Supreme Court Upholds DOJ's Higher Evidence Standard for Criminal Cases
The Supreme Court of the Philippines has issued a landmark ruling, declaring valid the Department of Justice (DOJ) circular that elevates the standard of proof required in preliminary investigations and inquest proceedings. This decision, penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, affirms that the DOJ's Department Circular No. 15, series of 2024, which outlines the 2024 DOJ-National Prosecution Service Rules on Preliminary Investigation and Inquest Proceedings, constitutes a valid exercise of the department's authority over prosecutorial processes.
New Standard: Prima Facie Evidence with Reasonable Certainty of Conviction
Under the new rules, prosecutors must now ensure that evidence presented to file a case against an individual includes all elements of the crime and demonstrates a high probability of conviction. This shifts the quantum of evidence from the previous "probable cause" standard to "prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction," a move aimed at strengthening the integrity of criminal prosecutions.
The case, Atty. Hazel L. Meking v. Jesus Crispin C. Remulla, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Justice (G.R. No. 280455, Nov. 11, 2025), was brought before the Supreme Court En Banc. Atty. Meking challenged the DOJ's new rules, arguing that they infringed upon the Supreme Court's exclusive power "to promulgate rules of pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts." She contended that the circular altered Rule 112, Section 3(a) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, which traditionally set the standard at probable cause.
Court Dismisses Petition, Clarifies Judicial and Executive Functions
In a decisive ruling, the Supreme Court dismissed Atty. Meking's petition, aligning its decision with A.M. No. 24-02-09-SC. This administrative matter recognizes the DOJ's authority to issue its own rules for preliminary investigations and inquest proceedings. The Court clarified that while rule-making for judicial proceedings remains an exclusive power of the Supreme Court, preliminary investigation is an executive function, not a judicial one.
"Preliminary investigation is part of the role held by a prosecutor within the Executive department, specifically to determine if there is proper and sufficient basis to file a criminal case against an individual," the Court stated. It emphasized that the Supreme Court had already acknowledged preliminary investigation as an "exclusive domain" of prosecutors when it amended the Rules of Criminal Procedure in 2005. In 2024, through A.M. No. 24-02-09-SC, the Court mandated the repeal of provisions in Rule 112 that were inconsistent with DOJ rules.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court made it clear that the DOJ Rules apply only to preliminary investigations and inquests conducted by prosecutors and do not dictate procedures for the courts. The constitutional rule-making authority of the Supreme Court over judicial proceedings remains intact, along with its power to correct grave abuse of discretion by prosecutors who violate constitutional rights.
Concurring Opinion Highlights Executive Mandate
In a concurring opinion, Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen underscored that the power to prosecute crimes falls under the president's constitutional mandate "to ensure the faithful execution of laws." As such, the DOJ, representing the executive branch, holds the authority to promulgate its own rules. Justice Leonen cited the case of Salta v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. L-42973 July 31, 1986), which noted: "A preliminary investigation is intended to protect the accused from the inconvenience, expense, and burden of defending himself in a formal trial until the reasonable probability of his guilt has first been ascertained in a fairly summary proceeding by a competent officer. It is also intended to protect the State from having to conduct useless and expensive trials."
He added, "Section 1, Rule 112 of the present Rules of Court states that it is conducted for the purpose of determining whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime cognizable by the court has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. The preliminary investigation proper is, therefore, not a judicial function. It is a part of the prosecution’s job, a function of the executive."
This ruling reinforces the separation of powers between the judiciary and executive branches, ensuring that prosecutorial processes are streamlined while upholding legal standards. It marks a significant development in Philippine criminal procedure, potentially leading to more rigorous case filings and reduced frivolous prosecutions.
