Remedial Law Review: Prov Rem, SCA, and Crimpro

am+dg

Due process requirements:

o Court or tribunal trying the case is properly clothed with judicial power to hear and
determine the matter before it
o JD is lawfully acquired by it over the person of the accused
o Accused is given the opportunity to be heard
o Judgment rendered only upon lawful hearing
Requisites for the exercise of criminal JD (4, R)
o JD over territory
o JD over subject matter
o JD over person of the accused
Exceptions to venue:
o Art 2, RPC
o SC changes venue or place of trial to prevent miscarriage of justice
o Rules on trains, aircraft, vessels
o Cases under SB since tried in QC (where SB is located)

But SB can allow trial elsewhere when convenience or interest of justice requires
o Rules on libel
On subject matter:
o Conferred by law, determined by the allegations
o For complex crimes: JD is court with jd to impose MAXIMUM and most serious penalty
imposable on the offense forming part of the complex crime
o Statute applicable to a criminal action (13, R):

The JD to try a criminal action is determined by the law in force at the TIME of the
INSTITUTION of the action and not during the arraignment or commission of the
offense.
o Once the case is with the court, it shall proceed continuously (adherence of jurisdiction),
and no law can affect it,
o EXCEPT:

Law expressly provides so

Law is construed to the effect that it is intended to operate upon actions pending
before its enactment. (15, R)
On person of the accused:
o JD over the person is acquired by:

Voluntary appearance

Arrest or apprehension of the accused

o GR: Seeking affirmative relief is deemed voluntary submission. (17-18, R)

Examples: MTQ, appearing for arraignment, participating in trial

EXCEPT: special appearance to challenge the JD of the court over the

person (like questioning the warrant of arrest)
o Under custody is not necessarily being under the JD of the court.

One can be under custody but not under the JD, as when the arrested files a
motion before arraignment to quash the warrant.

One can be under JD but not under custody, as when an accused escapes after
trial commenced.
Injunction
o GR: court will not enjoin or restrain criminal prosecution, even during preliminary
investigation.

EXCEPT:

To afford protection to the CONSTI rights of the accused

For orderly admin of justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions

PREJUDICIAL question

Acts of the officer are WITHOUT or IN EXCESS of authority

Prosecution is under an INVALID law, ordinance or regulation

DOUBLE JEOPARDY is clearly apparent

Court has NO JD over the OFFENSE

Mickey Ingles
4C Ateneo Law 2012
Atty Tranquil (and some stuff from Atty Guevarra), additional stuff from Riano

Remedial Law Review: Prov Rem, SCA, and Crimpro

am+dg

PERSECUTION rather than prosecution

Charges are MANIFESTLY FALSE and motivated by LUST FOR VENGEANCE
Clearly NO PRIMA FACIE case against accused and MTQ DENIED

On the SB:
o Officers who need SG of 27:

Officials of the executive branch, occupying the position of regional director and
higher

Members of congress and officials thereof

All other national and local officials

o No need for SG 27, but still under the SB:

PROVINCIAL gov, vice-gov, members of the sanggu panlalawigan, treasurers,

assessors, engineers, dept heads

CITY mayors, vice-mayors, members of the sanggu panlungsod, treasures,

assessors, engineers, dept heards

Officials of the DIPLOMATIC service occupying the position of CONSUL and higher

Philippine army and air force COLONELS, NAVY CAPTAINS, and all officers of higher
rank

Officers of the PNP occupying the position of PROVINCIAL DIRECTOR and those
holding the rank of SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT or higher

CITY and PROVINCIAL PROSECUTORS and their assistants

Officials and prosecutors of the OMBUDSMAN and SPECIAL PROSECUTOR

Presidents, directors, or trustees, or managers of GOCCs, STATE Us or

EDUCATIONAL institutions or foundations
Offenses under the JD of the SB
o Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
o Forfeiture of Unlawfully Acquired Property in Favor of the State
o Brbery in all its forms, including corruption of public officers
o Anti-money laundering cases by public officers
o Other offense or felonies, whether simple or complexed with other cimres, committed by
public officials in RELATION TO THEIR OFFICE
Relation to their office, meaning:
o Such office is an element of the crime charged

Like malversation, illegal use of public funds or property

o Offense charged is intimately connected with the discharge of the official functions of the
accused

