A.M. No. 24-02-09-SC - Re: Draft Department of Justice-National Prosecution Service's Rules on Preliminary Investigations and Inquest Proceedings

Case Summary (A.M. No. 24-02-09-SC)

Proponent and Institutional Positions

Proponent: Department of Justice — submitted a draft DOJ Circular and final version of the DOJ‑NPS Rules concerning the conduct of preliminary investigations and inquest proceedings by the National Prosecution Service. Court role: the Sub‑Committee solicited and forwarded the banc’s comments to the DOJ, and the Court, sitting en banc, addressed recognition of the DOJ’s authority and the effect on Rule 112.

Key Dates and Correspondence

October 27, 2023: Chief Justice transmitted banc comments to Usec. Vasquez (DOJ).
January 22, 2024: Usec. Vasquez notified the Court of DOJ matters adopted from the Court’s comments and furnished the DOJ‑NPS Rules final version.
February 7, 2024: Chief Justice urged the banc to recognize the DOJ’s authority to promulgate the DOJ‑NPS Rules.
May 28, 2024: The Court issued the en banc Resolution recognizing the DOJ’s authority and directing the repeal of provisions of Rule 112 inconsistent with the DOJ‑NPS Rules.

Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis

Because the decision date is in 2024, the Court’s action is grounded in the 1987 Constitution. The Resolution references statutes and rules that have historically governed preliminary investigations and inquest proceedings, including the 1940, 1964, 1985, and 2000 rules; Republic Act No. 296 as amended by RA No. 3828 (Judiciary Act of 1948); Batas Pambansa Blg. 29 (Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980) and Blg. 129 (1981); Republic Act No. 732; Republic Act No. 5180 (as amended); and Republic Act No. 10071 (Prosecution Service Act of 2010). The Court also relied on controlling jurisprudence construing the nature of preliminary investigation and the allocation of authority between the Executive and Judicial branches.

Historical Definition and Purpose of Preliminary Investigation

The Resolution traces the evolution of the definition and jurisprudential understanding of preliminary investigation from the 1940 Rules of Court through the 1985 and 2000 Rules. Historically, preliminary investigation has been defined as an inquiry to determine whether there exists sufficient ground to engender a well‑founded belief that a crime cognizable by a trial court has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty, warranting holding for trial. The Court reiterated that the quantum of evidence required is enough to engender a well‑founded belief (probable cause), not the higher thresholds applied in earlier decades.

Statutory and Rule‑based Allocation of Authority Over Time

The Resolution outlines how authority to conduct preliminary investigations was originally shared among various judicial officers (justices of the peace, municipal judges, provincial fiscals, etc.) under early Rules of Court and statutory enactments. Over time, legislation and rule revisions expanded prosecutorial authority (e.g., provincial and city fiscals, state prosecutors, National Prosecution Service obligations under RA 10071). The 2000 Rules initially listed both prosecutors and certain judges among officers authorized to conduct preliminary investigation; a 2005 amendment removed judges of certain trial courts from that list, reflecting a trend toward prosecutorial primacy.

When Preliminary Investigation Is Required

Under the 2000 Rules (as amended), preliminary investigation is required for offenses punishable by imprisonment of at least four years, two months, and one day, irrespective of fines. The Resolution notes that this threshold was retained following the 2005 amendments.

Jurisprudential Shift: Preliminary Investigation as an Executive Function

The Resolution summarizes the Court’s jurisprudence establishing that preliminary investigation is an executive, not a judicial, function. Key cited authorities include Salta v. Court of Appeals (1986), People v. Navarro (1997), and Chan y Lim v. Secretary of Justice (2008). The Court explained that preliminary investigation is intended to protect both the accused (from unnecessary trials) and the State (from useless prosecutions), and that the determination of probable cause is fundamentally prosecutorial. Consequently, the Court has adopted a policy of non‑interference in the prosecutor’s conduct of preliminary investigation, subject to review only upon a showing of grave abuse of discretion.

Recognition of the DOJ’s Authority to Promulgate Rules

Relying on the executive nature of preliminary investigation and the DOJ’s statutory mandate (notably under RA 10071) to direct and control prosecution and preliminary investigation, the Court expressly recognized the DOJ’s authority to promulgate the 2024 DOJ‑NPS Rules on Preliminary Investigations and Inquest Proceedings. The Court emphasized deference to the DOJ’s internal rules so long as their application is not tainted by grave abuse of discretion.

Effect on Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure

To avoid conflict between the DOJ‑NPS Rules and the Court’s Rule 112, the Court resolved to repeal, once the DOJ promulgates the 2024 DOJ‑NPS Rules, the provisions of Rule 112 of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure that are inconsistent with the DOJ‑NPS Rules. The Resolution clarifies that: (1) the promulgation of the DOJ‑NPS Rules does not automatically repeal Rule 112; (2) only the Supreme Court may repeal its own procedural rules; and (3) the Court, exercising that authority, deemed repeal of inconsistent portions warranted to prevent impediments to DOJ implementation.

Limits on Repeal and Preservation of Judicial Rule‑making Authority

The Resolution explicitly preserves the Court’s exclusive constitutional power to promulgate rules of procedure. Citing Estipona v. Hon. Lobrigo (2017), the Court acknowledged that it alone can amend or repeal rules of pleading, practice, and procedure. The Court’s action to repeal inconsistent portions of Rule 112 is therefore an exercise of its exclusive rule‑making authority, undertaken to harmonize Court procedure w

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. 24-02-09-SC)

Case Caption and Nature of Document

En Banc resolution of the Supreme Court sitting as A.M. No. 24-02-09-SC, dated May 28, 2024.
Subject: the draft Department of Justice–National Prosecution Service’s (DOJ-NPS / DOJNPS) Rules on Preliminary Investigations and Inquest Proceedings.
Authored/penned by Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda (ZALAMEDA, J.) on behalf of the Court.
The document is a resolution recognizing the DOJ’s authority and addressing the relationship between the DOJ-NPS Rules and the Court’s existing Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (2000 Rules).

