Source: https://galanglaw.com/2014/03/02/the-unconstitutional-rule-in-rules-of-criminal-procedure/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 02:15:41+00:00

Document:
This process is governed by Rule 110 to Rule 127 of the Philippine Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Presumption of innocence – In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved [Sec. 14(2), Article 3].
Right against unreasonable searches – The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches . . . of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant . . . shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized [Sec. 2, Article 3].
Right to remain silent – Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent [Sec. 12(1), Article 3].
However, it would seem that a part of the criminal procedure adopted and promulgated by the Philippine Supreme Court infringes (ie., violates) the above constitutional rights – – specifically Rule 112, Sec. 3[c] and 3[e], Preliminary Investigation.
What is a preliminary investigation?
Preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial [Rule 112, Sec. 1].
The Department of Justice (and other officers as maybe authorized by law) conducts the preliminary investigation [Rule 112, Sec. 2]. In this preliminary investigation stage, the person who is being investigated for the commission of offence is called the respondent.
The Ombudsman follows the same Rule 112 in conducting preliminary investigation for offences committed by public officials [for the succeeding paragraphs, the prosecutor, fiscal, investigating officer, DOJ, or Ombudsman are one and the same except as otherwise stated].
As the prosecution arm of the Philippines, the DOJ investigates the commission of crimes, and prosecutes offenders [1987 Administrative Code under Chapter I, Title III, Book IV].
This power is not light, the DOJ [ie., the prosecutor, or colloquially known as fiscal] determines who should or should not be held for trial [Rule 112, Sec. 1].
If the enormity of this power is not clear yet, lets repeat: preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial [Rule 112, Sec. 1].
More bluntly, the fiscal determines whether the person investigated, or respondent, should or should not be held for criminal trial. A criminal court trial will, normally, lead to acquittal or conviction. Conviction carries punishment of imprisonment, or fine, or both depending on the offence violated.
(a) The complaint is filed with the prosecutor (or investigating officer) in accordance with the required form and substance.
Issue a subpoena attaching to it a copy of the complaint and its supporting affidavits and documents. The subpoena is issued against the respondent [ie., the person who is being charged to have committed a criminal act or offense; Rule 110, Sec. 3].
The respondent has the right to examine the evidence submitted by the complainant which he may not have been furnished and to copy them at his expense. If the evidence is voluminous, the complainant may be required to specify those which he intends to present against the respondent, and these shall be made available for examination or copying by the respondent at his expense. Objects as evidence need not be furnished a party but shall be made available for examination, copying, or photographing at the expense of the requesting party.
(c) Within 10 days from receipt of the subpoena with the complaint and supporting affidavits and documents, the respondent shall submit his counter-affidavit and that of his witnesses and other supporting documents relied upon for his defense. The counter-affidavits shall be subscribed and sworn to and certified, with copies thereof furnished by him to the complainant. The respondent is not allowed to file a motion to dismiss in lieu of a counter-affidavit.
(d) If the respondent cannot be subpoenaed, or if subpoenaed, does not submit counter-affidavits within the ten (10) day period, the prosecutor (or investigating officer) shall resolve the complaint based on the evidence presented by the complainant.
(e) The prosecutor (or investigating officer) may set a hearing if there are facts and issues to be clarified from a party or a witness. The parties can be present at the hearing but without the right to examine or cross-examine. They may, however, submit to the investigating officer questions which may be asked to the party or witness concerned. The hearing shall be held within ten (10) days from submission of the counter-affidavits and other documents or from the expiration of the period for their submission. It shall be terminated within five (5) days.
(f) Within ten (10) days after the investigation, the prosecutor (or investigating officer) shall determine whether or not there is sufficient ground to hold the respondent for trial.
The complaint will be dismissed and no information will be filed with the court.
