BY ATTY. JULIUS GREGORY B. DELGADO
ATTY. HAZEL L. MEKING VS. HON. JESUS CRISPIN REMULLA, G.R. NO. 280455 (NOVEMBER 11, 2025): SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE REQUIRED IN PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATIONS AND INQUEST PROCEEDINGS
Petitioner Atty. Hazel L. Meking (Meking) challenges Department Circular No. 015 issued by then Secretary of Justice, Hon. Jesus Crispin Remulla, particularly Section 5, Rule II (Rules on Preliminary Investigation and Inquest Proceedings), which provides for the new quantum of evidence required in preliminary investigations and inquest proceedings which is prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction. This quantum of evidence simply means that, when a prima facie case is established by the evidence-at-hand, including but not limited to testimonial evidence; documentary evidence, and real eavidence; and such evdidence, on its own and if left uncontradicted, shall be sufficient evidence to establish all the elements of a crime or offense charged, and consequently warrant a conviction beyond reaosnable doubt.
This departs from the previous quantum of evidence which is probable cause which is the existence of such facts and circumstances that would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to believe, or entertain an honest and strong suspicion, that a crime has been committed and that the person charged is guilty of the crime. Petitioner making assails that Department Circular No. 015 issued by the DOJ violates the rule-making power of the Supreme Court under Section 5 (5), Article VIII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
The Supreme Court junked the petition of petitioner Meking and held that the Court, in its Resolution in Re: Draft Department of Justice-National Prosecution Service Rules on Preliminary Investigations and Inquest Proceedings, has already resolved the matter recognizing the authority of the respondent to promulgate its own rules on preliminary investigation and inquest proceedings. Preliminary investigation was diffferentiated as an executive functiion and not judicial in character.
The Court held: “Against this jurisprudential and historical backdrop, the controlling effect of A.M. No. 24-02-09-SC, therefore, is this Court’s recognition of the DOJ’s authority to promulgate Department Circular No. 015 and the declaration that, upon its promulgation, the pertinent inconsistent provisions of Rule 112 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure are deemed repealed but without prejudice to the Court’s issuance of its own rules on preliminary investigation to account for other investigative bodies.
Thus, Department Circular No. 015 or the 2024 DOJ-NPS Rules regulates only the conduct of preliminary investigations and inquests by prosecutors, which are executive in nature. It does not dictate practice or procedure in court. This Court’s constitutional rule-making authority remains supreme over judicial proceedings, and its power to correct, on grave abuse of discretion, any prosecutorial rule or action that impairs constitutional rights, is retained.”
This author believes that this ruling is boon to the administration of justice. The ruling simply gives leeway for the Executive Branch to effectively and efficiently conduct its function in prosecuting offenses by increasing the quantum of evidence required focusing on quality rather than quantity of cases being elevated to the courts to ensure higher conviction rate. The new circulars issued by the DOJ along this principle also requires law enforcement authorities to ensure sufficient documentary and testimonial evidence in case build-up leading to the filing of cases which ensures that the cases being prosecuted by our public prosecutors and heard by our judges have ample evidence, documentary, object and/or testimonial evidence.