The Department of Justice (DOJ) has started implementing its new guidelines mandating prosecutors to withdraw criminal cases filed before first level courts or trial courts but have “no reasonable certainty of conviction.”
The first level courts have jurisdiction over criminal cases with a penalty of imprisonment of less than six years.
The DOJ emphasized that there is reasonable certainty of conviction “when a prima facie case exists based on the evidence-at-hand, including but not limited to witnesses, documentary evidence, real evidence, and the like, and such evidence, on its own and if left uncontroverted by accused, shall be sufficient to establish all elements of the crime or offense charged, and consequently warrant a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.”
In many decisions, the DOJ said the SC has defined prima facie “as the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief, in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecution, that the person charged was guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted.”
Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla issued the guidelines even as he ordered the enforcement of DOJ Circular Nos. 008 and 008-A on the withdrawal of cases.
The DOJ said that since probable cause has for a long time been the requirement for the filing of cases in court, the department lamented that “this low burden of proof has brought about a deluge of criminal cases filed in court.”
“As a result, the detention centers suffer extremely high and inhumane congestion rates and living conditions,” the DOJ noted.
Under DC No. 0016, the DOJ said the guidelines “will not apply to pending cases that are “intimately-related or closely-corresponding to cases still pending before the regional trial courts (RTCs) and Appellate Courts.”
DOJ prosecutors, under Section 3 of the guidelines, were directed to move for the withdrawal of the cases which are pending in court at any stage and have no considerable movement over a period of three months or more, complainant or his witnesses have repeatedly failed to appear without valid reason despite due notice, or material evidence are not available or can no longer be produced.
“The trial prosecutor shall, immediately review all cases under him, identify those cases covered by Section 3 hereof, prepare an inventory of said cases, and ascertain the specific reason/s why the said cases have been left idle in the court dockets,” the guidelines stated.
Also, a trial prosecutor, under Section 4, “is mandated to: (a) exert efforts to communicate with complainant and/or his witnesses and inform them of the possible dismissal of the case due to their non-appearance; (b) ascertain from complainant whether or not he/she is still interested to pursue the case; (c) direct complainant to submit the pertinent evidence needed at the next scheduled hearing to avoid further delay of trial, otherwise, the said case shall be recommended for dismissal; and (d) for cases falling under the Rules of Summary Procedure, examine the evidence and determine whether the evidence on hand is sufficient to meet the threshold of reasonable certainty of conviction.”
Once Section 4 has been done, the guidelines stated that the prosecutor shall “make a report with the inventory of said cases and recommendation to move for the withdrawal or dismissal thereof, and submit the same to the City/Provincial Prosecutor.”
The prosecutor is mandated “to make a report, prepare an inventory of said cases, and submit the same to the City/Provincial Prosecutor, with his/her recommendation to move for the withdrawal of the information and/or dismissal of the case/s.”
“Upon filing of the Motion to Withdraw Information by the City/Provincial Prosecutor, the complainant is not precluded from filing his/her Comment/Opposition thereto, in order to provide him/hera final opportunity to justify why the information should not be withdrawn,” the guidelines stated.
The circular which contains the guidelines declared: “No case shall henceforth be filed with the MTCs, MTCCs, and MeTCs if there is no reasonable certainty of conviction for the same.”
“Only strong cases will be filed before the courts. Let us not allow the department to be used to oppress people. The poor have become victims in the filing of weak cases just to threaten them. We need to raise the level of evidence before prosecutors so that no one would be easily detained),” Remulla stressed.