“[t]he purpose of a preliminary investigation or a previous inquiry of some kind, before an accused person is placed on trial, is to secure the innocent against hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution and to protect him from an open and public accusation of a crime, from the trouble, expenses and anxiety of a public trial. It is also intended to protect the state from having to conduct useless and expensive trials. While the right is statutory rather than constitutional in its fundament, it is a component part of due process in criminal justice. The right to have a preliminary investigation conducted before being bound over to trial for a criminal offense and hence formally at risk of incarceration or some other penalty, is not a mere formal or technical right; it is a substantive right. To deny the accused’s claim to a preliminary investigation would be to deprive him of the full measure of his right to due process.
Granted, the purposes and functions of preliminary investigation are ideal.
However, seen through the lens of presumption of innocence doctrine as well as with other 2 constitutional rights, Rule 112, Sec. 3[c] and 3[e] may not be.
One wonders, given the above, how the rules of preliminary investigation in Rule 112, Sec. 3[c] and 3[e] infringes or violates the 3 constitutional rights, after all the “primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution is not to convict but to see that justice is done” [Rule 6.01, Canon of Legal Ethics].
In all criminal prosecutions, the “accused” shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved [Sec. 14(2), Article 3].
One will say that the phrase “respondent” [ie., the person who is being charged to have committed a criminal act or offense] in preliminary investigation stage is not the same as the phrase “accused” in the context of the Sec. 14(2), Article 3 of the Constitution because the “accused” is a person who has been charged in criminal trial court of an offence; in the preliminary investigation stage, the prosecutor or investigating officer is not the criminal trial court. Further, only when an information [an accusation in writing] is filed with the court may the charged person, normally, be called an “accused”.
However, if there is value in the constitutional right of presumption of innocence we should not quibble over semantics because the right is not merely statutory or legislative (ie., one created by an ordinary law passed by Congress), it is the sovereign Filipino people that ordained and promulgated this right. What again is the highest law of the land?
Therefore, the constitutional right to presumption of innocence should also apply to the respondent in the preliminary investigation, not only to the person accused (the “accused”) in criminal court.
If one will insist that there should be difference between “respondent” and “accused” for purposes of invoking the right to presumption of innocence, one should just remember that Rule 110 Prosecution of Offenses (or Offences) Sec. 1 provides that one of the process to institute or start criminal prosecution or criminal action is by the filing of complaint with the prosecutor (or investigating officer) for the purpose of conducting the requisite preliminary investigation and then recall the above constitutional provision “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved”.
The process “criminal prosecution” should be considered one continuous process in its entirety from the moment the police received a tip about a crime or a person and/or when a complainant comes forth to support that tip, when a complaint is filed, when the fiscal conducts its own internal prosecutorial processes by checking whether it has enough evidence to file a case in court, during trial, and until final judgment of criminal conviction or acquittal. In this one continuous process, until the contrary is proved you are to be presumed innocent. Just as a person who opens his mouth to yawn is presumed innocent and cannot be seen as preparing or attempting to utter words of defamation, the respondent in the preliminary investigation process should also be presumed innocent.
The absurdity of differentiating accused and respondent for purpose of proper invocation of presumption of innocence is at the preliminary investigation stage itself if the fiscal says “Mr. Respondent, this preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief whether a crime has been committed by you, that you are probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial, but no you have no constitutional right to be presumed innocent in my eyes during this stage but you are to help me determine if we should hold you for trial”.
If its agreed (and assuming one agrees, or agrees not to disagree) that there should be no difference between “respondent” and “accused” for purposes of invoking the right to presumption of innocence, how does the rule on preliminary investigation violates the right?
If you are presumed innocent, you should not be asked by way of subpoena to come to the preliminary investigation to prove your innocence by submission of counter-affidavit and that of your witnesses and other supporting documents relied upon for your defense; if you are presumed innocent, you should not be required to prove your innocence and participate in an inquiry or proceeding to show your innocence that there is no sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed, that you are not probably guilty thereof, and that you should not be held for trial [Rule 112, Sec. 1].
