The Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed a Department of Justice (DOJ) rule requiring prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction in preliminary investigations.

In a decision penned by Associate Justice Dimaampao, the Court dismissed the petition challenging DOJ Department Circular No. 015, upholding prosecutors’ authority to set evidentiary standards and clarifying that such rules fall within executive power.

“Department Circular No. 015 … regulates only the conduct of preliminary investigations and inquests by prosecutors, which are executive in nature. It does not dictate practice or procedure in court,” the decision stated.

FACTS AND ISSUE

The case stemmed from a petition filed by Atty. Hazel L. Meking seeking to nullify DOJ Department Circular No. 015, issued on July 16, 2024, which adopted the 2024 DOJ–National Prosecution Service (DOJ-NPS) Rules on Preliminary Investigations and Inquest Proceedings.

Central to the challenge was Rule 11, Section 5 of the circular, which set the “quantum of evidence” in preliminary investigations as prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction. This standard, according to Meking, effectively replaced the traditional probable cause threshold under Rule 112 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Meking argued that by introducing a new evidentiary threshold, the DOJ encroached on the Supreme Court’s exclusive constitutional authority to promulgate rules on pleading, practice, and procedure under Article VIII, Section 5(5) of the 1987 Constitution.

Prior to the petition, the Court had already addressed the validity of the DOJ-NPS rules in a related administrative matter, where it recognized the DOJ’s authority to promulgate rules governing preliminary investigations and inquest proceedings.

The main issue before the SC was whether the DOJ, in issuing Department Circular No. 015 and adopting a higher evidentiary standard, violated the Court’s rule-making power.

RULING

The SC dismissed the petition and affirmed the DOJ circular as a valid exercise of executive authority.

The Court ruled that preliminary investigation is not a judicial function but an executive one, and thus falls within the authority of public prosecutors. It emphasized that it had already recognized the DOJ’s power to issue rules governing such proceedings.

To harmonize this with judicial authority, the Court noted that it had itself decreed the repeal of inconsistent portions of Rule 112 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure upon the issuance of the DOJ rules.

The Court further clarified that the DOJ circular governs only prosecutorial processes and does not intrude into court procedures, which remain under the SC’s exclusive rule-making power.

The ruling also underscored that the Court retains the authority to review prosecutorial actions for grave abuse of discretion, ensuring that constitutional rights remain protected.

Follow Tan Briones & Associates on LinkedIn for more legal updates and law-related articles.