1. Sayre was charged with violation of Sections 5, 11, and 12, Article II of R.A.

9165 in three separate

Informations (selling of shabu - 0.1029 grams, possession of shabu, possession of paraphernalia).
2. Sayre filed a Proposal for Plea Bargaining.

Note: Ang issue rajud ani kay regarding the plea bargain to the case of violation of Section 5 (Selling of Shabu)
kay diri sila wa nagkasinabot sa prosecution. Ngano wa sila nagkasinabot? Abangaaaaaaan.

3. Sayre invoked 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)
- Under this rule, violation of Section 5 of RA 9165 with quantity of shabu from 0.1-0.99grams can plea
bargain to a lesser offense of violation of Section 12 (possession of paraphernalia)
4.
5.
6.
7. Sayre filed a Motion for Approval of Plea-Bargaining Proposal with Modification. Sayre proposed the
following:
a. 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
from Life Imprisonment to 6 months and 1 day to 4 years;
b. 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;
c. 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

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

SECTION PENALTY SECTION PENALTY

CRC Sec. 5 Illegal Sale Life Imprisonment Sec. 12 Imprisonment of 6

416-2017 of Dangerous [to death] and a Possession of months and 1 day
Drugs (0.1029 fine ranging from Paraphernalia for to 4 years
gram of shabu) P500,000.00 to dangerous drugs
P10,000,000.00
(0.01-0.99 gram
 of shabu)

CRC Sec. 11 Illegal 12 years and 1 Sec. 12 Imprisonment of 6

417-2017 Possession of day to 20 years Possession of months and 1 day
Dangerous Drugs and a fine ranging Paraphernalia for to 4 years
(0.0870 gram, from P300,000.00- Dangerous Drugs
0.6543 gram, P400,000.00
0.0545 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 and Dangerous Drugs Compulsory 6-
Paraphernalia for a fine ranging month
Dangerous Drugs from P10,000.00 Rehabilitation
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 PROSECUTION

OFFENSE CHARGED
Criminal PURSUANT TO DOJ CIRCULAR NO. 27
Case No.
SECTION PENALTY SECTION PENALTY

CRC Sec. 5 Illegal Sale of Life Imprisonment and Section 11 paragraph 3 Indeterminate Penalty of
416-2017 Dangerous Drugs a fine ranging from Illegal Possession of 12 years and 1 day to 14
(0.1029 gram P500,000.00 to Dangerous Drugs years and 8 months and
of shabu) P10,000,000.00 (0.01- a fine of P300,00018
0.99 gram of shabu)

CRC Sec. 11 Illegal 12 years and 1 day to Sec. 12 Possession of Imprisonment Penalty of
417-2017 Possession of 20 years and a fine Paraphernalia for 6 months and 1 day to 4
Dangerous Drugs ranging from Dangerous Drugs years and a fine of
(0.0870 gram, 0.6543 P300,000.00- P25,000.0019
gram, 0.0545 gram, P400,000.00 (0.01-
and 0.0531 gram 4.99 gram of shabu)
of shabu)

CRC Sec. 12 Possession 6 months and 1 day to Plead to the crime as Indeterminate Penalty of
418-2017 of Paraphernalia for 4 years and a fine charged 6 months and 1 day to 4
Dangerous Drugs ranging from years and a fine of
P10,000.00 to P25,000.00
P50,000.00

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 Life .01 gram Section 12. 6 month sand 1 day to In all instances, WON the
5. Sale, Imprison to .99 grams Possession of 4 years and a fine maximum period of the
Trading ment to (metampheta Equipment, ranging from P10,000 penalty imposed is already
, etc. of Death mine Instrument, to P50,000 served, drug dependency
Danger and fine hydrochloride Apparatus and test shall be required. If
ous ranging or shabu only) Other N.B.: The court is given accused admits drug use,
Drugs from Paraphernalia for the discretion to or denies it but is found
(Metha P500,00 Dangerous Drugs impose a minimum positive after drug
mpeta 0.00 to period and a maximum dependency test he/she
mine P10,000, period to be taken from shall undergo treatment
hydroc 000.00 the range of the and rehabilitation for a
hloride penalty provided by period of not less than 6
or law. A straight penalty months. Said period shall
shabu) within the range of 6 be credited to his/her
months and 1 day to 1 penalty and the period of
year may likewise be his after-care and follow-up
imposed. 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 No plea

and above bargaining
(methamphet allowed.
amine hydro-
chloride
or shabu only
)

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

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, Trading, Life Imprisonment  Section 11, par. 3 Possession of 12 yrs & 1 day
etc. of Dangerous Drugs to Death & Fine Dangerous Drugs to20 yrs and Fine
(No volume required) from Php 500k to from Php 300k to
Php 10M (Plea bargaining is allowed only if the Php 400k
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)

Sec.11, par. 1 Life Imprisonment & No Plea Bargain Allowed

Possession of Dangerous Fine from Php 400k
Drugs (Where quantity to Php 500k
of shabu is 10 grams or
more but less than 50
grams)

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

Possession of Dangerous Life Imprisonment &
Drugs (Where quantity Fine from Php 400k
of shabu, opium, to Php 500k
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)

Sec. 11, par. 3 12 yrs & 1 day to 20 Section 12 Possession of Equipment, 6 months & 1 day
Possession of Dangerous yrs and Fine from Apparatus & Other Paraphernalia for to 4 years and a
Drugs (Where quantity of Php 300k to Php Dangerous Drugs Fine Ranging from
"shabu", opium, 400k Php 10k to Php
morphine, heroin, 50k
cocaine,etc is less than 5
grams; marijuana is
less than 300 grams)

Section 12 Possession of 6 months & 1 day to Section 15 Use of Dangerous Drugs 6 months Rehab
Equipment, Apparatus & 4 years and a Fine (1st offense)
Other Paraphernalia for Ranging from Php (An alternative is to allow the accused to
Dangerous Drugs 10k to Php 50k change his plea to "guilty" and avail of the 6 months & 1 day
mitigating circumstance of voluntary plea to 4 years and a
of guilty) 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.

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.

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. Citing the case of Estipona v. Judge Lobrigo, 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. 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.

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 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:

(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.

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."