On July 16, 2024, the Department of Justice issued Department Circular No. 15, series of 2024, otherwise known as the “2024 DOJ-NPS Rules on Preliminary Investigations and Inquest Proceedings.”
Among its most notable provisions is Section 5 Rule II, which changed the evidentiary standard in criminal cases filed before the prosecutor’s office. It required a much higher standard from “prima facie evidence” to “prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction.”
This quantum exists when a prima facie case is established by the evidence-at-hand, such that on its own and if left uncontroverted, shall be sufficient to establish all the elements of a crime or offense charged, and consequently warrant a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.[1]
More importantly, this standard is met when the prosecutor is convinced that the entirety of the evidence presented by the parties is (a) admissible, (b) credible, and (c) capable of being preserved and presented to establish all the elements of the crime or offense, as well as the identity of the person or persons responsible therefor.[2]
This is a welcome development.
It prevents nuisance, baseless criminal complaints, and saves the State’s resources.
In our experience, we’ve had clients who were sometimes charged of crimes that they never committed. The suits filed against them were only meant to silence them. In these nuisance suits, the complainants employ fake witnesses who give fake testimonies. In one example, the complainant sued her nemesis and during years of trial, the complainant took over the respondent’s properties for profit. Although the respondent won in this sample case, the nuisance suit has already damaged him and his family, emotionally, financially and reputationally. One way of looking at it is that the baseless complaint could have prospered due to the lower standard of evidentiary requirements before the DOJ’s 2024 new evidence standard circular.
Although in principle, filing a nuisance or baseless criminal complaint is discouraged and in general can lead to legal repercussions for the complainant, it is still inconvenient, expensive and sometimes, embarrassing to fight the nuisance legal actions or to counter-sue. If a complaint is proven to be malicious or unfounded, the accused may pursue legal action against the complainant for damages, defamation, or malicious prosecution. The law and professional ethics emphasize that no one should present or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to gain an unfair advantage.
On practical side, this new evidence standard requires knowledge and skills to obtain, document, and store evidence, so as to ensure competence, admissibility in accordance with the Rules, and reasonable certainty of conviction.
More so when it comes to electronic evidence (e.g. digital photos, CCTV footage, electronic records) and those documents originating from foreign jurisdictions, which have very technical requirements for their production, notarization and authentication.
Perhaps, the challenge is pronounced in situations where the client is illiterate or a person with disability, or when gathering information that are covered by Data Privacy Law or restricted by Freedom of Information Act.
Again, in our experience, some cases brought to us for representation were meritorious but the clients did not have sufficient evidence. Often, they do not know how to identify, gather, store, preserve, perpetuate, and protect the evidence needed for their cases to prosper. In some cases, at the time the clients sought legal help, the evidence was already lost. In this situation, even if we want to represent these clients, we declined due to lack of sufficient evidence. For these clients, being not able to bring their cases because they did not know the evidentiary requirements, is also injustice.
So, in our opinion, this development in the field of evidence is a good news, to succeed and meet its goals, public information, a course or skills training for the purpose, and maybe, a transition framework, are in order. The transition framework may include investigatory services to check nuisance complaints and an attitude to help the complainant get his/her evidence, instead of outrightly dismissing the complaint that may be meritorious but complainant simply does not know how to gather evidence.
[1] 1st par., Section 5, Rule II, 2024 DOJ-NPS Rules on Preliminary Investigations and Inquest Proceedings.
[2] 2nd par., Section 5, Rule II, 2024 DOJ-NPS Rules on Preliminary Investigations and Inquest Proceedings.
Image by Sang Hyun Cho from Pixabay