THE Department of Justice (DOJ) on Monday revealed that the Supreme Court (SC) is set to strip judges of their power to conduct preliminary investigation to determine probable cause for the issuance of arrest warrant over cases filed by state prosecutors.
Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo spearheaded the rollout of the sixth Justice Zone in the country along with the representatives of the DOJ and the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG), which comprises the Justice Sector Coordinating Council (JSCC).
In his speech during the launch of the Dagupan City Justice Zone, Justice Undersecretary Raul Vasquez said the SC is expected to amend Rule 112 of the Rules of Court by taking out preliminary investigation, “thus paving the way for a new paradigm in criminal investigation and prosecution.”
Once the Rule is amended, Vasquez pointed out that the conduct of preliminary investigation “will be the sole and exclusive domain” of the Justice department.
“With a higher degree of proof in filing of cases from probable cause to prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction and under the case build-up regime where the law enforcement and prosecution now cooperate, coordinate, and collaborate in evidence
gathering and preservation, case preparation, assessment of the case, and the like, gone would be the days of frivolous cases, harassment suits, or weaponization of penal laws,” Vasquez said.
“We are truly hopeful that only quality cases would be filed – a development that cuts across the pillars of criminal justice by lowering the dockets in the law enforcement, prosecution, judiciary, and corrections clusters,” he added.
In an ambush interview, Vasquez said removing the power to conduct of preliminary investigation from judges would result to speedy trial and resolution of cases.
“It will remove the motion for judicial determination of probable cause [ as a legal remedy]. It is the DOJ that will solely conduct the preliminary investigation. After the preliminary investigation, then proceed to trial already because the filing of cases exclusively belong to the DOJ,” Vasquez said.
Citing People v. Castillo and Mejia, the SC held that there are two kinds of determination of probable cause — executive and judicial.
It defined executive determination of probable cause as one made
during preliminary investigation by public prosecutors, who are given a broad discretion to determine whether there is probable cause to charge those whom he believes to have committed the crime and be held for trial.
The judicial determination of probable cause, on the other hand, is one made by the judge to ascertain whether a warrant of arrest should be issued against the accused.
The judge must satisfy himself that based on the evidence submitted, there is necessity for placing the accused under custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. If the judge finds no probable cause, the judge cannot be forced to issue the arrest warrant.
The high court stressed that while it is within the trial court’s discretion to make an independent assessment of the evidence on hand, it is only for the purpose of determining whether a warrant of arrest should be issued.
In its 2019 decision Jessie Tagastason, et al v. People , the SC reiterated that the function of the judge to issue a warrant of arrest upon the determination of probable cause is exclusive and cannot be deferred pending the resolution of a petition for review by the Secretary of Justice as to the finding of probable cause, which is a function that is executive in nature.
It stressed that defer the implementation of the warrant of arrest would be an encroachment on the exclusive prerogative of the judge to issue a warrant of arrest.
Under Rule 112, officers authorized to conduct preliminary investigation include provincial or city Prosecutors and their assistants; judges of the Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts; (c) National and Regional State Prosecutors; and other officers as may be authorized by law.
Gesmundo said the goal of the establishment of a Justice Zone in Dagupan is not just to deliver swift and fair justice” to the people but also to “strengthen the capacity” of local communities in “harnessing the best of bayanihan, enabling them to work together, and providing the systems and resources that they need—to dispense the justice that our people deserve.”
The Justice Zone is the JSCC’s flagship program for showcasing its core policy direction for the coordinated or sector approach to delivering justice.
A Justice Zone is an area where key programs relating to the delivery of justice are in place to maximize coordination among the different to address the perennial issue of delay and the greater problem of accountability.
Editor’s Note: This is an updated article. Originally posted with the headline SC to amend rules on judges’ authority to issue warrant of arrest—DOJ official