Back to Criminal Law publications
Back to Business Crime publications

Jared P Amoroso
Quisumbing Torres, Manila
jared.amoroso@quisumbingtorres.com

Anna Regina C Regalado
Quisumbing Torres, Manila
annaregina.regalado@quisumbingtorres.com

Ruth F Melicor
Quisumbing Torres, Manila
ruth.melicor@quisumbingtorres.com

 

Philippine criminal procedure has remained largely unchanged for the past two decades. The most significant changes were introduced in 2017 when the Supreme Court promulgated the Revised Guidelines on Continuous Trial for Criminal Cases (the Revised Guidelines). The change was welcome, since on average, trial process, even before the first and second level courts in the Philippines takes around three to five years to complete.

With the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, the Philippine Supreme Court and Department of Justice (DoJ) have issued several measures which aim to help the criminal process adapt to quarantine measures, and expedite processes involving incarcerated persons and initiatives to relieve over-crowding in prisons. Incidentally, these measures also address long-awaited reforms.

The imposition of these measures affirms the ability of the Philippine criminal justice system to rise up to the challenge of modern technology, and several practitioners have expressed support in adopting and developing these measures on a more permanent basis.

Background to the Philippine criminal litigation process

A criminal action in the Philippines generally involves two stages:^[1] the preliminary investigation; and the actual trial.

A preliminary investigation is an administrative inquiry conducted by a public prosecutor, for the purpose of determining whether there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, and that the respondent is probably guilty, and should be held for trial.^[2] It may be initiated by a private complainant or a law enforcement agency. During the preliminary investigation, the parties are given an opportunity to submit their respective affidavits in support of their claims and defences. The process takes place in face-to-face hearings before the public prosecutor. The preliminary investigation may either lead to the filing of a formal charge in court, known as ‘an information’, or the dismissal of the complaint.

When an information is filed in court, the determination of the criminal case will be within its exclusive jurisdiction and competence,^[3]and no longer with the public prosecutor. Once in court, the Revised Guidelines generally apply to the proceedings.^[4]

The Revised Guidelines on Continuous Trial in Criminal Cases

The Revised Guidelines streamline existing processes in criminal proceedings, including:

1. Several motions were explicitly deemed ‘Prohibited Motions’ that are to be denied outright without need of comment or opposition from the other party. Included in these Prohibited Motions is the ‘motion for judicial determination of probable cause’ which is a motion resorted to in practice, but has long been considered a source of delay in criminal proceedings.
2. The period for filing motions for reconsideration of court resolutions has been limited to a non-extendible period of five days. For comparison, the period for civil cases is 15 days.
3. Arraignment and pre-trial should be held on the same day, and only when pre-trial is finished may the court refer the case to mediation before the Philippine Mediation Centre, and only select cases can be referred to mediation. In the past, this was not the case, and pre-trial processes were delayed on account of prolonged mediations, which did not often result in a settlement.
4. Trial dates for both the prosecution and the accused are required to be set during pre-trial, and the schedules are to be strictly observed. A one-day per witness rule is observed.
5. Promulgation of judgment should generally be made within 90 calendar days from the time a case is submitted for decision, and the period for trial should not exceed six months.

Since the implementation of the Revised Guidelines in 2017, Philippine Supreme Court Chief Justice Diosdado M Peralta has pointed out that criminal cases in trial courts are now being resolved much more rapidly compared to previous years. In the two years since its implementation, an average of 26.83 per cent of first- and second-level trial courts successfully complied with the six-month period for trial. Prior to the Revised Guidelines the compliance rate was only 1.76 per cent. Now cases are being decided more swiftly, with 71.1 per cent of judgments promulgated within the 90-day period required under the rules. Previously, only 36.91 per cent of judgments were promulgated within the same timeframe.^[5]

Innovations arising out of the Covid-19 pandemic

From the beginning of March 2020, different parts of the Philippines were placed under varying degrees of community quarantine to prevent the spread of Covid-19. Accordingly, the Supreme Court and the DoJ imposed several measures to adjust to the situation.

Electronic court filings and hearings through videoconferencing

On 31 March 2020, the Supreme Court issued Administrative Circular No 33-2020 which allows the filing of informations via email. This, in turn, has allowed the DoJ to continue with the prosecution of individuals, and the courts to issue warrants for arrests where needed.