Procedural Background: Transmission and Coordination

A member of the Court’s Sub-Committee on the Revision of the Rules of Criminal Procedure (Sub-Committee) received from a DOJ member a copy of the draft DOJ Circular containing the proposed DOJ-NPS Rules on preliminary investigation and inquest proceedings.
The Sub-Committee solicited comments from members of the En Banc to ensure harmony between DOJ preliminary investigation/inquest procedures and the Court’s Rule 112, since Rule 112 was among those to be revised.
On October 27, 2023, Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo transmitted the En Banc members’ comments to Undersecretary Raul T. Vasquez (Usec. Vasquez).
On January 22, 2024, Usec. Vasquez highlighted the matters adopted by the DOJ from the Court’s comments and attached the DOJ’s final version of the DOJ-NPS Rules.
On February 7, 2024, the Chief Justice wrote to the En Banc urging recognition of the DOJ’s authority to promulgate the DOJ-NPS Rules consistent with jurisprudence that preliminary investigation and inquest proceedings are executive, not judicial, functions; and advising that this recognition would entail repealing affected provisions of Rule 112.

Composition and Role of the Sub-Committee

The Sub-Committee on the Revision of the Rules of Criminal Procedure included:
- Chairperson: Hon. Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda.
- Vice-Chairperson: Jhosep Y. Lopez.
- Members: Jose Midas P. Marquez, Antonio T. Kho, Jr., and Maria Filomena D. Singh.
The Sub-Committee’s role included soliciting En Banc comments, reviewing the DOJ draft, and later guidance in light of the DOJ‑NPS Rules once endorsed.

Historical Evolution of the Concept and Rules on Preliminary Investigation

1940 Rules of Court (Rule 108, sec. 1): defined preliminary investigation as a prior inquiry or examination before arrest by the judge or officer authorized to determine whether there is reasonable ground to believe an offense cognizable by the Court of First Instance has been committed and that the defendant is probably guilty, so as to issue a warrant of arrest and hold for trial.
1964 Rules of Court (Rule 112, sec. 1): retained the concept but used the term “preliminary examination” instead of “preliminary investigation.”
1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure (Rule 112, sec. 1): reverted to the term “preliminary investigation” and defined it as an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime cognizable by the Regional Trial Court has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial.
2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rule 112, sec. 1): maintained the 1985 definition.
The 1985 amendment clarified prior confusion over the required quantum of evidence and terms such as “prima facie” and “probable cause.”

Definition of Purpose and Required Quantum of Evidence in Preliminary Investigation

Purpose: to determine probable cause—whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that an offense has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty.
Quantum: as articulated in People v. Montilla and related authorities, the required quantum is evidence sufficient to “engender a well-founded belief” as to the commission of a crime and the respondent’s probable guilt.
Hashim v. Boncan: confirmed the purpose of preliminary investigation as the determination of probable cause based on evidence that engenders a well-grounded belief.
Supreme Court Circular No. 12-87 discussed the judge’s mandate under the 1987 Constitution to personally determine probable cause for issuance of warrants; judges may rely on the fiscal’s certification or require supporting affidavits.

Statutory and Historical Sources of Authority to Conduct Preliminary Investigation

Judicial sources:
- Republic Act No. 296, as amended by Republic Act No. 3828 (Judiciary Act of 1948): justices of the peace and judges of municipal courts of chartered cities could conduct preliminary investigations for offenses within their municipalities and cities cognizable by Courts of First Instance, without regard to punishment limits.
- Batas Pambansa Blg. 29 (Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980): reorganization context.
- Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (1981), sec. 37: authorized judges of certain trial courts (Metropolitan Trial Courts outside NCR, Municipal Trial Courts, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts) to conduct preliminary investigation of crimes within their territorial jurisdictions cognizable by Regional Trial Courts.
- Historical rule provisions (1940, 1964, 1985, 2000) enumerated judicial officers previously authorized.
Executive sources:
- Republic Act No. 732 (Amendment of the Revised Administrative Code): provincial fiscal authority to conduct investigation into crimes or misdemeanors and prepare necessary information or complaint.
- Republic Act No. 5180, as amended by Presidential Decrees Nos. 77 and 911 (Uniform System of Preliminary Investigation): requires preliminary investigation before filing information for offenses cognizable by the Court of First Instance; the investigating fiscal or state prosecutor determines probable cause based on sworn statements and documents, and if established, requires respondent counter-affidavit; the fiscal or prosecutor certifies reasonable ground to believe a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty.
- Republic Act No. 10071 (Prosecution Service Act of 2010), sec. 3: expressly mandates the National Prosecution Service to be primarily responsible for the conduct of preliminary investigation and prosecution of all cases involving violations of penal laws.

Chronology of Authorized Officers under Different Rules

1940 Rules: authorized to conduct preliminary investigation—(1) justice of the peace; (2) municipal judge; (3) city fiscal; and (4) municipal mayor for offenses within municipality or city cognizable by Court of First Instance.
1964 Rules: same as 1940 with the addition of provincial fiscals.
1985 Rules: preliminary