If its true that in criminal prosecutions, the accused (ie., respondent in preliminary investigation) has the right to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, why is he being mandated to submit his counter-affidavit and that of his witnesses and other supporting documents relied upon for his defense?Why is he being asked to submit counter-affidavit which will aid the prosecutor (or investigating officer) determine whether or not there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial?
in relation to another constitutional right that “no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself” [Sec. 17, Art. 3, Constitution]. If you are asked by subpoena to submit your affidavits in the preliminary investigation stage and the affidavits now form your judicial or extrajudicial admission, is it not that you were compelled, directly or indirectly, to be a witness against yourself by way of the affidavits you submitted in the preliminary investigation?
On these defence affidavits and documents subsequently filed in criminal court, one would say that Sec. 3[d] Rule 112 does not actually force you because Sec. 3[d] provides that “if the respondent cannot be subpoenaed, or if subpoenaed, does not submit counter-affidavits within the ten (10) day period, the investigating officer shall resolve the complaint based on the evidence presented by the complainant”. This argument is best answered by a question “so why use the force of subpoena?” which as discussed below has a chilling effect.
But going back to the presumption of innocence, if there is value to constitutional presumption of innocence, should the respondent, being presumed innocent, just sit back and relax and not be mandated or forced to participate in the preliminary investigation?
If there is such value, and he enjoys the presumption of innocence, he should not be subpoenaed with the complaint and supporting affidavits and documents, and be asked to the effect: you the respondent shall submit your counter-affidavit and that of your witnesses and other supporting documents relied upon for your defense to help us, the Department of Justice, determine whether or not to hold you for criminal trial.
If it’s the DOJ’s job to investigate the commission of crimes and prosecute offenders, the respondent, enjoying the presumption of innocence, should not be asked, nor even forced by way of subpoena, to participate, or help, the DOJ determine whether or not there is a sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial.
If he has the presumption of innocence, he should just say: it is your job to investigate crimes and prosecute offenders, and I am presumed innocent, so please leave me alone.
Talking about forcing the constitutionally presumed innocent respondent by way of subpoena, what then is a Subpoena?
The DOJ, in conducting preliminary investigation, is empowered by law and Rule 112 to subpoena the respondent [Rule 112, Sec. 3(b)].
Failure to obey the subpoena has a chilling effect because you may be cited for indirect contempt according to Rule 71 of the rules of court.
May you be imprisoned for indirect contempt: yes.
“This presumption is to be found in every code of law which has reason and religion and humanity for a foundation” [Coffin vs. US; United States].
as well as the hassle, time, energy, and money in attending the preliminary investigation hearing [Sec. 3[e], Rule 112] not to mention the social and public stigma of humiliation that he was a respondent in an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed by him, that he is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial.
If there is a constitutional right to presumption of innocence, a person charged with an offence does not have to present evidence or prove anything by affidavit or otherwise that suggests he/she is innocent of the crime or crimes charged.
If there is a constitutional right to presumption of innocence, and it is the DOJ or Ombudsman’s job to investigate an offence and gather evidence to support a case filed in court, the respondent should not be asked to participate in this investigation because the rule on preliminary investigation is actually a process of fishing of evidence that may be used against the person charged with an offence.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches . . . of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant . . . shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched [Sec. 2, Article 3, Constitution]. This right is sometimes called the right to be left alone.
This right protects all reasonable expectations of privacy [Katz doctrine]. The reasonableness of a person’s expectation of privacy depends on a two-part test: (1) whether by his conduct, the individual has exhibited an expectation of privacy; and (2) whether this expectation is one that society recognizes as reasonable [Ople v. Torres, G.R. No. 127685 July 23, 1998].
This right does not distinguish between the phrases accused and respondent.
The specific search that we are concerned here is the unreasonable search on one’s person and papers in relation to the process of preliminary investigation.
