. Said period shall be credited to his/her penalty and the period of his after-care and follow-up program if penalty is still unserved. If accused is found negative for drug use/dependency, he/she will be released on time served, otherwise, he/she will serve his sentence in jail minus the 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 above (methamphetamine hydro-chloride or shabu only) |
No plea bargaining allowed. |
|
|
Section 11, par. 3. Possession of Dangerous Drugs (Where quantity of shabu, opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine is less than 5 grams) |
12 years & 1 day to 20 years and fine ranging from P300,000 to P400,000 |
.01 gram to 4.99 grams |
Section 12. Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Parapher- naliafor Dangerous Drugs |
6 months and 1 day to 4 years and a fine ranging from P10,000 to P50,000
N.B.: The court is given the discretion to impose a minimum period and a maximum period to be taken from the range of the penalty provided by law. A straight penalty within the range of 6 months and 1 day to 1 year may likewise be imposed. |
In all instances, whether or not the maximum period of the penalty imposed is already served, drug dependency test shall be required. If accused admits drug use, or denies it but is found positive after drug dependency test, he/she shall undergo treatment and rehabilitation for a period of not less than 6 months.Said period shall be credited to his/her penalty and the period of his after-care and follow-up program if penalty is still unserved. If accused is found negative for drug use/dependency, he/she will be released on time served, otherwise, he/she will serve his sentence in jail minus the 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. |
Section 11, par. 2. Possession of Dangerous Drugs (Where quantity of shabu, opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine is 5 grams or more but not exceeding 10 grams) |
20 years to life imprisonment and fine ranging from P400,000 to P500,000 |
5 grams to 9.99 grams |
Section 11, par. 3. Possession of Dangerous Drugs |
12 years and 1 day to 20 years and a fine ranging from P300,000 to P400,000
N.B.: The court is given the discretion to impose a minimum period and a maximum period to be taken from the range of the penalty provided by law. |
|
|
10 grams and above |
No plea 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, Trading, etc. of Dangerous Drugs (No volume required) |
Life Imprisonment to Death & Fine from Php 500k to Php 10M |
Section 11, par. 3 Possession of Dangerous Drugs
(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) |
12 yrs & 1 day to20 yrs and Fine from Php 300k to Php 400k |
Section 11, par. 1 Possession of Dangerous Drugs (Where quantity of shabu is 10 grams or more but less than 50 grams) |
Life Imprisonment & Fine from Php 400k to Php 500k |
No Plea Bargain Allowed |
|
Section 11, par. 2 Possession of Dangerous Drugs (Where quantity 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) |
20 yrs and 1 day to Life Imprisonment & Fine from Php 400k to Php 500k |
No Plea Bargain Allowed |
|
Section 11, par. 3 Possession of Dangerous Drugs (Where quantity of "shabu", opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine, et al is less than 5 grams; marijuana is less than 300 grams) |
12 yrs & 1 day to 20 yrs and Fine from Php 300k to Php 400k |
Section 12 Possession of Equipment, Apparatus & Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs |
6 months & 1 day to 4 years and a Fine Ranging from Php 10k to Php 50k |
Section 12 Possession of Equipment, Apparatus & Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs |
6 months & 1 day to 4 years and a Fine Ranging from Php 10k to Php 50k |
Section 15 Use of Dangerous Drugs
(An alternative is to allow the accused to change his plea to "guilty" and avail of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary plea of guilty) |
6 months Rehab (1st offense)
6 months & 1 day to 4 years and a Fine Ranging from Php 50k to Php 200k (for 2nd offense) |
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:
x x x x
(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).
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation