G.R. No. 242722 - CARLOS CEREZA, ROGER ESTOLONILLO, RAYMUNDO LOPEZ,* YOLANDA PASCUAL, MERLY ANN MONTES, AND MAY ANN VILLA, VS. HON. DANILO V. SUAREZ, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PARAÑAQUE CITY, BRANCH 259, AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, upon a thorough evaluation of the pieces of evidence so far presented in this case the Motion to Withdraw Plea dated 04 July 2018 filed by accused through counsel. Atty. Isser Josef V. Gatdula of the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) is hereby GRANTED . Accordingly and applying DOJ Circular No. 027 which allows for plea-bargaining for the offense of violation of Section 13, Art. II of [R.A. No.] 9165 to the lesser offense of Section 11, par 3 of [R.A. No.] 9165, the herein accused are hereby allowed to withdraw their earlier plea of NOT GUILTY to violation of Section 13, Art. II of [R.A. No.] 9165 and plead guilty to the lesser offense of Section 11, par 3 of [R.A. No.] 9165 with the possible penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from [P]300,000.00 to [P]400,000.00. [12] In issuing the assailed Order, the RTC ratiocinated that an accused charged with, violation of Sec. 13 is explicitly excluded by A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC, considering that the imposable penalty is life imprisonment or life imprisonment to death. Moreover, the possession contemplated under Section 13 does not take into account the quantity and purity of the dangerous drugs, despite the graduated weights and corresponding penalties under Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165. Nonetheless, with the issuance of DOJ Circular No. 027, which was released after A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC, and which took into account the framework of this Court, a plea bargaining for violation of Section 13 of R.A. No. 9165 may be allowed. Under the DOJ Circular, the penalties to be applied for violation of Section 13, being in relation to that of Section 11, would be based on the amount of drugs that was recovered from the accused. [13] On August 22, 2018, Cereza, et al . filed a Partial Motion for Reconsideration, [14] which was denied in an Order dated September 11, 2018. [15] Undeterred, Cereza, et al . now come before this Court as a direct resort to challenge the above Orders. Issues I Whether DOJ Circular No. 027 of the Department of Justice is unconstitutional when it encroached upon the rule-making power of the Supreme Court II Whether petitioners are entitled to plea bargain pursuant to A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC III Whether the drug dependency assessment under DOJ Circular No. 027 is unconstitutional for violating the constitutional right of the accused to privacy and self-incrimination IV Whether the public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it allowed the petitioners to plead guilty to Section 11(3) of Republic Act No. 9165 instead of Section 12 of Republic Act No. 9165, which is favorable to the petitioners Petitioners' arguments In resorting directly before this Court, Cereza, et al . argue that the present case presents compelling circumstances that warrant the exercise of this Court's jurisdiction. According to Cereza, et al. , considering that there have been an