IS SUB JUDICE RULE APPLICABLE IN PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION?
The sub judice rule restricts comments and disclosures pertaining to judicial proceedings to avoid prejudging the issue, influencing the court, or obstructing the administration of justice. A violation of the sub judice rule may render one liable for indirect contempt under Section 3 (d), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court. [Romero II vs. Estrada, G.R. No. 174105 (02 April 2009)] Literally, sub judice means “before a court or judge for consideration”. The restriction against discussing the case applies to litigants and witnesses, the public in general, and most especially to members of the Bar and the Bench. [Republic vs. Sereno, A.M. No. 18-06-01-SC (17 July 2018)]
In the case of Nestle Philippines vs. Sanchez, G.R. No. 75209 (30 September 1987), the Supreme Court held that the rationale of the sub judice rule is that “it is a traditional conviction of civilized society everywhere that courts and juries, in the decision of issues of fact and law should be immune from every extraneous influence; that facts should be decided upon evidence produced in court; and that the determination of such facts should be uninfluenced by bias, prejudice or sympathies.”
While in a literal sense, the sub judice rule applies to those cases pending before the courts of law, it may be argued that the “court” applies even to quasi-judicial bodies and tribunals, and includes the prosecutorial arms of government, i.e. National Prosecution Service, in the conduct of preliminary investigation. In the case of Rodriguez vs. Judge Bonifacio, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1510 (06 November 2000), the Supreme Court held that the term “court” includes quasi-judicial bodies like Deportation Board of the Bureau of Immigration insofar as it castigated the trial court judge in issuing a Writ of Habeas Corpus when the subject person sought to be freed has been charged in court.
In analogy, even those in pending criminal complaints filed before the prosecutor’s office undergoing preliminary investigation, it may be argued that the sub judice rule applies. As with pending cases in court, there is a need to shield the prosecutors against outside pressure and influence to freely and impartially render a resolution based on the sworn affidavits and supporting documents submitted. As in the case filed by the Bohol Inter-Agency Task Force against the Mayor of Panglao and companions for supposed violations of Provincial Ordinance No. 2020-022, the purpose of which, as indicated in the Memorandum of the Provincial Legal Officer Atty. Nilo G. Ahat, is to afford the respondents due process before the altar of justice and not in the bar of public opinion. The media and the public in general, including the parties and lawyers, should refrain from discussing the merits of the case in mass and social media.