PUGONG's Law Office & Notarial Services

22/02/2024

SC Acquits Accused in Drug Case for Law Enforcers’ Failure to Comply with Mandatory Witness Rule │

Without the insulating presence of the mandatory witnesses during the seizure and marking of evidence in warrantless drug arrests, the evils of switching, planting, or contamination of the evidence negates the integrity and credibility of the seized items, casting reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused.

Thus reiterated the Supreme Court’s Third Division, in a Decision penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, granting the appeal of Gerald Flores (Flores) and Harrold Francisco (Francisco) who challenged their conviction by the lower court for violation of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as amended.

Flores and Francisco, along with Louie Truelen (Truelen), were charged in 2016 for the sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu following a buy-bust operation conducted by the Quezon City Police Department (QCPD).

The evidence for the prosecution included a Chain of Custody Form and Inventory of Seized/Confiscated Item/Property Form accomplished by the arresting officers. At the bottom of the latter form, appear the names and signatures of the following insulating witnesses: Jun E. Tobias (Tobias), a senior reporter for the media outlet Hirit/Saksi, and Nelson N. Dela Cruz (Dela Cruz), a barangay kagawad. The press identification card of Tobias was also attached. However, no other document identifies Dela Cruz as kagawad.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 77 found the accused guilty, noting that the validity of the buy-bust operation was not affected by the fact that there was no preparatory coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency. The RTC also held that the police officers’ actions enjoyed the presumption of regularity absent any showing of ill motive or intent on the part of the police officers to illegally incriminate the accused.

The RTC was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, prompting the present petition from Flores and Francisco. As to Truelen, his criminal liability was extinguished in 2021 following his death while in detention.

In granting Flores and Francisco’s appeal, the Court stressed the importance of complying with the mandatory insulating witness rule under Section 21 of RA 9165, which requires the apprehending team to conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and the photographing of the same immediately after seizure and confiscation, to be done in the presence of the accused, his counsel or representative, a representative of the Department of Justice (DOJ), the media, and an elected public official. These witnesses shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-acquits-accused-in-drug-case-for-law-enforcers-failure-to-comply-with-mandatory-witness-rule/.

22/02/2024

26/01/2024

SC: Receipts Showing Chain of Custody of Seized Drugs Cannot be Altered While in Transit |

The Supreme Court has ruled that even a minimal change in the receipts recording the movement of seized drugs is fatal to the integrity of the chain of custody in drug cases.

Thus held the Supreme Court’s Second Division, in a Decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, as it granted the appeal by Francis Valencia (Valencia) and Ryan Antipuesto (Antipuesto). The appeal challenged the ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA) affirming the Regional Trial Court’s (RTC) conviction of Valencia and Antipuesto for illegal sale of dangerous drugs.

In granting Valencia and Antipuesto’s appeal, the Court held that to be convicted of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following must be proved beyond reasonable doubt: (1) the transaction took place; and (2) the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti, or the fact of the commission of the crime, were established.

While the Court found that the transaction happened, as evidenced by the conducted prior surveillance and the buy bust operations, the prosecution, however, failed to establish the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt.

Under RA 9165, among the requirements for the custody and disposition of the confiscated dangerous drugs and other paraphernalia is the marking of the seized contraband, which is an important component of the first link of chain of custody.

The act of marking separates the marked illegal drugs “from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time of seizure from the accused until disposition at the end of criminal proceedings,” said the Court.

“The entire chain of custody is founded on the correct marking of the specimen because the marking serves as a reference point for all succeeding handling of the dangerous drugs,” the Court stressed.

The Court also held that given its crucial purpose, marking should be done immediately right after the seizure of dangerous drugs to preclude unnecessary doubts on the first custodial link. “Failure to mark at the point of seizure endangers the integrity of the chain of custody,” said the Court.

The paper trail or the receipts recording the movement of seized specimen are likewise important evidence showing the chain of custody. “These documents must accurately reflect the marking written on the confiscated drugs and the series of transfers. Succeeding handlers of the seized contraband will have to rely on the marking stated in these documents and compare it with the actual marking on the specimen,” stressed the Court.

Thus, to preserve the chain of custody, the specimen must bear the reference marking stated in the paper trail, the Court held.

