From Probable Cause To Reasonable Certainty: Supreme Court Upholds New Rules On Preliminary Investigations And Inquest Proceedings

The 2024 DOJ-NPS Rules have raised the evidentiary standard for criminal complaints, demanding litigants to develop trial-ready cases as early as preliminary investigation. Here’s what you need to know.

• The 2024 DOJ-NPS Rules, including the new quantum of prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction for preliminary investigations and inquest proceedings, are a valid exercise of the DOJ’s rule-making power.
• Preliminary investigation and inquest proceedings are executive functions; courts generally have no authority to interfere with the conduct thereof.
• However, the Supreme Court may exercise judicial review when constitutional rights are violated during preliminary investigation and inquest proceedings.

On November 11, 2025, the Supreme Court, in Atty. Meking v. Remulla, G.R. No. 280455, November 11, 2025, upheld the validity of Department of Justice ("DOJ") Department Circular No. 015 or the 2024 DOJ-NPS Rules on Preliminary Investigations and Inquest Proceedings ("2024 DOJ-NPS Rules"). The 2024 DOJ-NPS Rules raised the evidentiary standard in preliminary investigations and inquest proceedings from probable cause to prima facie case with reasonable certainty of conviction.

Atty. Meking challenged the constitutionality of the 2024 DOJ-NPS Rules, contending that the DOJ, in issuing them, encroached upon the Supreme Court?s exclusive power under the 1987 Constitution to promulgate rules on the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts. Atty. Meking argued that the quantum of evidence required in preliminary investigations remains to be probable cause, as prescribed under Rule 112 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure promulgated by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court rejected Atty. Meking?s argument, citing its Resolution dated May 28, 2024 (Re: Draft Department of Justice-National Prosecution Service's [DOJNPS] Rules on Preliminary Investigations and Inquest Proceedings), in which it (a) expressly recognized the authority of the DOJ to promulgate its own rules concerning prosecutorial processes and (b) repealed provisions of Rule 112 that were inconsistent with the 2024 DOJ-NPS Rules.

The Court emphasized that preliminary investigations and inquests are executive, not judicial, functions. Hence, courts generally refrain from interfering with the public prosecutor?s conduct of such proceedings. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court clarified that it retains the power of judicial review over any prosecutorial rule or action that violates constitutional rights.

Thus, the 2024 DOJ-NPS Rules shall govern the conduct of preliminary investigations and inquests. Accordingly, complainants and prosecutors alike must comply with the higher quantum of evidence required therein.

In light of this Decision, the following guidelines in Rule II, Section 5 of the 2024 DOJ-NPS Rules are particularly instructive:

1. Prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction exists when the evidence at hand, on its own and if left uncontroverted, is sufficient to establish all the elements of a crime or offense charged and consequently warrant a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
2. This quantum of evidence is met when the prosecutor is convinced that the entirety of evidence presented is (a) admissible, (b) credible, and (c) capable of being preserved and presented to establish all elements of the crime and the identity of the accused.
3. Assessing whether the quantum is met includes a summary evaluation of the evidence presented by the respondents through their counter-affidavit.

Practical Tip

Build up a trial-ready case. A private complainant must independently gather and present evidence that, in its entirety, meets the quantum even at the preliminary investigation stage.

Acquaint yourself with the fundamental rules on admissibility of evidence. The admissibility of the evidence you have gathered is just as important as its credibility.

As the respondent, ensure that your counter-affidavit is concise and compelling, focusing on fundamental flaws in the complainant?s theory rather than addressing every minor allegation in the complaint.