GUIDELINES, PROCEDURES, & DUTIES OF OFFICERS
That the waiver must be done in writing AND in the presence
ARRESTING, DETAINING, INVITING, OR
INVESTIGATING AT THE TIME OF ARREST OR
CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION (Mahinay Case)
A person under custodial investigation should be informed:
1. In a language known to and understood by him of the reason
for the arrest and he must be shown the warrant of arrest, if
any; Every other warnings, information or communication
must be in a language known to and understood by said
person;
2. That he has a right to remain silent and that any statement
he makes may be used as evidence against him;
3. That he has the right to be assisted at all times and have the
presence of an independent and competent lawyer,
preferably of his own choice;
4. That if he has no lawyer or cannot afford the services of a
lawyer, one will be provided for him; and that a lawyer may
also be engaged by any person in his behalf, or may be
appointed by the court upon petition of the person arrested
or one acting in his behalf;
5. That no custodial investigation in any form shall be
conducted except in the presence of his counsel or after a
valid waiver has been made;
6. That, at any time, he has the right to communicate or confer
by the most expedient means – telephone, radio, letter or
messenger – with his lawyer (either retained or appointed),
any member of his immediate family, or any medical doctor,
priest or minister chosen by him or by any one from his
immediate family or by his counsel, or be visited by/confer
with duly accredited national or international non-
government organization. It shall be the responsibility of the
officer to ensure that this is accomplished;
7. That he has the right to waive any of said rights provided it is
made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently and ensure
that he understood the same;
8.
of counsel, otherwise, he must be warned that the waiver is
void even if he insist on his waiver and chooses to speak;
9. That he may indicate in any manner at any time or stage of
the process that he does not wish to be questioned with
warning that once he makes such indication, the police may
not interrogate him if the same had not yet commenced, or
the interrogation must ceased if it has already begun;
10. That his initial waiver of his right to remain silent, the right
to counsel or any of his rights does not bar him from
invoking it at any time during the process, regardless of
whether he may have answered some questions or
volunteered some statements;
11. That any statement or evidence, as the case may be, obtained
in violation of any of the foregoing, whether inculpatory or
exculpatory, in whole or in part, shall be inadmissible in
evidence.
WHEN CAN CRIMINAL ACTIONS BE ENJOINED? (Brocka
case)
 GR: Courts will not issue writs of prohibition of injunction
to enjoin or restrain criminal action
 E: Extreme cases below, where courts can enjoin a criminal
proceeding:
1. To afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of
the accused
2. When necessary for the orderly administration of justice or
to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions
3. When there is a prejudicial question which is sub judice
4. When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of
authority
5. Where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance, or
regulation
6. When double jeopardy is clearly apparent
7. Where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense
 8. Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution
9. Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the
lust for vengeance
10. Where there is clearly no prima facie case against the
accused and a motion to quash on that ground has been
denied
EXCEPTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE OF PRELIMINARY
INVESTIGATION (SEC v Santos case)
 GR: It is the court’s policy not to interfere in the conduct of
preliminary investigations
 E:
1. When necessary to afford adequate protection to the
constitutional rights of the accused;
2. When necessary for the orderly administration of justice or
to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions;
3. When there is a prejudicial question which is sub judice;
4. When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of
authority;
5. Where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or
regulation;
6. When double jeopardy is clearly apparent;
7. Where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense;
8. Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution;
9. Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the
lust for vengeance;
10. When there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused
and a motion to quash on that ground has been denied.
EXCEPTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY
JURISDICTION (Province of Aklan v. Jody King case)
 GR: The doctrine of primary jurisdiction holds that if a case
is such that its determination requires the expertise,
specialized training and knowledge of the proper
administrative bodies, relief must first be obtained in an
administrative proceeding before a remedy is supplied by the
courts even if the matter may well be within their proper
jurisdiction.
 E:
1. Where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the
doctrine;
2. Where the challenged administrative act is patently illegal,