In the present case, while the Court found that the marking was done at the place of arrest, there was, however, a discrepancy in the paper trail recording the movement of the seized drugs.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-receipts-showing-chain-of-custody-of-seized-drugs-cannot-be-altered-while-in-transit/. Read G.R. No. 250610 (People v. Valencia and Antipuesto, July 10, 2023) at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/250610-people-of-the-philippines-vs-francis-valencia-y-lorenzo-and-ryan-antipuesto/.

26/01/2024

SC Finds Lawyer Guilty of Grave Misconduct for Unlawful Taking of Case Records re: Murder of Ruby Rose Barrameda-Jimenez |

The Supreme Court has affirmed the dismissal of a former lawyer in the then Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs for grave misconduct and serious dishonesty after being found in possession of the missing case records in connection with the murder of Ruby Rose Barrameda-Jimenez (Barrameda), whose body was found covered in hardened concrete inside a steel drum in Navotas City in 2009.

In a Decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the Court En Banc denied the petition for review on certiorari filed by Jerik Roderick V. Jacoba and granted the petition for review on certiorari filed by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) and former Executive Secretary Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr. (ES Ochoa). The consolidated petitions assailed the rulings of the Court of Appeals (CA) finding Jacoba guilty of simple misconduct.

In resolving the petitions, the Court first stressed that findings of facts of administrative bodies and quasi-judicial agencies, such as the CSC, when supported by substantial evidence, are treated with great respect and even finality by courts in recognition of the former’s specialty in their respective fields. The CSC, in particular, as the central personnel agency of the Government, is empowered to discipline its officials and employees in accordance with law, to ensure that only persons with proven integrity and fitness get the privilege of serving the public.

Among the transgressions investigated by the CSC are misconduct, or such unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. When attended with corruption, willful intent, or disregard of established rules, such misconduct is considered grave. Dishonesty, on the other hand, is the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud, which is considered serious when it causes serious damage and grave prejudice to the government, exhibits moral depravity, or employs fraud, among other analogous circumstances.

In the present case, the Court found that the evidence on record substantially supports the CSC’s findings of fact that Jacoba committed grave misconduct and serious dishonesty. As noted by the CSC, the missing case records were never previously assigned to Jacoba, yet they were found in a cabinet owned and controlled by him.

Such grave misconduct and serious dishonesty warrant Jacoba’s dismissal and perpetual disqualification from government service, concluded the Court.

The Court also imposed the following accessory penalties on Jacoba: forfeiture of all retirement benefits; perpetual disqualification from re-employment in the government service; cancellation of civil service eligibility; and bar from taking the civil service examinations.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-finds-lawyer-guilty-of-grave-misconduct-for-unlawful-taking-of-case-records-re-murder-of-ruby-rose-barrameda-jimenez/. Read G.R. No. 240517 (CSC v. Executive Secretary Ochoa, Jr.) and G.R. No. 240688 (Jacoba v. CSC and Executive Secretary Ochoa, Jr., June 7, 2023) in full at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/240517-240688-civil-service-commission-and-paquito-n-ochoa-jr-executive-secretary-vs-jerik-roderick-v-jacoba-jerik-roderick-v-jacoba-vs-civil-service-commission-and-paquito-n-ochoa-jr-exec/.

15/06/2023

𝙅𝙖𝙘𝙞𝙣𝙩𝙤 𝙫𝙨. 𝙁𝙤𝙪𝙩𝙨, 𝙂.𝙍. 𝙉𝙤. 250627, 𝘿𝙚𝙘𝙚𝙢𝙗𝙚𝙧 22, 2022

𝑭𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒔:

Sandra and Maria were in a relationship for 16 years. They broke up on December 24, 2017 in Hongkong. Sandra asked Maria to stop using her credit cards because the latter still owed her PhP. 3,000,000.00.

Sandra also demanded Maria to leave the house and force the latter to execute a Deed of Absolute over the property in her favor. Maria refused to leave and sign the document. On January 12, 2018, Sandra became angry and violent that she threatened to break everything and bum the house down. Maria suffered chest pain and difficulty because of Sandra’s threats. She was brought to the hospital.

Sandra visited Maria in the hospital to make amends. When they went home, Maria averred that Sandra forced her to take Rivotril, a drug that caused her to feel weak and groggy. On January 14, 2018, when Maria regained consciousness, she was already naked with Sandra on top her taking photos and videos of her. She then begged Sandra to delete the photos fearing that the latter might kill her or have her killed. Maria followed Sandra to her car, but the latter repeatedly crushed her hand with the door of the car and pushed her hard so that she fell to the floor. She suffered fracture on her left wrist and thereafter underwent surgery and physical therapy.