The Circular also allowed individuals to post bail, and for courts to act on such bail applications, via electronic means. Under the Circular, approval of bail and release orders are to be electronically transmitted to the law enforcement agency or detention facility where the applicant is detained. The soft copies of the orders are sufficient to cause the release of the said individuals.

Following its earlier issuances and considering the extension of the community quarantine across the Philippines, the Supreme Court later expanded the above rule, and allowed the electronic filing of pleadings and court submissions for both civil and criminal cases.^[6]

Shortly thereafter, the Supreme Court, through Administrative Circular No 37-2020 and Office of the Court Administrator Circular No 93-2020, authorised the pilot-testing of videoconferencing hearings on urgent matters in criminal cases involving detained individuals. Eventually, videoconferencing hearings were authorised for both criminal and civil cases.^[7]

To implement these innovations, the Supreme Court expedited the procurement and distribution of the Philippine Judiciary 365 platform to courts nationwide.^[8]

Expedited release of qualified detainees

Recognising the urgent need to relieve overcrowded prisons and prison facilities, the Supreme Court also released several circulars aimed at facilitating the release of qualified detainees. Other than the pilot testing of videoconferencing hearings, these measures also included directives for judges to adhere to the Guidelines for Decongesting Holding Jails by Enforcing the Rights of the Accused to Bail and to Speedy Trial,^[9] and Reduced Bail and Recognisance as Modes of Releasing Indigent Detainees Pending Resolution of their Cases.^[10]

This measure was a success, since data from the Office of the Court Administrator shows that in one week alone, since 30 April 2020, some 4,683 detainees have been released. This is compared to the initial data gathered over a period of six weeks from 17 March 2020, which showed 9,731 detainees being released.^[11]

Online inquest proceedings and alternative methods for preliminary investigations

In an Office Order dated 27 March 2020, the DoJ’s Office of the Prosecutor General issued general rules and procedures for the conduct of electronic inquest ('E-Inquest') in Metro Manila.^[12] E-inquest is defined as the ‘virtual conduct of [an] inquest proceeding using any online platform for video calls and conferences and all available electronic communications. It is paperless and does not require [the] physical presence of the parties in the same area.’ Inquest refers to the process conducted by a public prosecutor to determine if there is basis to hold an arrested individual further without a warrant. It is usually done by law enforcers bringing an individual to the nearest prosecutor’s office for inquest. This has been the source of delays in processing an individual arrested without a warrant. The E-Inquest procedures allows for a prosecutor to conduct the proceedings remotely, without the arrested individual having to appear ‘in person’. However, the E-Inquest rules are optional, and its implementation depends on the particular prosecutor’s office’s capabilities.

Recently, in an Office Order dated 1 June 2020, the DoJ issued an ‘Alternative Procedure for Preliminary Investigation During the Public Health Emergency’. Under these procedures, the necessity for a face-to-face preliminary investigation hearing before a public prosecutor has been stopped. Parties may simply subscribe to their complaint-affidavits/counter-affidavits before the police or any prosecutor on duty, and submit the same electronically to the public prosecutor handling the preliminary investigation, to be followed by hard copy submissions. If the public prosecutor wishes to conduct a hearing to obtain greater clarification, they may resort to videoconferencing. However, as with the E-Inquest rules, these rules are optional, and their implementation depends on the particular prosecutor’s office’s capabilities.

Conclusion

On 1 June 2020, the Supreme Court ordered courts nationwide to resume full operations. It remains uncertain whether the innovations to the criminal litigation process will be retained once the situation goes back to normal. There are indications that it will not. For instance, in a later issuance by the Supreme Court,^[13] it was clarified that from 1 June 2020, all hearings of cases shall be in court, except in cases involving detainees and in ‘extraordinary circumstances’. This is unfortunate as it limits the opportunity for courts and lawyers to maximise the use of videoconference hearings and work out the improvements needed for a smoother implementation of the new procedures. That being said, several courts, in the exercise of their inherent powers to ‘amend and control its process’,^[14] have continued to conduct hearings through videoconferencing and adopt electronic filings since 1 June. While the recent measures were intended to be temporary, they provide a sneak preview at how the criminal litigation process can, with the aid of new technologies, usher in new frontiers for Philippine criminal litigation.