Like murder committed by a mayor who used his authority over armed patrols

But murder without use of authority is NOT under SB

Like sexual harassment committed by a public officer who used his authority over
a female employee in consideration for the latters job

But rape without use of authority or office is NOT under SB

Specific allegations must be made that the offense was intimately connected with
the discharge of the official functions of the accused

Mickey Ingles
4C Ateneo Law 2012
Atty Tranquil (and some stuff from Atty Guevarra), additional stuff from Riano

Remedial Law Review: Prov Rem, SCA, and Crimpro

am+dg

Complaint v Info
Complaint
Oath needed
Subscribed by 1) offended party, 2) any peace
officer or 3) other public officer charged with
the enforcement of the law violated

Mere formal amendments

o Relates to only RANGE of penalty
o Does NOT charge another offense DIFFERENT or distinct from that charged in the original
one
o Additional allegations do NOT ALTER the prosecutions theory of the case as to surprise the
accused and affect his DEFENSE
o Does NOT adversely affect any substantial right of the accused
o Merely adds specifications to ELIMINATE VAGEUNESS in the info and not to introduce new
and material facts
o Merely states with ADDITIONAL precision something which is already contained in the
ORIGINAL information
Changing from homicide to murder after plea, formal or substantial?
o Formal since only caption was changed and the factual allegations remained the same.

So, no prejudice to accused who can still use his old defense and evidence

Amendment v Substitution (105, R)

Amendment
Either formal or substantial
If before plea, can be made even without leave of
court
If only as to form, no need for another PI and
retaking of plea
Refers to the same offense charged in the original
info, or to an offense necessarily included or
necessarily includes the original charge. (So, if
done after plea, it cannot be made, since double
jeopardy)

Info
No need for oath
Subscribed by the prosecutor

Substitution
Substantial
Must be made with leave of court since the
original info will be dismissed
Need for a new PI and plea
Requires or presupposes that the new info
involves a different offense which does NOT
include or is NOT necessarily included in the
original charge, hence accused cannot claim
double jeopardy

In determining if there should be an amendment or substitution:

o If second information involves same offense (or necessarily included or includes the first
information), an amendment is sufficient
o Where new information charges an offense which is distinct and different from that initially
charged, substitution is needed.

Mickey Ingles
4C Ateneo Law 2012
Atty Tranquil (and some stuff from Atty Guevarra), additional stuff from Riano

Remedial Law Review: Prov Rem, SCA, and Crimpro

am+dg

Exceptions to Search Warrant Requirement

Search incidental to lawful arrest

o Purpose:

Prevent arrested from using weapons and harming the officers

Prevent arrested from destroying any evidence that could be used against him
o Requisites:

Person searched was previously arrested lawfully

Either through an arrest warrant or a valid warrantless arrest

Arrest preceded search or search was substantially contemporaneous with an

arrest

Things searched or seized must be within the area of the persons immediate
control

So, when the person arrested was already brought out of his room with his
hands tied, a locked cabinet inside the room can no longer be searched as
it is not an area within his immediate control (264, R)

When a person is arrested in one room, yet another room was searched
without a warrant, the search of the latter room was illegal
o A search and a seizure incident to a lawful arrest is NOT limited to things related to the
reason for the arrest.

Arrested for drugs, but what was seized was a gun on his body

Consented search
o Requisites:

Right must exist

Person involved had knowledge, either acutla or constructive of the existence of

such right

Said person had an actual intention to relinquish such right

Consent must be unequivocal, specific, and intelligently given

Hence, household maid cannot waive rights of the homeowner

o A peaceful submission to a search or seizure is NOT consent or an invitation thereto, but is
merely a demonstration of regard for the supremacy of the law.

Search of moving vehicle

o Rationale:

Not practical to secure a warrant because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of
the locality or the jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought
o Valid as long as the officers conducting the search have PROBABLE cause to believe prior
to the search that they would find the instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a crime in
the vehicle to be searched

Check points
o Not all checkpoints are illegal
o Valid for as long as they are:

Warranted by exigencies of public order

Limited to a visual search (no body search of motorists, nor is the vehicle
searched)

Conducted in a way least intrusive to motorists

Plain view
o Requisites:

Officer in has prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he

can view a particular area
Mickey Ingles
4C Ateneo Law 2012
Atty Tranquil (and some stuff from Atty Guevarra), additional stuff from Riano

Remedial Law Review: Prov Rem, SCA, and Crimpro

am+dg

Discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent

Its illegality/incriminating character must be immediately apparent

o On inadvertence:

Officer must not have known in advance of the location of the evidence and
discovery is not anticipated

Plain view wont apply when the evidence was actually searched for
o Can be used when police officers have a valid search warrant, and other illegal stuff (not
specified in the warrant) are seized in plain view (280, R)

But remember that the illegality must be immediately apparent

o Where the object seized was inside a closed package, the object itself is NOT in plain view.