A person with reasonable expectation of privacy can only be searched by virtue of a judicial warrant of arrest or in exceptional circumstances [see G.R. No. 182178, August 15, 2011].
The right is against unreasonable searches of whatever nature and for any purpose.
If the purpose of the preliminary investigation is to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial [Rule 112, Sec. 1], surely this right is available because it is against unreasonable searches for any purpose.
If the nature of the preliminary investigation is to investigate crimes and prosecutes offenders, this right is available because it is against unreasonable searches of whatever nature.
This begs the question: is preliminary investigation unreasonable such that one can invoke his search rights against the preliminary investigation?
If it’s the DOJ’s job to investigate the commission of crimes and prosecute offenders – – and theirs alone – – it is unreasonable to suddenly ask a person investigated, who has the right to be left alone and to privacy, nor even forced by way of subpoena, to participate, or help, the DOJ determine whether or not there is a sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial.
Too, if you are presumed innocent, it is unreasonable to be forced or even asked to participate in a preliminary investigation that may bring about the filing of accusation against you in criminal court.
The respondent shall have the right to examine the evidence submitted by the complainant which he may not have been furnished and to copy them at his expense. If the evidence is voluminous, the complainant may be required to specify those which he intends to present against the respondent, and these shall be made available for examination or copying by the respondent at his expense.
Objects as evidence need not be furnished a party but shall be made available for examination, copying, or photographing at the expense of the requesting party.
It is one thing to subpoena a person as a witness who is competent and compellable (or not disqualified) and it is another thing to subpoena a person who is being charged by an offence.
If there is a value to this constitutional right or if indeed it is inviolable [read: unbreakable] to be secure in one’s persons, and papers, against unreasonable searches of whatever nature and for any purpose except upon a judicial search warrant, the process in the preliminary investigation when the respondent is subpoenad to submit his counter-affidavit [and that of his witnesses and other supporting documents relied upon for his defense] is not respecting this constitutional right.
Again, one would say that Sec. 3[d] Rule 112 does not actually force you because Sec. 3[d] provides that “if the respondent cannot be subpoenaed, or if subpoenaed, does not submit counter-affidavits within the ten (10) day period, the investigating officer shall resolve the complaint based on the evidence presented by the complainant”. This argument is best answered by a question “so why use the force of subpoena?” which as discussed above has a chilling effect.
The preliminary investigation’s, direct or indirect, violation of the constitutional right against unreasonable search triggers another constitutional right that any evidence obtained in violation of this right shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding [Sec. 3, Art 3, Constitution]. Repeat: for any purpose and in any proceeding. The effect is that any affidavits and supporting documents submitted by the respondent in the preliminary investigation stage should be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding [Sec. 3, Art 3, Constitution].
Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent [Sec. 12(1), Article 3]. This right is two-pronged: the right to be informed of your right to remain silent, and the right to remain silent.
We will only deal with the second prong: the right to remain silent.
There is no question that, as the prosecution arm of the Philippines, the DOJ investigates the commission of crimes, and prosecutes offenders [1987 Administrative Code under Chapter I, Title III, Book IV].
If the police is required to respect the right to remain silent of the person in a custodial investigation process, the DOJ should also respect this right to remain silent in its preliminary investigation process.
The police and DOJ are cut from the same cloth: they are one team in the criminal justice system, they investigate the commission of crime and prosecute offenders.
Are there instances when the DOJ prosecutes a criminal case against someone but the police defends or helps defend that person from the offence being charged by the DOJ?
If the answer is in the negative, same as the right to remain silent in custodial investigation, the person being charged with an offence by the filing of complaint should have a right to remain silent in the preliminary investigation process.
If it’s the DOJ’s job to investigate the commission of crimes and prosecute offenders, the respondent, who has a right to remain silent, should not be asked, nor even forced by way of subpoena, to participate, or help, the DOJ determine whether or not there is a sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial.
