Case Summary (A.M. No. 24-02-09-SC)
Overview of the DOJ-NPS Rules
The Supreme Court’s Sub-Committee received a draft of the DOJ’s proposed Rules on Preliminary Investigation and Inquest Proceedings, which aims to harmonize DOJ procedures with existing court rules. This came as a response to the need for a coherent method in preliminary investigations, which are fundamental to criminal procedure.
Correspondence and Consideration
The Chief Justice transmitted comments from the Supreme Court members to the DOJ for consideration in finalizing the DOJ-NPS Rules. Subsequent correspondence from Undersecretary Vasquez detailed which recommendations were adopted, indicating a collaborative approach to refining the legal framework governing preliminary investigations.
Consolidation of Authority
The Chief Justice acknowledged that the authority to promulgate the DOJ-NPS Rules falls within the executive branch’s mandate. This perspective is grounded in the jurisprudence acknowledging that conducting preliminary investigations is an executive function, rather than a judicial function, as previously misconstrued.
Historical Background of Preliminary Investigations
A historical analysis shows that the conduct of preliminary investigations has evolved from a shared function between the judiciary and executive to a more exclusive role for public prosecutors. Earlier rules, such as those established in 1940 and revised in 1964, emphasized judicial involvement, but more recent jurisprudence has clarified the executive's primacy in this area.
Legislative Framework and Authority
The resolution outlines the various Republic Acts and legal provisions that establish the authority of both the judiciary and the executive in conducting preliminary investigations. The legislative history demonstrates a shift in roles, explicitly granting prosecutors exclusive authority in determining probable cause.
Policy on Non-Interference
The Supreme Court has consistently applied a policy of non-interference in preliminary investigations led by prosecutors. This principle safeguards the executive’s operational independence and emphasizes the distinct, non-judicial nature of the preliminary investigation process.
Implications of DOJ Rule Promulgation
The resolution underscores the Supreme Court’s recognition of the DOJ's autonomy to create and implement its own rules governing preliminary investigations. This acknowledgment paves the way for the eventual repeal of conflicting provisions in Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Future Directions in Procedural Rules
The argument has been made for potential modifications to the existing Rules of Criminal Procedure to clearly delineate the DOJ'
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.M. No. 24-02-09-SC)
Background and Introduction
- The Court's Sub-Committee on the Revision of the Rules of Criminal Procedure received the draft DOJ Circular containing the proposed Rules on Preliminary Investigation and Inquest Proceeding within the National Prosecution Service (DOJ-NPS Rules).
- The existing Court's rules on Preliminary Investigation (Rule 112) were undergoing revision under the Proposed Rules on Criminal Procedure.
- To harmonize the DOJ's conduct of preliminary investigations and inquest proceedings with the Court's existing procedures, the Sub-Committee solicited comments from the Court members (the banc).
- Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo transmitted these comments to Undersecretary Raul T. Vasquez of the DOJ for consideration.
- The DOJ acknowledged adoption of certain comments in its final DOJ-NPS Rules through correspondence dated January 22, 2024.
- The Chief Justice emphasized the DOJ's authority to promulgate rules on preliminary investigations consistent with jurisprudence recognizing this as an executive function, not judicial, and indicated affected parts of Rule 112 should be repealed.
Historical Development of Preliminary Investigation Rules
- 1940 Rules of Court defined preliminary investigation as a pre-arrest inquiry conducted by judges or authorized officers to determine reasonable ground for arrest and trial.
- 1964 Rules replaced "preliminary investigation" with "preliminary examination," maintaining the same purpose.
- People v. Montilla clarified differences in quantum of evidence needed, recognizing the evolution toward probable cause standard.
- 1985 Rules restored the term "preliminary investigation," defining it as an inquiry to determine a well-founded belief that a crime has occurred and the respondent's probable guilt.
- 2000 Revised Rules upheld this definition.
- The Court clarified in Hashim v. Boncan and Supreme Court Circular No. 12-87 that preliminary investigation's purpose is to determine probable cause.
Authority to Conduct Preliminary Investigation
- Historically, the authority was shared between judiciary and executive until the 2005 revis