On June 2018, an Information for violation of Section 5(a) in relation to 2nd paragraph Section 6(a), of RA 9262 was filed in the RTC against Sandra. Sandra moved to quash the Information on the ground that the facts charged in the information do not constitute an offense because RA 9262 does not apply to le***an relationships.

The RTC denied the Motion to Quash stating that Section 3(a) of RA 9262 is clear that any person could be liable for violation of its provisions whether the violator is a man or a woman.

𝑰𝒔𝒔𝒖𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑹𝒖𝒍𝒊𝒏𝒈:

Whether or not RA 9262 applies to le***an relationships.

RA 9262 applies to le***an relationships. The Supreme Court reiterated the pronouncement in Garcia vs. Drilon, 712Phil.44(2013).

The issue was already settled in the case of Garcia in this wise:
There is likewise no merit to the contention that R.A. 9262 singles out the husband or father as the culprit. As defined above, VA WC may likewise be committed "against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship." Clearly, the use of the gender-neutral word "person" who has or had a sexual or dating relationship with the woman encompasses even le***an relationships. Moreover, while the law provides that the offender be related or connected to the victim by marriage, former marriage, or a sexual or dating relationship, it does not preclude the application of the principle of conspiracy under the Revised Penal Code (RPC). Thus, in the case of Go-Tan v. Spouses Tan, the parents-in-law of Sharica Mari L. Go-Tan, the victim, were held to be proper respondents in the case filed by the latter upon the allegation that they and their son (Go-Tan's husband) had community of design and purpose in tormenting her by giving her insufficient financial support; harassing and pressuring her to be ejected from the family home; and in repeatedly abusing her verbally, emotionally, mentally and physically.

***anrelationship

14/03/2023

No probable cause for the R**e case filed against Vhong Navarro

28/02/2023

𝗢𝗙𝗙𝗘𝗡𝗗𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗥𝗘𝗟𝗜𝗚𝗜𝗢𝗨𝗦 𝗙𝗘𝗘𝗟𝗜𝗡𝗚𝗦

"Shall be imposed upon anyone who, in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony shall perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful." - Art. 133 of RPC

In the case of 𝗣𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝘃𝘀. 𝗕𝗮𝗲𝘀 𝗚.𝗥. 𝗡𝗼. 𝗟-𝟰𝟲𝟬𝟬𝟬 𝗠𝗮𝘆 𝟮𝟱, 𝟭𝟵𝟯𝟵, the acts must be directed against religious practice or dogma or ritual for the purpose of ridicule, as mocking or scoffing at or attempting to damage an object of religious veneration.

In 𝗣𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗽𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀 𝘃𝘀. 𝗝𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝗠𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗼, 𝗝𝗿. 𝟭𝟵𝟱𝟱-𝟬𝟮-𝟮𝟱 𝗖𝗔-𝗚.𝗥. 𝗡𝗼. 𝟭𝟮𝟭𝟭𝟰 “Remarks that those who believed that Christ is God are anti-Christ, that all the members of the Roman Catholic Church are marked by the demon, and that the Pope is the Commander of Satan are notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful.”