But if the package is such that an experienced observer could infer from its
appearance that it contains the prohibited article, then its in plain view. (281, R)
o Officers entered into a squalid room legally but without a search warrant. Inside the room
was an expensive stereo set which the officer suspected was stolen. They moved it aside.
US SC: moving of the equipment was a search, and since the illegality of the item (it being
stolen) was not immediately apparent, the search was illegal. (282, R)
Stop and frisk
o Used to be for weapons only (Terry, suspicious people lurking outside a store), but was
recently used for drugs as well (Esquillo, accused had reddish eyes and was walking in a
swaying manner, and appeared to be on drugs)
o Purpose:

General interest of effective crime prevention and detection

For the safety of the police officer

o Requisites:

GENUINE REASON must exist, in light of the police officers experience and
surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the person who manifests
unusual suspicious conduct has weapons or contraband concealed about him.

Note: NOT probable cause, just genuine reason

Limited to patting the outside clothing

o Differentiated with search incident to lawful arrest:

Quantum of evidence: genuine reason vs quantum of proof

Search: non-intrusive vs intrusive

Purpose: finding weapons/contraband vs finding not only weapons, but also fruit of
any crime or things which may provide the person arrested with the means of
escape
Enforcement of customs laws or seizure of goods concealed to avoid duties
o Raids on businesses allowed under visitorial powers
o Does not apply to dwelling houses
Body checks in airports
o Allowed under RA 6235
Exigent circumstances

Remedies

Exclusion of evidence (MTQ/MTSuppress)

o Fruit of the poisonous tree

Seek damages via a separate civil action for the wrong inflicted by an improperly obtained or
enforced search warrant (Art 32)
o Independent civil action yan!

Criminal case vs officer

o Violation of domicile
o Search warrant maliciously obtained and abuse in the service
o Searching domicile without witnesses

Admini case vs officer

Mickey Ingles
4C Ateneo Law 2012
Atty Tranquil (and some stuff from Atty Guevarra), additional stuff from Riano

Remedial Law Review: Prov Rem, SCA, and Crimpro

am+dg

Arrest

Search and Seizure

Search of both persons and places and the
seizure of the things found therein
Judge no need to make a personal examination
Judge must personally examine the complainant
before issuing a warrant of arrest
and the witnesses
Enforcement on any day and at any time of the
Generally in the day time, unless there be a
day or night
direction in the warrant that it may be served at
any time of the day or night
Probable cause: facts which would lead a
Probable cause: facts which would lead a
reasonable and prudent discreet man to believe
reasonable and prudent discreet man to believe
that a crime has been committed and it was
that an offense has been committed and that
commited by the person sought to be arrested
the objects sought in connection with the
offense are in the place to be searched
Probable cause for arrest does not necessarily include probable cause to search and vice versa.
Seizure of person

When recognizance allowed (323, R):

o Offense charged is for violation of an ordinance, a light felony, or a criminal offense
(penalty not to exceed 6 months and/or P2000 fine)
o Person has been in custody of a period equal to or more than the MINIMUM of the
imposable principal penalty, without the application of the ISL or modifying circumstances

Can also be by reduced bail

o Applied for probation but not bail was filed or the accused incapable of filing one
o Youthful offender held for physical/mental exam, trial or appeal, and unable to furnish bail
o In summary procedure and accused was arrested for failure to appear when required

When bail not required:

o Custody for a period equal to or MORE than the possible maximum imprisonment
prescribed
o Max penalty is destierro and has stayed for 30 days
o Cases not needing PI and judge is satisfied that no need for warrant of arrest
o Offense charged is for violation of an ordinance, a light felony, or a criminal offense
(penalty not to exceed 6 months and/or P2000 fine) he can go for recognizance

But bail needed despite this, if:

Caught in flagrante delicto

Confesses to commission of the offense (unless repudiates later in open

court)

