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 stemmed from the Regional Trial Court’s (RTC) Order dated December 6, 2018, which denied the accused’s motion for plea bargaining in Criminal Case No. CRC 416-2017 involving the illegal sale of shabu weighing 0.1029 grams. The accused invoked OCA Circular No. 90-2018 and proposed to plead guilty to the lesser offense of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia. The prosecution objected, citing DOJ Circular No. 27, which states the acceptable plea bargain for the charged offense is illegal possession of shabu. The RTC denied the motion due to the lack of consensus and set the case for pre-trial. The accused filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC and assailing the constitutionality of DOJ Circular No. 27 for altering the plea bargaining provisions of OCA Circular No. 90-2018.

ISSUE

1. Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the accused’s motion for plea bargaining.
2. Whether DOJ Circular No. 27 is unconstitutional for conflicting with OCA Circular No. 90-2018.

RULING

The concurring opinion agrees with the ponencia that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion and that DOJ Circular No. 27 is not unconstitutional.
1. The RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Plea bargaining is a process requiring mutual satisfaction between the accused and the prosecution, subject to court approval. The prosecutor’s consent is a condition precedent. The RTC has the discretion to allow or disallow plea bargaining, guided by court issuances. The RTC’s deference to the prosecutor’s objection, given the lack of consensus, was a proper exercise of discretion and not a capricious or arbitrary act.
2. DOJ Circular No. 27 is valid. It was issued by the Secretary of Justice in the exercise of his power of direct control and supervision over prosecutors and enjoys a presumption of legality. The circular represents the prosecution’s consent, which is essential for a valid plea bargain. Furthermore, DOJ Circular No. 27 can be harmonized with OCA Circular No. 90-2018. The OCA circular does not limit the acceptable plea bargain for illegal sale of shabu solely to illegal possession of drug paraphernalia; it provides the lowest possible lesser offense, but a plea to a more serious yet still lesser offense (like illegal possession of shabu) remains within its framework. Thus, there is no irreconcilable inconsistency between the two circulars. Striking down DOJ Circular No. 27 would undermine the negotiated nature of plea bargaining and the Secretary of Justice’s supervisory powers.