SC asked to void DOJ circular that raised standard on evidence in cases

This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.

Lawyer Hazel Meking is challenging the memorandum that requires the quantum of evidence or amount of proof needed for preliminary investigations and inquest proceedings to be prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction

MANILA, Philippines – A lawyer has filed a petition with the Supreme Court (SC) on Wednesday, June 4, asking it to declare the Department of Justice (DOJ) that raised the standard on evidence in cases null and void.

“WHEREFORE, Petitioner most respectfully pray that this Court render judgment annulling the assailed Department Order dated July 16, 2024 for being issued with grave abuse of discretion. Petitioner likewise prays for such other reliefs as are just and equitable,” lawyer Hazel Meking’s petition read.

Meking has filed a petition for certiorari with the High Court, which is a legal remedy used to seek a review of another body’s order or check if there’s grave abuse of discretion.

She is assailing the DOJ’s circular No. 15 or the 2024 DOJ-NPS Rules on Preliminary Investigations and Inquest Proceedings.

The said circular ordered prosecutors to dismiss complaints if there are no prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction found. In addition, the memorandum also stated that the quantum of evidence or amount of proof needed for preliminary investigations and inquest proceedings must also be prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction.

The petitioner argued that in implementing the memorandum, DOJ Secretary Jesus Crispin “Boying” Remulla allegedly committed grave abuse of discretion.

“The Honorable (DOJ) Secretary does not possess the power and authority to issue and implement circulars that has the effect of altering and/or modifying rules of procedures as in this case, the quantum of evidence necessary for the prosecution of criminal offenses of the Revised Penal Code and other Special Penal Law/s. Said power to promulgate rules in pleading and practice is solely vested to the Supreme Court,” the petition read.

“The issuance and implementation of the assailed Department Circular not only undermines the court’s (Judiciary) power to hear and decide criminal case/s based on evidence presented during trial, the same also impliedly and effectively disregards said power and authority which is solely vested to the Supreme Court (Judiciary),” it added.

Meking argued that the High Court’s rule-making power is exclusive, noting that only the SC has the power to amend the rules of criminal procedures. – Rappler.com