15/02/2023

SC: Abusive Mothers can be Offenders under VAWC Law; Fathers can File Case on Behalf of Abused Children
February 9, 2023
Mothers who abuse their children can be offenders under the Anti- Violence Against Women and Their Children (VAWC) Act, and fathers can apply for remedies under the law on behalf of the abused children.
Thus ruled the Supreme Court En Banc in an 18-page Decision penned by Justice Mario V. Lopez, granting the Petition for Certiorari filed by Randy Michael Knutson on behalf of his minor daughter. The petition challenged the ruling of the Taguig City Regional Trial Court (RTC) which had dismissed Knutson’s petition under Republic Act 9262, or the VAWC Act, for the issuance of Temporary and Protection Orders against Rosalina Knutson (Rosalina), the mother of his daughter.
The High Court also granted a permanent protection order in favor of the daughter.
On December 7, 2017, Knutson petitioned the Taguig City RTC for Temporary and Protection Orders against Rosalina, alleging that Rosalina placed their daughter in a harmful environment deleterious to the latter’s physical, emotional, moral, and psychological development.
The RTC dismissed Knutson’s petition on the ground that protection and custody orders under the VAWC Act could not be issued against a mother who allegedly abused her own child.
The RTC added that the remedies under the law were not available to Knutson, the father, because he was not a “woman victim of violence.”
Knutson moved for reconsideration of the dismissal, but was also denied by the RTC, prompting him to file a Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC.
In granting Knutson’s petition, the Supreme Court ruled that while the VAWC Act excludes men as victims, this does not mean the law denies a father of its remedies solely because of his gender or the fact that he is not a “woman victim of violence.”
The Court held that Section 9(b) of the VAWC Act explicitly allows “parents or guardians of the offended party” to file a petition for protection orders. This provision was further incorporated in the law’s implementing rules as well as in A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC or the Rule on Violence Against Women and Children, the Court said.
The Court further explained that the law speaks in clear language
when it used the word “parents” pertaining to the father and the mother of
the woman or child victim. The law did not qualify on who between the parents of the victim may apply for protection orders, held the Court.
In the case of Knutson, it is clearly stated in the title of his petition for issuance of a protection order that he is acting on behalf of his minor daughter. “There is no question that the offended party is [the daughter], a minor child, who allegedly experienced violence and abuse. Thus, [Knutson] may assist [his daughter] in filing the petition as the parent of the offended party,” ruled the Court.
The Court added that Knutson is not asking for a protection order in his favor. The petition he filed is “principally and directly for the protection of the minor child and not the father.”
The Court also ruled that the VAWC Act covers situations where the mother committed violent and abusive acts against her own child. “The fact that a social legislation affords special protection to a particular sector does not automatically suggest that its members are excluded from violating such law,” ruled the Court.
Citing Section 3 of the VAWC Act, the Court noted that “violence against women and children” was defined in the law as abusive acts “committed by any person.”
“The statute used the gender-neutral word ‘person’ as the offender
which embraces any person of either sex,” noted the Court.
“Logically, a mother who maltreated her child resulting in physical, sexual, or psychological violence defined and penalized under [the VAWC Act] is not absolved from criminal liability notwithstanding that the measure is intended to protect both women and their children,” the Court ruled.
Applying this to Knutson, the Court held that the RTC’s position that only children under the care of the woman victim of violence can be protected under the VAWC Act is a restrictive interpretation that “will frustrate the policy of the law to afford special attention to women and children as usual victims of violence and abuse.”
Such approach “will weaken the law and remove from its coverage instances where the mother herself is the abuser of her child,” held the Court, adding that this “negates not only the plain letters of the law and the clear legislative intent as to who may be offenders but also downgrades the country’s avowed international commitment to eliminate all forms of violence against children including those perpetrated by their parents.”
The Court added that the RTC’s “consoling statement that the children who suffered abuse from the hands of their own mothers may invoke other laws except [the VAWC Act] is discriminatory. The supposed reassurance is an outright denial of effective legal measures to address the seriousness and urgency of the situation…[given that] only [the VAWC Act] created the innovative remedies of protection and custody orders. Other laws have no mechanisms to prevent further acts of violence against the child.”
The Court concluded that in issuing its ruling, “the Court refuses to
be an instrument of injustice and mischief perpetrated against vulnerable
sectors of the society such as children victims of violence. The Court will not shirk its bounden duty to interpret the law in keeping with the cardinal principle that in enacting a statute, the legislature intended right and justice to prevail.” (Courtesy of the Supreme Court Public Information Office)
FULL TEXT OF G.R. No. 239215 dated July 12, 2022 at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/32898/
FULL TEXT OF Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo’s Separate Dissenting Opinion: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/32920/
FULL TEXT OF Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen’s Separate Opinion: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/32916/
FULL TEXT OF Associate Justice Benjamin S. Caguioa’s Dissenting Opinion: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/32923/
FULL TEXT OF Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier’s Concurring Opinion: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/32926/
FULL TEXT OF Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda’s Dissenting Opinion: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/32930/
FULL TEXT OF Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh’s Dissenting Opinion: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/32934/

15/02/2023

Our Top 1 Feb-ibig Hugot from the Disbarment Case Decision.

I refer this as the LOVE LETTER!

