The Department of Justice (DOJ) has recently introduced the evidentiary standard of reasonable certainty of conviction to determine whether a person should be prosecuted for a crime or offense. It has been claimed that it provides a higher standard than executive determination of probable cause. This Comment argues that the two are virtually equivalent. The definitions of reasonable certainty of conviction in pertinent DOJ Circulars are analyzed and compared to the standard applied by prosecutors in determining probable cause by examining Rule 65 cases concerning the latter. The examination reveals that both reasonable certainty of conviction and probable cause require prosecutors to establish a prima facie case to justify filing an information against the accused, which involves presenting uncontroverted evidence sufficient to establish all the elements of the crime or offense charged. Despite this, it cannot be determined whether the two differ as to the type of evidence needed to establish such—specifically, whether admissible evidence is required or mere hearsay suffices—since there is no settled standard for probable cause due to conflicting jurisprudence. In response to this, it is argued here that the 2024 DOJ Department Circular No. 015 (“2024 DOJ-NPS Rules”) attempts to settle the conflict by unequivocally requiring admissible and credible evidence equivalent to the proof required under the Rules of Court for establishing a prima facie case. Therefore, reasonable certainty of conviction effectively bridges the gap in the evidentiary standard for preliminary investigations.