Title
Re: Draft Department of Justice-National Prosecution Service's Rules on Preliminary Investigations and Inquest Proceedings
Case
A.M. No. 24-02-09-SC
Decision Date
May 28, 2024
The Supreme Court recognized the DOJ's authority to promulgate new rules for preliminary investigations, allowing for the repeal of inconsistent provisions in Rule 112 of the current Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.
preliminary investigation
inquest proceedings
rules of court

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

Factual Background

The Sub-Committee received from one of its members from the DOJ a copy of a draft circular containing proposed DOJ-NPS Rules on preliminary investigations and inquest proceedings. The Sub-Committee solicited comments from the members of the banc to ensure harmony between prosecutorial practice and existing court procedures. The Chief Justice transmitted the banc’s comments to the DOJ by letter dated October 27, 2023. The DOJ replied by letter dated January 22, 2024, identifying the matters it adopted from the Court’s comments and attaching a copy of the final DOJ-NPS Rules. The Chief Justice then wrote to the banc on February 7, 2024 urging recognition of the DOJ’s authority to promulgate such rules and noting that this would entail the repeal of provisions of Rule 112 inconsistent with the DOJ-NPS Rules.

Brief History of the Rules on Preliminary Investigation

Under the Rules of Court (1940) preliminary investigation was defined as an inquiry or examination before arrest to determine whether reasonable ground existed to believe that an offense cognizable by the Court of First Instance had been committed. The Rules of Court (1964) retained the concept, using the term “preliminary examination.” The Court in People v. Montilla, 349 Phil. 640 (1998), addressed the quantum of evidence required and observed that subsequent rule revisions clarified confused concepts. The 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure reverted to the term “preliminary investigation” and defined it as an inquiry to determine whether sufficient ground existed to engender a well-founded belief that a Regional Trial Court cognizable crime had been committed and that the respondent was probably guilty. The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (2000) maintained that definition.

Purpose and Quantum of Preliminary Investigation

The Court has held that the quantum of evidence required in a preliminary investigation is evidence sufficient to “engender a well-founded belief” as to the commission of a crime and the respondent’s probable guilt. In Hashim v. Boncan, 71 Phil. 216 (1941), the Court clarified that the purpose of the preliminary investigation is to determine probable cause. The Court reiterated related guidance in Supreme Court Circular No. 12-87, which discussed a judge’s mandate under Art. III, Sec. 2, 1987 Constitution to personally determine probable cause for issuance of a warrant of arrest and recognized that a judge may rely on or require supporting affidavits beyond a fiscal’s certification.

Authority to Conduct Preliminary Investigation

Historically, authority to conduct preliminary investigation was shared by judicial and executive officers. Judicial authority was rooted in Republic Act No. 296, as amended by Republic Act No. 3828, and Batas Pambansa Blg. 29, which authorized justices of the peace and certain judges to conduct preliminary investigations. Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 further authorized municipal and metropolitan trial court judges to conduct preliminary investigations in specified jurisdictions. Executive authority derived from Republic Act No. 732, which empowered provincial fiscals to investigate crimes, Republic Act No. 5180, which required preliminary investigation by fiscals or prosecutors before filing informations for offenses cognizable by the Court of First Instance, and Republic Act No. 10071, which mandated the National Prosecution Service to be primarily responsible for conducting preliminary investigations and prosecutions. The 2000 Rules, as amended in A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC (2005), altered the roster of officers authorized to conduct preliminary investigations by removing judges of Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts from that list.

When Preliminary Investigation Is Required

The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (2000), Rule 112, sec. 1, provided that preliminary investigation is required for offenses where the prescribed penalty is at least four years, two months, and one day, without regard to the fine. The 2005 amendments retained this threshold.

Judicial Precedent on the Nature of Preliminary Investigation and Non-Interference

The Court has repeatedly characterized the conduct of preliminary investigation as an executive, not a judicial, function. In Salta v. Court of Appeals, 227 Phil. 213 (1986), the Court explained that preliminary investigation protects both the accused and the State and stated that the purpose of such inquiry is part of the prosecution’s job. The Court reiterated this position in People v. Navarro, 337 Phil. 122 (1997), holding that the prosecutor, as the officer authorized to direct and control prosecutions, is primarily responsible for ascertaining whether sufficient ground exists to engender a well-founded belief of guilt. Consequently, the Court has adopted a policy of non-interference in prosecutorial conduct of preliminary investigations and warned that trial courts cannot order prosecutors to conduct investigations over supervisory objections. In Chan y Lim v. Secretary of Justice, 572 Phil. 118 (2008), the Court held that findings of the Secretary of Justice are generally not subject to judicial review except when made with grave abuse of discretion.

Procedural and Rulemaking Considerations

The Court acknowledged the exclusive constitutional power vested in it to promulgate rules of practice and procedure. In Estipona v. Hon. Lobrigo, 816 Phil. 789 (2017), the Court affirmed that the power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice, and procedure belonged exclusively to the Supreme Court. The Court therefore recognized that only it could repeal Rule 112 in whole or in part. At the same time, the Court observed that recognizing the DOJ’s authority to promulgate prosecutorial rules would remove obstacles to the DOJ’s implementation of the DOJ-NPS Rules and that the pertinent provisions of Rule 112 that are inconsistent with the DOJ-NPS Rules should be deemed repealed once those rules are promulgated.

The Court’s Resolution and Disposition

The Court formally recognized the authority of the DOJ to promulgate the 2024 DOJ-NPS Rules on preliminary investigations and inquest proceedings. The Court directed that, once the 2024 DOJ-NPS Rules are promulgated by the DOJ, the provisions of Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (2000) that are inconsistent with the DOJ-NPS Rules are deemed repealed. The Court qualified that this repeal is without prejudice to its own power to promulgate a new rule touching upon preliminary investigation consistent with the DOJ-NPS Rules. The Court further directed that a copy of the 2024 DOJ-NPS Rules be endorsed to the Sub-Committee on the Revision of the Rules of Criminal Procedure for guidance and appropriate action.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court grounded its recognition of the DOJ’s rulemaking authority in precedent establishing that preliminary investigation is an executive function entrusted to prosecutors and in statutory mandates vesting investigatory and prosecutorial duties in fiscals and the NPS. The Court explained that deference to the DOJ in conducting and regulating preliminary investigations follows from the policy of non-interference which court

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms