DOJ Authority Over Preliminary Investigations: What It Means for Criminal Procedure in the Philippines

The Supreme Court, sitting En Banc, has formally recognized the authority of the Department of Justice (DOJ) to promulgate its own rules on preliminary investigations and inquest proceedings. In a Resolution dated May 28, 2024 (A.M. No. 24-02-09-SC), the Court affirmed that the conduct of preliminary investigation is an executive, not judicial, function. This development clarifies the respective roles of the judiciary and the executive branch in criminal procedure and paves the way for the DOJ's 2024 National Prosecution Service Rules to take effect.

The Nature of Preliminary Investigation

Preliminary investigation is the process of determining whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial. The purpose is to protect the accused from the inconvenience, expense, and burden of defending against a baseless charge, while also protecting the State from useless and expensive trials.

Historically, both judges and prosecutors conducted preliminary investigations. Under the 1940 and 1964 Rules of Court, justices of the peace, municipal judges, and fiscals shared this authority. The 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure continued this arrangement, allowing both judges of municipal trial courts and prosecutors to conduct preliminary investigations. It was only in 2005 that judges were removed from those authorized to conduct preliminary investigations.

The Shift to an Executive Function

The Court has long held that preliminary investigation is not a judicial function but part of the prosecution's job. As early as 1986 in Salta v. Court of Appeals (227 Phil. 213), the Court declared that preliminary investigation is an executive function. This was reiterated in People v. Navarro (337 Phil. 122, 1997), where the Court stressed that a prosecutor is primarily responsible for ascertaining whether there is sufficient ground to believe that an offense has been committed.

The Court has adopted a policy of non-interference in the public prosecutor's conduct of preliminary investigations. In Chan y Lim v. Secretary of Justice (572 Phil. 118, 2008), the Court held that findings of the Secretary of Justice are not subject to review unless made with grave abuse of discretion. Courts generally defer to the prosecutor's determination of probable cause.

The 2024 DOJ-NPS Rules

The Court's Sub-Committee on the Revision of the Rules of Criminal Procedure received a draft of the DOJ Circular on proposed Rules on Preliminary Investigations and Inquest Proceedings. After soliciting comments from the members of the Court, the Chief Justice transmitted these comments to the DOJ, which adopted several of them in its final version.

The Court resolved to recognize the DOJ's authority to promulgate its own rules, noting that it is within the DOJ's prerogative to direct and control the conduct of preliminary investigations. To remove any obstacle in the DOJ's implementation, the Court declared that once the 2024 DOJ-NPS Rules are promulgated, the pertinent provisions of Rule 112 of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure inconsistent therewith are deemed repealed.

Why This Matters

This Resolution clarifies that only the Supreme Court can repeal Rule 112, as the power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice, and procedure is within its exclusive domain. The DOJ-NPS Rules do not automatically repeal Rule 112; rather, the Court itself has taken the step of repealing the inconsistent provisions.

The repeal is without prejudice to the Court's promulgation of its own new rule on preliminary investigation. The Sub-Committee has proposed a new version of Rule 112 that acknowledges the conduct of preliminary investigation is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the DOJ, the Office of the Ombudsman, the Commission on Elections, and other officers authorized by law.

Practical Takeaways

• The DOJ now has clear authority to issue its own rules governing preliminary investigations and inquest proceedings conducted by the National Prosecution Service.
• Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure remains in effect except for provisions inconsistent with the 2024 DOJ-NPS Rules.
• Preliminary investigation is an executive function; courts generally will not interfere with prosecutorial discretion absent grave abuse of discretion.
• Other agencies, such as the Office of the Ombudsman and the Commission on Elections, continue to conduct preliminary investigations under their respective mandates.
• Parties who believe a prosecutor acted with grave abuse of discretion may still seek judicial review, but courts will defer to the prosecutor's findings when well-supported by evidence.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.