Joselano Guevarra (complainant) filed on March 4, 2002 a Complaint for Disbarment before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD) against Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala a.k.a. Noli Eala (respondent) for "grossly immoral conduct and unmitigated violation of the lawyer's oath."
Complainant later found, in the master's bedroom, a folded social card bearing the words "I Love You" on its face, which card when unfolded contained a handwritten letter dated October 7, 2000, the day of his wedding to Irene, reading:
My everdearest Irene,
By the time you open this, you'll be moments away from walking down the aisle. I will say a prayer for you that you may find meaning in what you're about to do.
Sometimes I wonder why we ever met. Is it only for me to find fleeting happiness but experience eternal pain? Is it only for us to find a true love but then lose it again? Or is it because there's a bigger plan for the two of us?
I hope that you have experienced true happiness with me. I have done everything humanly possible to love you. And today, as you make your vows . . . I make my own vow to YOU!
I will love you for the rest of my life. I loved you from the first time I laid eyes on you, to the time we spent together, up to the final moments of your single life. But more importantly, I will love you until the life in me is gone and until we are together again.
Do not worry about me! I will be happy for you. I have enough memories of us to last me a lifetime. Always remember though that in my heart, in my mind and in my soul, YOU WILL ALWAYS . . AND THE WONDERFUL THINGS YOU DO!
BE MINE . . . . AND MINE ALONE, and I WILL ALWAYS BE YOURS AND YOURS ALONE!
I LOVE YOU FOREVER, I LOVE YOU FOR ALWAYS. AS LONG AS I'M LIVING MY TWEETIE YOU'LL BE!"
Eternally yours,
NOLI

06/02/2023

𝗦𝘂𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁 𝗗𝗶𝘀𝗯𝗮𝗿𝘀 𝗟𝗮𝘄𝘆𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗙𝗮𝗰𝗲𝗯𝗼𝗼𝗸 𝗣𝗼𝘀𝘁

“Atty. Causing’s posting of the complaint for Plunder on his Facebook account was motivated by the desire to damage the reputation of the respondents therein. In fact, it was posted precisely to elicit negative reactions, comments and public opinions against Lao and her fellow respondents,” the Supreme Court said.

Moreover, the Supreme Court held that the case at hand show that Atty. Causing has the propensity to divulge sensitive information in online platforms, such as Facebook, to the detriment of the people involved in the said cases. Thus, considering that Atty. Causing was already suspended for one (1) year with a stem warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with-more severely, 𝙒𝙚 𝙗𝙚𝙡𝙞𝙚𝙫𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙖𝙥𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙥𝙧𝙞𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙥𝙚𝙣𝙖𝙡𝙩𝙮 𝙩𝙤 𝙗𝙚 𝙞𝙢𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙚𝙙 𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙞𝙣 𝙞𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙪𝙡𝙩𝙞𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙥𝙚𝙣𝙖𝙡𝙩𝙮 𝙤𝙛 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙗𝙖𝙧𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩.

𝗦𝗖 𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴: We caution lawyers to be circumspect in their postings online. They are reminded to always practice restraint in their conduct, be it in real life or online. Otherwise, the rule of law may very well be completely circumvented and rendered nugatory by blatantly seeking public trial on social media.

𝗝𝗮𝗰𝗸𝗶𝘆𝗮 𝗔. 𝗟𝗮𝗼 𝗩𝘀. 𝗔𝘁𝘁𝘆. 𝗕𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗶 𝗖. 𝗖𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗔.𝗖. 𝗡𝗼. 𝟭𝟯𝟰𝟱𝟯. 𝗢𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗯𝗲𝗿 𝟰, 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟮.

READ FULLTEXT: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/32751/

07/01/2023

Labor law

05/10/2022

: Paggamit ng Maiden Name Matapos Ikasal

: Required ba ang mga babae na gamitin ang apelyido ng kanilang asawa?

: Hindi. Ayon sa prevailing jurisprudence o mga naging desisyon ng Korte Suprema, ang kasal na babae ay may opsyon, pero hindi obligasyon na gamitin ang apelyido ng kanyang asawa. Ang kasal na babae ay may sumusunod na opsyon:

• Ipagpatuloy ang paggamit ng kanyang maiden name o apelyido sa pagkadalaga; (Hal. Basilia Cruz)
• Idagdag sa kanyang pangalan at apelyido sa pagkadalaga ang apelyido ng kanyang asawa; (Hal. Basilia Cruz-Santos)
• Gamitin ang pangalan sa pagkadalaga at ang apelyido ng kanyang asawa (Hal. Basilia Santos)
• Gamitin ng buo ang pangalan ng asawa pero dagdagan ito ng "Mrs." para ipahiwatig na siya ay kasal rito (Hal. Mrs. Crispin Santos)

May tanong tungkol sa GAD? at ma , bisitahin lamang ang link na ito:: https://pcw.gov.ph/faq-use-of-maiden-name/