Motion to Inhibit a Public Prosecutor on the Ground of Conflict of Interest in Philippine Criminal Procedure
I. Overview
A motion to inhibit (sometimes styled “motion to disqualify” or “motion to recuse”) asks that the public prosecutor be prevented from further handling a criminal case because his or her continued participation would violate the accused’s constitutional right to due process and to an impartial and independent prosecutor. Although motions to inhibit are more commonly filed against judges under Rule 137 of the Rules of Court, Philippine doctrine recognizes that prosecutors may likewise be compelled—or themselves may elect—to step aside where a conflict of interest, manifest bias, or similar disqualifying circumstance is shown.
II. Legal Foundations
| Source | Key Provisions & Principles |
|---|---|
| 1987 Constitution | • Art. III, §1 (due process) • Art. III, §14(1) (impartial tribunal) —Impartiality embraces both the judge and **“every official participating in the prosecution”. |
| Rules of Court | • Rule 110 §§2, 5 & 11 (prosecutorial authority) • Rule 137, while textually addressed to judges, guides courts in judging motions to inhibit prosecutors. |
| RA 10071 (Prosecution Service Act of 2010) | • §9(b) empowers the Secretary of Justice to reassign or designate another prosecutor when “the interest of justice so requires.” |
| Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA, A.M. No. 22-09-01-SC, 2023) | • Canon III, Sec. 37 defines conflict of interest for ALL lawyers. • Canon III, Sec. 38 requires withdrawal when a conflict arises. |
| DOJ Department Circular No. 49-A (s. 2015) Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest for Prosecutors |
• Enumerates specific conflicts (prior representation, personal/familial interest, financial stake, etc.) and spells out the mandatory inhibition procedure. |
| Office of the Ombudsman Act (RA 6770) & Ombudsman Rules | • §15(1) vests the Ombudsman with exclusive authority to discipline or re-assign its prosecutors. |
| Jurisprudence | See Part VIII, infra. |
III. What Constitutes a Conflict of Interest?
Under CPRA §37 and DOJ Circular 49-A, a conflict exists when a prosecutor’s duty of fidelity to the People of the Philippines is materially impaired by any of the following:
Prior Representation or Confidential Knowledge Example: The prosecutor previously served as private counsel for the accused or a key witness.
Personal, Familial, or Pecuniary Interest Example: The prosecutor is a close relative of the private complainant, or owns shares in the aggrieved corporation.
Bias, Pre-Judgment, or Manifest Hostility/Favoritism Example: Public statements betraying a fixed opinion on the guilt of the accused.
Dual Role in Parallel Proceedings Example: Acting simultaneously as prosecutor in a criminal case and counsel in a civil suit arising from the same facts.
*Other Circumstances “that reasonably create an appearance of impropriety.” The test is perception of a reasonable observer, not the prosecutor’s personal belief of neutrality.
IV. Who May Seek Inhibition and When?
| Stage of Case | Proper Forum | Who May File |
|---|---|---|
| Preliminary Investigation | • Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor, then on appeal to DOJ • Office of the Ombudsman (for Sandiganbayan/ombudsman cases) |
• Respondent (accused-to-be) • Private complainant • The prosecutor motu proprio (self-inhibition) |
| In-Court Prosecution (Trial) | Trial court where Information is filed | • Accused (most common) • Private complainant or offended party • In extreme cases, the court sua sponte |
Time-wise, the motion should be filed at the earliest opportunity after learning of the disqualifying fact; unreasonable delay may be deemed a waiver.
V. Form and Required Allegations
A motion to inhibit is litigated, not perfunctory; mere sweeping accusations of bias will not suffice.
- Caption and Title (People vs Accused, Criminal Case No. __, Motion to Inhibit Prosecutor).
- Factual Grounds narrating the specific conflict, supported by affidavits, documents, or certified public records (e.g., SEC records, marriage certificates).
- Legal Basis (constitutional provisions, CPRA, DOJ circulars, jurisprudence).
- Prayer requesting (a) inhibition, (b) designation of a new prosecutor, and (c) suspension of proceedings only if essential to prevent prejudice.
- Verification/Certification against forum shopping (if filed at trial).
Tip: Attach proof of service on the Office of the Prosecutor and the Office of the Solicitor General (for Supreme Court petitions).
VI. Court or DOJ Action on the Motion
Comment - the challenged prosecutor is required to answer.
Hearing - although discretionary, courts often set a short hearing to ✔ assess factual issues.
Resolution - inhibition is addressed to sound judicial discretion; the movant bears burden of proof.
Effect of Grant
- Proceedings continue de novo from the last uncontaminated step.
- The Secretary of Justice (or Ombudsman) designates a replacement prosecutor from another office or region.
Effect of Denial
- Ordinarily interlocutory, not immediately appealable; remedy is petition for certiorari under Rule 65 on the ground of grave abuse of discretion.
VII. Sanctions for Non-Inhibition
A prosecutor who persists despite a proven conflict may face:
- Administrative discipline (suspension or dismissal) under RA 10071 and Civil Service rules.
- Criminal liability for knowingly rendering unjust interlocutory order (Art. 204, RPC) or betrayal of public trust under the Ombudsman Act.
- Disbarment or suspension under the CPRA.
VIII. Leading and Illustrative Cases
| Case | G.R. No. | Ratio |
|---|---|---|
| Capulong v. Sandiganbayan (1992) | 96043 | Impartiality of prosecution is integral to due process; Ombudsman may re-assign prosecutors to cure perceived bias. |
| Ledesma v. Court of Appeals (G.R. 127804, Jan 29 1999) | -- | Affirms the Secretary of Justice’s control over fiscals; conflict of interest justifies revocation of authority to prosecute. |
| Paderanga v. Drilon (35022, Apr 10 1997) | -- | Recognizes inhibition of fiscal when he was counsel for private complainant in a related action. |
| People v. Castillo (GR L-58642, Sept 28 1988) | -- | Strong showing of prosecutor’s personal animosity warranted reassignment. |
| Office of the Ombudsman v. Enemecio (Sept 2001) | -- | Ombudsman prosecutors are not immune from disqualification; internal re-raffle cured conflict. |
No Supreme Court decision has yet ruled that refusal to inhibit per se nullifies a conviction if the trial court’s factual findings are otherwise sound; rather, courts look for actual prejudice.
IX. Practical Considerations for Counsel
- Investigate early—check public records for prior dealings of the prosecutor.
- Document everything—bias must be affirmatively proved.
- Be respectful—malicious motions invite contempt or disciplinary action.
- Mind the timeline—filing late in the game may be viewed as dilatory.
- Seek DOJ assistance—sometimes a letter-request to the Office of the Prosecutor General, attaching evidence of conflict, yields faster administrative reassignment than a full-blown motion.
X. Suggested Template (Skeleton)
MOTION TO INHIBIT THE ASSIGNED PROSECUTOR
Accused, through counsel, respectfully states:
- Factual ground …
- Legal ground … WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is prayed that Prosecutor X be inhibited and the DOJ designate a substitute.
[Date & signature block]
Verification & Certification
XI. Conclusion
A motion to inhibit a prosecutor in the Philippines is an extraordinary but indispensable remedy for safeguarding the integrity of criminal proceedings. While the threshold is high—requiring clear, positive, and convincing proof of conflict—the system provides multiple safety valves, from the prosecutor’s own ethical duty to withdraw, to the DOJ’s supervisory powers, and ultimately to judicial review. Mastery of the procedural rules, doctrinal bases, and evidentiary demands will enable counsel to deploy this remedy efficiently, responsibly, and persuasively when justice so requires.