amounting to lack of jurisdiction;
3. Where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that
will irretrievably prejudice the complainant;
4. Where the amount involved is relatively small so as to make
the rule impractical and oppressive;
5. Where the question involved is purely legal and will
ultimately have to be decided by the courts of justice;
6. Where judicial intervention is urgent;
7. When its application may cause great and irreparable
damage;
8. Where the controverted acts violate due process;
9. When the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative
remedies has been rendered moot;
10. When there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy;
11. When strong public interest is involved; and,
12. In quo warranto proceedings. However, none of the
foregoing circumstances is applicable in the present case.
CRESPO v. MOGUL – once a case is filed in court
Once case is filed in court, the judge must decide whether or not the
information is proper. The fiscal cannot summarily withdraw the
information without the judge’s consent.
• The institution of a criminal action depends upon the sound
discretion of the fiscal but once the case is filed, the same can no
longer be withdrawn or dismissed without the court’s approval
(Crespo v. Mogul)
• The fiscal can ask permission to conduct a reinvestigation of
the case (Crespo v. Mogul)
LEVISTE v. CA – application for bail after conviction before RTC
FACTS: Leviste was convicted with homicide in the RTC. Pending
appeal before CA, he applied bail but was denied. The issue whether
bail should be approved.
HELD: CA’s rejection is valid. Bail is a matter of discretion, and prior
conviction by a court can support the rejection for the application of
bail. The Court held that the absence of the circumstances
enumerated in Sec. 5, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court will only
authorize the court to use the less stringent sound discretion
approach. Furthermore, the Court held that after conviction by the
trial court the presumption of innocence terminates and the
constitutional right to bail ends. From then on, the grant of bail is
subject to judicial discretion.
DOCTRINE: Application for bail (due to age/health) denied after
conviction of homicide in RTC. Presumption of innocence
terminates.
PEOPLE v. GUEVARRA – true name of the accused
FACTS: Jaime Guevarra, Poncing Abergas, Dan Tolentino, Baldo de
Jesus, Roming Longhair, Boy Tae, Boy Pogi, Vergel Bustamenta alias
“Dan Saksak”, and Chotse Doe alias Bernabe Sulaybar were charged
with kidnapping. Eventually, accused Vergel Bustamante (Dan
Saksak) was found guilty of kidnapping and serious illegal detention.
ISSUE: There are two issues in the case: (1) counsel for appellant
contends that the trial court erred in ordering the amendment of the
information to include, as party defendant, Vergel Bustamante alias
Dan Saksak despite lack of proof that Vergel Bustamante and Dan
Saksak are one and the same person; and (2) the propriety of the
conviction of kidnapping and serious illegal detention.
HOLDING: Anent the first issue, the contention is without merit. The
questioned order of the trial court to amend the information to
include the correct name of one of the accused, "Dan Saksak", which
is Vergel Bustamante, is not without basis. The circumstances in the
record of the criminal case forwarded by the MTC of Gapan to the
RTC of Nueva Ecija, obviously led the judge of the latter court to
believe that Vergel Bustamante and "Dan Saksak" are one and the
same person. Moreover, the issue cannot be raised for the first time
on appeal. The issue is one affecting jurisdiction over the person and
should have been raised before the trial court in a motion to quash
the information. Since the defendant-appellant failed to do so, he is
deemed to have waived his objection to the information.
[Note: The Court did not mention this in the case, but in relation to
the syllabus topic, the Information must be amended to
provide the true name of the accused (Rule 110, Section 7)]
Anent the second issue, the amended information merely alleges that
accused kidnapped the victim. The settled rule is that an accused
cannot be convicted of a higher offense than that with which he is
charged in the complaint or information on which he is tried. It
matters not how conclusive and convincing the evidence of guilt may
be, an accused person cannot be convicted in the Courts, unless it is
charged in the complaint or information, or necessarily included
therein. Death is the correct penalty to be imposed, but with the
effectivity of the 1987 Constitution, the penalty is commuted to RP.
When an offense is committed by more than one person, all of them
shall be included in the complaint or information.
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT FOR PROVISIONAL
DISMISSAL (People v. Lacson case)

1. Accused must move for provisional dismissal

2. Notice given to the offended
3. Court must grant offer
4. Prosecutor must be served a copy of the order (law did not
mention this)

Remember: The period runs upon notice to the offended party and
the Prosecutor. The law does not provide for the notice to the
prosecutor, this case is important because it adds the requirement.
Why? Because only the prosecutor can revive the case.

Sir: From issuance of provisional dismissal, not notice to public

prosecutor!