LEGEND:

PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION

NURULLAJE SAYRE Y MALAMPAD @ "INOL", PETITIONER, VS. HON. DAX GONZAGA XENOS
G.R. Nos. 244413 & 244415-16, February 18, 2020

CARANDANG, J.:

THE CASE
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,

FACTS:

 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:

1. 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.

2. 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 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

3. 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.

 Sayre filed a Proposal for Plea Bargaining. 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.
  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 ofP25,000.00, 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

 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.
ISSUES:

 Whether or not the petitioner violated the doctrine of hierarchy of courts by filing his
petition directly with the Supreme Court;

 Whether or not the provision in DOJ Circular No. 27 pertaining to plea-bargaining under
Section 5 to Section 11 of R.A. 9165, 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

 Whether or not the 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.

RULING:
 No. 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. 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.

 No. 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. A prosecutor’s duty is prosecute the proper offense based on the sufficiency of
the evidence. Consent to a plea of guilty to a lower offense is solely within the
 prosecutorial discretion. Courts do not have the discretion to mandate what offense the
prosecution should offense. 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.

 No. 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. Manifest disregard of the basic rules
and procedures constitutes a grave abuse of discretion.

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.