Previously escaped, evaded sentence, or jumped bail

Recidivist, habitual delinquent, reiteration

Commits offense while on parole or under conditional pardon

Previously been pardoned by the mayor for violation of an ordinance for at

least 2 times

Previously violated terms of recognizance

Mickey Ingles
4C Ateneo Law 2012
Atty Tranquil (and some stuff from Atty Guevarra), additional stuff from Riano

Remedial Law Review: Prov Rem, SCA, and Crimpro

am+dg

MTQ v Demurrer: (p80)

MTQ
Before plea
No need for leave of court
Specific grounds
Based on matters found on face of the
complaint or information
If granted, dismissal will not necessarily follow;
court may even order the filing of a new
complaint or amendment
If denied, Rule 65 can be used

Demurrer
After prosecution rests its case
With or without leave of court
Ground: insufficiency of evidence
Predicated upon matters outside of the
complaint or info
If granted, acquittal
If the motion for leave to file a demurrer or the
demurrer itself is denied, generally not
reviewable by appeal or certiorari (but subject
to exceptions)

Withdrawal of info vs motion to dismiss (add to p. 84)

Order granting the withdrawal of the info attains finality after 15 days from receipt thereof,
without prejudice to the re-filing of the info upon reinvestigation.
o Will not bring about provisional dismissal, hence NO time-bar.

Order granting a MTD becomes final 15 days after receipt thereof, with prejudice to the re-filing of
the same case once such order achieves finality.
o Contemplated in the rule on provisional dismissal (as long as requisites are present), so
time bar will apply.

Mickey Ingles
4C Ateneo Law 2012
Atty Tranquil (and some stuff from Atty Guevarra), additional stuff from Riano

Remedial Law Review: Prov Rem, SCA, and Crimpro

am+dg

On double jeopardy (p 81)

An acquittal is final and unappelable on the ground of double jeopardy.

o EXCEPT: if tainted with GADALEJ or mistrial (464, R)

Res judicata is NOT applicable to criminal proceedings even if double jeopardy has been described
as res judicata in prison grey.
o RJ is a doctrine of civil law.

As to the requisite: filed in a court of competent jurisdiction

o A court initially with jurisdiction may, in the course of the proceedings, be ousted of that
same jurisdiction, an event which would bar any invocation of double jeopardy.

Example: when prosecution is denied due process, as when it is prevented from

presenting evidence. Here, the reinstatement of the case does not violate the rule
on double jeopardy.

As to the requisite: valid information previously filed

o The sufficiency of the complaint or information or the famal charge is dependent on
whether the same could sustain a conviction.

If it cant, then the charge is not a valid one which would preclude DJ.

Thats why when the facts in an offense do not constitute an offense, a new
information can be filed again without the risk of DJ.

Read with Rule 110, Sec 6.

o Jeopardy does NOT attach where a defendant pleads guilty to a DEFECTIVE indictment
that is voluntarily dismissed by the prosecution.
o Jeopardy does NOT attach where the officer who filed the information has NO authority to
do so since the information is defective and could not sustain a conviction.

As to the requisite: a valid plea

o No double jeopardy in the reinstatement of a criminal case dismissed BEFORE arraignment
o Plea must be VALID.

If there was a plea of guilty

but it turned out to be a conditional plea (like pleading guilty to the

offense charged but bargaining for a lesser penalty this isnt plea
bargaining.) or

when the accused offers exculpatory evidence,

o the court should VACATE such guilty plea and enter a plea of not
guilty.
o The judgment based on the void plea bargaining or on the plea of
guilty (but with self-defense) is also VOID, and thus, double
jeopardy will not lie. (481-82, R)

As to the requisite: previously convicted, acquitted or case was dismissed without express consent
of the accused
o There must have been a termination or dismissal

So, the mere filing of two informations or complaints charging the same offense
does NOT yet afford the accused in those cases the occasion to complain of DJ,
since the first jeopardy has not yet attached
Mickey Ingles
4C Ateneo Law 2012
Atty Tranquil (and some stuff from Atty Guevarra), additional stuff from Riano

Remedial Law Review: Prov Rem, SCA, and Crimpro

am+dg

With regard to quasi-offenses

o Double jeopardy arises when the second information/complaint is based on the SAME
FACTS prosecuted and tried in the first information/complaint

Example: Bad driver charged with 1) reckless imprudence resulting in SLIGHT

physical injuries and 2) reckless imprudence resulting into homicide.

