THE Department of Justice announced Monday that the Supreme Court is set to strip judges of their power to conduct preliminary investigation for judicial determination of probable cause for the issuance of arrest warrant over cases filed by government prosecutors.
This was disclosed by Justice Undersecretary Raul Vasquez at the launch of the Dagupan City Justice Zone. In his speech, 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 said 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.
It can be recalled that in Mendoza v. People, the Court distinguished between the two kinds of determination of probable cause.
Citing People v. Castillo and Mejia, the Court 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 probable cause is present to charge those whom they believe to have committed the crime and should 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 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.
In an ambush interview, Vasquez said removing the power to conduct preliminary investigation from judges would result in a 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 belongs to the DOJ,” Vasquez said.
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 .
Meanwhile, Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo spearheaded the launching of the sixth Justice Zone in the country along with representatives of the DOJ and the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG), which comprises the Justice Sector Coordinating Council (JSCC).
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.
It streamlines coordination and enables real-time collaboration among local justice sector institutions, allowing them to better identify common issues and find solutions together, and making the delivery of justice more efficient and effective.
The first-ever justice zone was established in Quezon City, Cebu, and Davao in 2014. Ten years after, the JSCC has since established 12 other such zones around the country including in Cebu, Davao, Angeles, Bacolod, Naga, Calamba, Balanga, Baguio, Zamboanga, Tagaytay, Puerto Princesa.
Image credits: Mike Gonzalez via Wikimedia Commons CC BY-SA-3.0