“Section 7. When accused lawfully arrested without warrant. — When a person is lawfully arrested without a warrant involving an offense which requires a preliminary investigation, the complaint or information may be filed by a prosecutor without need of such investigation provided an inquest has been conducted in accordance with existing rules. In the absence or unavailability of an inquest prosecutor, the complaint may be filed by the offended party or a peace office directly with the proper court on the basis of the affidavit of the offended party or arresting officer or person.
Before the complaint or information is filed, the person arrested may ask for a preliminary investigation in accordance with this Rule, but he must sign a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, in the presence of his counsel. Notwithstanding the waiver, he may apply for bail and the investigation must be terminated within fifteen (15) days from its inception.
The person arrested may ask for a preliminary investigation but only if he signs a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. This article 125 mandates the arresting officer to deliver the lawfully arrested person to the proper judicial authorities within a given period: failure to deliver means the arresting officer is committing an offense.
Signing of waiver of Art. 125. [But note, article 125 is a criminal offence. The question of whether or not a private person’s (the lawfully arrested person) written waiver of criminal offence is one of the modes of extinguishing public criminal liability or action ie., whether prosecution for violation of criminal provision Art. 125 can be extinguished by a private person, is for another day].
Violation of his 3 constitutional rights by Rule 112, Sec. 3[c] and 3[e] of the preliminary investigation process.
It is not an answer that the lawfully arrested person himself asked for the preliminary investigation because the conduct of the preliminary investigation, as currently worded, infringes these 3 rights.
In the case of the complaint or information filed in court without a preliminary investigation, the situation is no different. The 3 constitutional rights of the person charged with an offence will still be violated because if he asks for a preliminary investigation, the same Rule 112, Sec. 3[c] and 3[e] of the preliminary investigation process will be followed.
The DOJ and Ombudsman cannot be faulted for this seeming violations of 3 rights because the rule of preliminary investigation was, pursuant to the provisions of section 5 (5) of Article 8 of the Constitution, adopted and promulgated by the Supreme Court of the Philippines.
But looking at Rule 112, Sec. 3[c] and 3[e], the above 3 constitutional rights are not being protected and enforced: there may be instances when the results of the preliminary investigation favor the dismissal of the complaint, but the end does not justify the means if the means is unconstitutional.
If the investigation of commission of crimes and prosecution of offenders are executive, and not judicial, functions, the question of the constitutionality of the some or all of the provisions of Rule 112 according to the principle of separation of powers is a question for another day. We can also look at the section 6 powers of the Supreme Court to have administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel that exclude the power of administration of investigation of crimes and prosecution of offenders which are executive functions.
Going back to the subject: while there are situations where preliminary investigation is not required (Rule 112, Sec. 1), the current rules, Rule 112, Sec. 3[c] and 3[e], on preliminary investigation adopted by the Philippine Supreme Court, with respect, violates the 3 constitutional rights of a person charged with the commission of the offence.
The remedy lies in leaving the respondent out of the picture, out of being mandatorily involved in the investigation process by the DOJ or Ombudsman, and/or from being subpoenad or required to submit his defence documents or forced to participate in the hearings of the DOJ or Ombudsman. Again, the sometimes very lucky situation that the result of preliminary investigation favors the dismissal of the complaint does not justify the means, or that the respondent has an option not to submit his defence documents will justify the issuance of subpoena.
The remedy is to amend the rules and to check the guardian of the separation of powers to check its power whether it can impose an investigation procedure to a co-equal branch of government performing an executive investigatory non-judicial power: of course, the forced participation [semi, pseudo, or full force, depending on how you view the chilling effect of subpoena] of respondent in the preliminary investigation is deeply and historically embedded in the legal tradition and rule in the Philippines just as there was no Miranda rule in the Philippines before.

References: Art. 3
 v. 
 Art 3
 Art 3
 Art. 125
 Art. 125