Conviction or acquittal for the first case will bar the 2nd case.

Pre-trial (p. 85)

During pre-trial, the trial judge shall consider plea-bargaining arrangements, except in cases for
violations of the DDA.

What happens if plea bargaining is agreed upon?

o Court shall:

Issue an ORDER to that effect

Proceed to receive evidence on the civil aspect of the case

Render and promulgate judgment of conviction, including the civil liability or

damages duly established by the evidence.
o If it fails, then judge will adopt the minutes of the preliminary conference as part of the
pre-trial, among others, and proceed with the other aspects of pre-trial.
Civil
Criminal
Upon motion ex parte filed by plaintiff
No need for motion
After all pleadings have been served and filed
After arraignment
Allowed purpose: amicable settlement
Amicable settlement NOT allowed
Sanction for non-appearance is on PARTY
Sanction for non-appearance is upon COUNSEL
or PROSECUTOR
Pre-trial briefs required
Not mentioned in rules
Admissions and agreements must be in writing
and signed by the accused and counsel with
strict warning that if not, it cannot be used
against him

Judicial proceedings with JDR divided into 2 stages:

o From filing of a complaint to the conduct of the CAM and JDR during the pre-trial stage;
and
o Pre-trial proper to trial and judgment

JDR judge is not the judge who will conduct trial proper.
o Mediation process is absolutely confidential. The JDR judge shall not pass on any info
obtained in the course of the mediation to the trial judge or to any other person.

Cases subject to mediation for JDR

o All civil cases, settlement of estates, and cases covered by the Rule on Summary
Procedure,

except those which by law may not be compromised, like:

criminal cases like violation of traffic rules and regulations

violation of municipal or city ordinances

o should NOT be mediated because they cannot be compromised and
might be a source of corruption if mediation pushes through.
o Cases cognizable by the Lupong Tagapamayapa and those cases that may be referred to it
by the judge under Section 408. Chapter VII of the Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise
known as the 1991 Local Government Code;
Mickey Ingles
4C Ateneo Law 2012
Atty Tranquil (and some stuff from Atty Guevarra), additional stuff from Riano

Remedial Law Review: Prov Rem, SCA, and Crimpro

am+dg

The civil aspect of

BP 22 cases;

quasi-offenses under Title 14 of the Revised Penal Code, like:

reckless or simple imprudence or negligence resulting into

imprudence resulting in damage to property

recekless or simlmprudence with violation of the motor vehicle law

Estafa,

Libel, and

Theft.
If no settlement reached after the JDR, the judge will issue an order returning the case to the
Clerk of Court for raffling and the clerk raffles the case to another judge who will conduct the pretrial proper and trial, until the case is decided.
o

Add to p. 86

Requisites before trial can be suspended on account of absence of witness:

o Must be ESSENTIAL witness

Meaning indispensable, necessary, or important in the highest degree

o Absence:

Whereabouts are UNKNOWN; or

Whereabout cannot be deteremined by due diligence

o Unavailable:

Even if whereabouts are known provided that his presence for the trial cannot be
obtained by due diligence

Trial in absentia, requisites:

o Accused has already been arraigned
o Accused has been duly notified of the trial or hearings, and
o Absence of the accused or his failure to appear is UNJUSTIFIED

Instances when the presence of the accused is required:

o At arraignment and plea, whether for innocence or of guilt
o During trial, whenever necessary for identification purposes
o At the promulgation of sentence,

Unless it is for a light offense (in which case, the accused may appear by counsel
or representative)
Add to p. 90
Demurrer Civil
Basis: failure of plaintiff to show that upon the
facts and the law, he is entitled to relief
No leave of court required
If denied, defendant does NOT lose right to
present evidence
If granted, plaintiff may appeal; and if dismissal
is reversed, defendant can no longer present
evidence

Demurrer Criminal
Basis: insufficiency of evidence
May be filed with or without leave of court
If denied and WITHOUT leave of court, accused
no longer can present evidence;
If denied and WITH leave of court, accused can
still present evidence
No appeal is allowed as a rule since grant is
akin to an acquittal

Mickey Ingles
4C Ateneo Law 2012
Atty Tranquil (and some stuff from Atty Guevarra), additional stuff from Riano

