TL;DR

The Supreme Court affirmed the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) authority to create its own rules for preliminary investigations and inquest proceedings, recognizing these as executive functions. This decision means the DOJ-NPS Rules will govern how prosecutors conduct preliminary investigations, ensuring consistency within the prosecution service. Consequently, provisions in Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure that conflict with the DOJ-NPS Rules are repealed, streamlining the process and emphasizing the executive branch’s control over preliminary investigations, while acknowledging the Court’s power to issue its own procedural rules in the future.

Whose Rules Rule? Executive vs. Judicial Authority in Preliminary Investigations

The case revolves around the draft Department of Justice-National Prosecution Service (DOJ-NPS) Rules on Preliminary Investigations and Inquest Proceedings. This initiative prompted the Supreme Court to examine the extent of the DOJ’s authority to promulgate such rules, particularly in relation to the Court’s own Rules of Criminal Procedure, specifically Rule 112 concerning preliminary investigations. The core legal question was whether the DOJ, as part of the executive branch, could independently issue rules governing preliminary investigations, or if this area was exclusively within the purview of the Supreme Court’s rule-making power.

Historically, both the judiciary and the executive branch shared authority over preliminary investigations. Early iterations of the Rules of Court, dating back to 1940, granted judges and fiscals concurrent powers to conduct these inquiries. This dual authority stemmed from laws like the Judiciary Act of 1948 and the Revised Administrative Code. However, jurisprudence and subsequent amendments gradually shifted the paradigm. Landmark cases like Salta v. Court of Appeals (1986) and People v. Navarro (1997) firmly established that preliminary investigation is inherently an executive function, an integral part of prosecution, not a judicial one. This perspective emphasizes the prosecutor’s role in determining probable cause before formal charges are filed in court.

The Court in this Resolution traced the evolution of preliminary investigation rules, highlighting the shift from shared judicial-executive authority to the executive’s primary domain. The 1940 and 1964 Rules of Court allowed justices of the peace, municipal judges, city and provincial fiscals, and even municipal mayors to conduct preliminary investigations. The 1985 and 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure initially maintained judicial involvement, but a 2005 amendment removed judges of Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts from the list of authorized officers. This amendment signaled a move towards consolidating authority within the prosecution service.

The Resolution underscores the purpose of preliminary investigation: to shield individuals from unwarranted prosecutions and to conserve state resources by filtering out baseless cases before trial. It is a mechanism to ascertain if there is sufficient probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and that the accused is likely responsible. The standard of evidence required is not proof beyond reasonable doubt, but rather evidence that engenders a well-founded belief of probable guilt. This function, the Court reiterated, falls squarely within the executive branch’s mandate to enforce laws and prosecute offenses.

Acknowledging its policy of non-interference in the conduct of preliminary investigations, the Supreme Court deferred to the DOJ’s prerogative. Citing Chan y Lim v. Secretary of Justice (2008), the Court emphasized that judicial review of prosecutorial findings is limited to instances of grave abuse of discretion. This deference stems from the recognition that prosecutors, as officers of the executive branch, are best positioned to determine probable cause within the context of their prosecutorial duties.

Consequently, the Court explicitly recognized the DOJ’s authority to promulgate the 2024 DOJ-NPS Rules. To ensure seamless implementation and prevent conflicts, the Resolution declared that any provisions in Rule 112 of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure inconsistent with the new DOJ-NPS Rules are deemed repealed upon the latter’s promulgation. This repeal, however, is carefully qualified. The Court retains its exclusive power to promulgate rules of procedure. The Resolution clarifies that the repeal is without prejudice to the Court issuing its own future rules on preliminary investigation, potentially incorporating elements of the DOJ-NPS Rules or addressing aspects not covered therein, especially concerning preliminary investigations conducted by other government agencies like the Ombudsman and the Commission on Elections.

In essence, this Resolution is a significant affirmation of the executive branch’s authority over preliminary investigations. It streamlines the rules governing these proceedings by prioritizing the DOJ-NPS Rules within the prosecution service, while maintaining the Supreme Court’s ultimate rule-making power and its commitment to ensuring fair and efficient criminal procedure.

FAQs

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: RE: DRAFT DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE-NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE’S [DOJNPS] RULES ON PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATIONS AND INQUEST PROCEEDINGS, A.M. No. 24-02-09-SC, May 28, 2024