GR 244413 Lazaro Javier (Digest)
G.R. No. 244413 , 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.
FACTS
The case involves a petition concerning plea bargaining in drug cases. The specific legal instruments in question are DOJ Circular No. 27 and OCA Circular No. 09-2018, which provide guidelines on plea bargaining. The petitioner sought a declaration that select portions of DOJ Circular No. 27, which vary from the provisions of OCA Circular No. 09-2018, are unconstitutional.
ISSUE
May the Court declare as unconstitutional the select portions in DOJ Circular No. 27 which vary from the plea bargaining provisions of OCA Circular No. 09-2018 in drug cases?
RULING
No. The Court has no authority to declare the select portions of DOJ Circular No. 27 unconstitutional. The Concurring Opinion provides the following reasons:
1. Both DOJ Circular No. 27 and OCA Circular No. 09-2018 are mere guidelines on plea bargaining. They are not mandatory and cannot be imposed on the accused or the prosecution. The DOJ, as the prosecuting arm of the State, has the right to promulgate its own governing rules on plea bargaining, just as the Court has the right to promulgate its own procedural rules on the matter. OCA Circular No. 09-2018 merely serves as an advisory for courts on the acceptable minimum floor limit for plea bargains.
2. Plea bargaining is a process of mutual satisfaction between the accused and the prosecution, subject to court approval, as authorized under Section 2, Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Its validity hinges on the conformity of both the accused and the prosecution. The rules on plea bargaining do not create or take away a vested right but function as a means to implement an existing right.
3. The accused has no constitutional right to plea bargain. The prosecution has the right to prosecute, which cannot be curtailed without its consent to the accused’s proposal. The essence of plea bargaining is mutuality, and the prosecution is not obligated to agree to a plea bargain, nor can it be compelled to do so, even by the Court.
4. A plea of guilty to a lesser offense is further addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. The word “may” in the rules denotes discretion, and such a plea is not to be allowed merely as a matter of bargaining or convenience for the accused.
Based on these reasons, the Concurring Opinion votes to DISMISS the petition.