Remedial Law Review: Prov Rem, SCA, and Crimpro

am+dg

Section 2. Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial Investigation; Duties of Public
Officers.
(a) Any person arrested detained or under custodial investigation shall at all times be assisted by
counsel.
(b) Any public officer or employee, or anyone acting under his order or his place, who arrests, detains
or investigates any person for the commission of an offense shall inform the latter, in a language
known to and understood by him, of his rights to remain silent and to have competent and independent
counsel, preferably of his own choice, who shall at all times be allowed to confer privately with the
person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation. If such person cannot afford the services of
his own counsel, he must be provided with a competent and independent counsel by the investigating
officer.
(c) The custodial investigation report shall be reduced to writing by the investigating officer, provided
that before such report is signed, or thumbmarked if the person arrested or detained does not know
how to read and write, it shall be read and adequately explained to him by his counsel or by the
assisting counsel provided by the investigating officer in the language or dialect known to such
arrested or detained person, otherwise, such investigation report shall be null and void and of no effect
whatsoever.
(d) Any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation
shall be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel or in the latter's absence,
upon a valid waiver, and in the presence of any of the parents, elder brothers and sisters, his spouse,
the municipal mayor, the municipal judge, district school supervisor, or priest or minister of the gospel
as chosen by him; otherwise, such extrajudicial confession shall be inadmissible as evidence in any
proceeding.
(e) Any waiver by a person arrested or detained under the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised
Penal Code, or under custodial investigation, shall be in writing and signed by such person in the
presence of his counsel; otherwise the waiver shall be null and void and of no effect.
(f) Any person arrested or detained or under custodial investigation shall be allowed visits by or
conferences with any member of his immediate family, or any medical doctor or priest or religious
minister chosen by him or by any member of his immediate family or by his counsel, or by any national
non-governmental organization duly accredited by the Commission on Human Rights of by any
international non-governmental organization duly accredited by the Office of the President. The
person's "immediate family" shall include his or her spouse, fianc or fiance, parent or child, brother
or sister, grandparent or grandchild, uncle or aunt, nephew or niece, and guardian or ward.
As used in this Act, "custodial investigation" shall include the practice of issuing an "invitation"
to a person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed,
without prejudice to the liability of the "inviting" officer for any violation of law.
lawphi1

Custodial investigation is the stage

o Where the police investigation is NO longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime
o But has begun to focus on a PARTICULAR suspect, who has been

Taken into CUSTODY by the police,

Who carry out a process of interrogation that lends itself to elicit

incriminating statements
o Extends to invitations to questioning

Mickey Ingles
4C Ateneo Law 2012
Atty Tranquil (and some stuff from Atty Guevarra), additional stuff from Riano

Remedial Law Review: Prov Rem, SCA, and Crimpro

am+dg

Mere inquiry on the commission of the crime does NOT automatically trigger the application of the
right to counsel. (since suspect must be in custody).
Extrajudicial confessions made by a person during custodial investigation, requisites for
admissibility:
o In WRITING and SIGNED by the person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation
o Signed in the PRESENCE of HIS COUNSEL,

This can be waived, but waiver itself must be IN WRITING and in the PRESENCE
OF COUSEL (Consti)
o Once validly waived, it must be signed instead in the presence of any of the PARENTS,
ELDER BROTHERS AND SISTERS, HIS SPOUSE, municipal mayor, municipal JUDGE, district
school supervisor, or priest or minister of the gospel, as may be chosen by him.
To waive Art 125:
o WAIVER IN WRITING
o Signed by the person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation
o Signed IN THE PRESENCE OF HIS COUNSEL
Counsel must PREFERABLY be the counsel of choice of the person under CI,
o but if none or person cannot afford, counsel should be someone INDEPENDENT and
COMPETENT; if not, then confession in his presence is inadmissible.
UNCOUNSELLED confessions during custodial investigations are INADMISSIBLE.
o This includes signing of inventory receipts for property allegedly confiscated from the
accused.
UNCOUNSELLED confession to a BARANGAY CHAIRMAN is admissible.
o But UNCOUNSELLED confession to a BANTAY BAYAN is inadmissible. (since he performs
functions relating to the preservation of peace and order at the barangay level)

Mickey Ingles
4C Ateneo Law 2012
Atty Tranquil (and some stuff from Atty Guevarra), additional stuff from Riano