During my law school days, we were taught in Criminal Procedure that when the crime allegedly committed carries a penalty of at least four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day, a Complaint shall first be filed with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor or Office of the City Prosecutor, as the case may be for the conduct of preliminary investigation.
Section 1, Rule 112 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure defines “Preliminary Investigation” as an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial. Our jurisprudence is replete with case stating that the quantum of evidence required in this proceeding is only “probable cause”.
Probable cause is defined as “the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief, in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted.” In Galario v. Office of the Ombudsman, this Court expounded:
A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has been committed and there is enough reason to believe that it was committed by the accused. It need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt.[1]
A finding of probable cause merely binds over the suspect to stand trial. It is not a pronouncement of guilt. The term does not mean “actual and positive cause” nor does it import absolute certainty. It is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief. Probable cause does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction.[2]
The above-discussed rules, however, was superseded by Department of Justice (DOJ) Circular No. 015 or the “2024 DOJ-NPS Rules on Preliminary Investigations and Inquest Proceedings”. Such Rules introduced new procedure for preliminary investigation and inquest proceedings (lawful warrantless arrests) as well as electronic filing and video conferencing, among others. It was published on July 16, 2024 and took effect on July 31, 2024, fifteen (days) after its publication.
In this week’s edition, we will discuss some of the notable provision of DOJ Circular No. 15 or the 2024 DOJ-NPS Rules on Preliminary Investigations and Inquest Proceedings.
Definition and Conduct of Preliminary Investigation.
The conduct of a preliminary investigation proceeding shall be required for crimes or offenses where the penalty prescribed by law is at least six (6) years and one (1) day without regard to fine. (Section 3) Section 7 thereof defines preliminary investigation as a summary proceeding to determine whether a person should be indicted in court after ascertaining, based on evidence provided and after case build-up has been conducted (in cases where case build-up is necessary pursuant to Section 5 of D.C. No. 20 dated 31 March 2023), that there is prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty for the respondent’s conviction and that he/she should be held for trial.
Quantum of Evidence Required.
The quantum of evidence for preliminary investigations and inquest proceedings is prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction. The quantum exists when a prima facie case is established by the evidence-at-hand, including but not limited to testimonial evidence, documentary evidence, and real evidence; and such evidence, on its own and if left uncontroverted, shall be sufficient to establish all the elements of a crime or offense charged, and consequently warrant a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
The quantum of evidence is met when the prosecutor is convinced that the entirety of evidence presented by the parties is (a) admissible, (b) credible, (c) capable of being preserved and presented to establish all the elements of crime or offense, as well as the identity of the person or persons responsible therefore. Reasonable certainty of conviction also includes a summary evaluation of the evidence presented by the respondents through their counter-affidavit.
[1] G.R. No. 211751, May 10, 2021
[2] Idem