BLACK’S Law Dictionary (6th Edition) defines criminal procedure as the “rules of law governing the procedure by which crimes are investigated, prosecuted, adjudicated, and punished.”
Stated otherwise, criminal procedure provides or regulates the steps by which one who has committed a crime is to be punished. (Criminal procedure is to criminal law as civil procedure is to civil law.)
It bears stressing that in the 1920 case of Villaflor vs. Summers, the Supreme Court held that “Criminal procedure, the rules of evidence, and constitutional provisions, are … provided, not to protect the guilty but to protect the innocent.”
Systems of criminal procedure
There are three systems of criminal procedure, namely: (1) the inquisitorial; (2) the accusatorial; and (3) the mixed system.
In the inquisitorial system, the detection and prosecution of offenders are not left to the initiative of private parties but to the officials and agents of the law.
On the other hand, in the accusatorial system, the accusation is exercised by every citizen or by a member of the group to which the injured party belongs. The battle in the form of a public trial is judged by a magistrate who renders the verdict.
The mixed system is a combination of the inquisitorial and the accusatorial systems. Here, the examination of defendants and other persons before the filing of the complaint or information may be inquisitorial.
As a general rule, a court proceeding in our judicial set-up is accusatorial or adversary—and not inquisitorial in nature. It contemplates two contending parties before the court, which hears them impartially and renders judgment only after trial. (Queto vs. Catolico, G.R. Nos. L-25204 and L-25219, January 23, 1970)
“This basic philosophy would be violated if a judge were permitted to act as inquisitor, pursue his own independent investigation, arrive at a conclusion ex-parte, and then summon the party affected so as to enable him, if that were still possible, to show that the conclusion thus arrived at is without justification.” (Ibid.)
Philippine criminal procedure
In our jurisdiction, the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (as amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, effective December 1, 2000) primarily governs criminal proceedings.
The Philippine criminal procedure is originally based on the “Ley de Enjuiciamento Criminal” or the Spanish Criminal Procedure. Later, it had undergone a gradual evolution with the coming of General Order No. 58 dated April 23, 1900 (American Regime in the country); Acts promulgated by the Philippine Commission particularly Act No. 194; the Philippine Bill of 1902; the Jones Law of 1916; the 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions; the New Civil Code; Revised Penal Code and Special laws; American jurisprudence; Presidential Decrees of President Ferdinand E. Marcos; and Supreme Court decisions and opinions of known author. (Pineda, The Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure [2006 Edition]; Herrera, Remedial Law, Volume IV [2001 Edition])
In 1940, the Supreme Court promulgated the Rules of Court where Criminal Procedure was incorporated. The Rules of Court were amended in 1964, 1985, 1988 and on December 1, 2000.
There are new rules which have been incorporated based on new laws, decisions and circulars of the Supreme Court and of the Department of Justice. (The Department of Justice has recently issued a department circular laying down the rules on preliminary investigations and inquest proceedings, replacing Rule 112 of the Rules of Court.)
The Supreme Court is revisiting the Rules of Criminal Procedure to modernize the same through the CRIMPRO Regional Consultations (a series of discussions on the Proposed Amendments to the Rules of Criminal Procedure). The first leg of which was held on August 8, 2024 at the De La Salle Lipa in Lipa City, Batangas. (https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-revisits-rules-of-criminal-procedure-in-first-leg-of-crimpro-regional-consultations/) According to Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo, the Rules “must evolve to reflect the realities of our time, ensuring that they remain potent tools for the fair, transparent and timely delivery of justice to both the accused individuals and the State.”
