Clark Dula Law Office

Affected provisions of Rule 112 (Preliminary Investigation) of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure will be deemed repealed once the 2024 Department of Justice-National Prosecution Service Rules on Preliminary Investigations and Inquest Proceedings are promulgated by the DOJ.

Read more at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-to-repeal-provisions-of-rule-112-of-the-revised-rules-on-criminal-procedure/

Filipinos can now enjoy faster immigration processing using the egates!

The Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that Republic Act No. 9262, or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 (Anti-VAWC Act), grants protection to women-victims not only from men, but also from women, with whom they are in an intimate relationship.

READ: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-reiterates-that-anti-vawc-act-also-applies-to-lesbian-relationships/

***

We hope you have learned something from this post.

Please visit our page where we help law students in becoming lawyers through:
1. Audio Law Codals
2. Audio Case Digests
3. Digital Law Flashcards
https://www.facebook.com/busybooklaw2020

You can get free samples of the abovementioned products by filling up this Google Form:
https://forms.gle/FKFdzyPYmR1kVwaP8

…

Thank you for your time and good luck in law school!

The mandatory application of the Guidelines on Electronic Submission of Pleadings in Lower Courts has been moved to September 2, 2024, pursuant to Office of the Court Administrator Circular No. 117-2024.

For the full text of the Circular: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/guidelines-on-submission-of-electronic-copies-of-pleadings-and-other-court-submissions-being-filed-before-the-lower-courts-pursuant-to-the-efficient-use-of-paper-rule/

Our point to ponder for today.

SC: DOE may Exercise President’s Emergency Takeover Power over Oil Firms |

The Supreme Court has upheld Section 14(e) of Republic Act No. (RA) 8479 or the Downstream Oil Industry Deregulation Act, giving the Department of Energy (DOE), on behalf of the President, the power to take over oil firms in case of national emergency.

This was the ruling of the Supreme Court En Banc, in a Decision penned by Acting Chief Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, as it granted the petition for review on certiorari filed by former Executive Secretary Leandro Mendoza, the DOE-Department of Justice Joint Task Force, and DOE Secretary Angelo T. Reyes. The petition challenged the rulings of the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed the Regional Trial Court’s (RTC) Decision declaring Section 14(e) of RA 8479 unconstitutional.

The case originated from the petition for prohibition, mandamus, and injunction filed before the RTC by Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation (Pilipinas Shell) assailing Executive Order No. (EO) 839 which directed oil industry players to maintain oil prices of their petroleum products during the state of calamity brought about by Typhoons Ondoy and Pepeng. Pilipinas Shell also prayed, in an amended petition for declaratory relief, that Section 14(e) of RA 8479 be declared null and void for being an invalid delegation of emergency powers to the Executive.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-doe-may-exercise-presidents-emergency-takeover-power-over-oil-firms/

Read the full text of G.R. No. 209216, Executive Secretary Mendoza v. Pilipinas Shell (February 21, 2023) at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/209216-executive-secretary-leandro-mendoza-department-of-energy-department-of-justice-joint-task-force-and-department-of-energy-secretry-angelo-t-reyes-vs-pilipinas-shell-petroleum-corporation/

Read the full text of the Separate Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/209216-separate-concurring-opinion-justice-alfredo-benjamin-s-caguioa/

For her part, SC Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, Co-Chairperson of the CGRJ, emphasized in her message that “the Judiciary has made great leaps” with regard to having a system that promotes sensitivity and inclusivity. She added that despite these milestones, the road ahead is still long and we must maintain the momentum in ensuring equality.

“True justice cannot be achieved without justice for all, and justice for all means justice that is equal and free from any form of discrimination,” she highlighted.

Full article here:

https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-holds-exhibit-in-celebration-of-womens-month/

SC Affirms Conviction of Child Pornographer |

Sending a strong message that child po*******hy, among other forms of sexual exploitation and abuse, presents an acute danger worldwide if facilitated through the internet, the Court affirmed the conviction of a child pornographer and sentenced it to imprisonment and a fine of PHP 2,000,000.

This was the ruling of the Supreme Court En Banc, through Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez, as it denied the appeal of Luisa Pineda (Pineda) who was convicted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) for child po*******hy qualified with the use of a computer system.

The Court found all the elements of child po*******hy under RA 9775 present in Pineda’s case.

Under Sections 4(a), (b), and (c) of RA 9775, the elements of child po*******hy are: (1) the victim is below 18 years old or over but unable to fully take care of himself or herself; (2) the offender either: (i) hires, employs, uses, persuades, induces or coerces a child to perform in the creation or production of any form of child po*******hy; or (ii) produces, directs, manufactures or creates any form of child po*******hy; or (iii) publishes, offers, transmits, sells, distributes, broadcasts, advertises, promotes, exports or imports any form of child po*******hy; and (3) the child’s sexual activities were represented through visual, audio, or written combination, by electronic, mechanical, digital, optical, magnetic, or any other means.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-sentences-child-pornographer-to-imprisonment-and-php2-million-fine/

ICYMI: Chief Justice Gesmundo expressed his hope that the collaborative effort among the Philippine Supreme Court, Philippine Judicial Academy, and The Hague Academy of International Law would cultivate a new generation of legal minds capable of addressing the complexities of the interconnected world and contributing to international understanding and positive change, at the Opening Ceremony of the Advanced Courses of The Hague Academy of International Law in the Philippines.

The Chief also discussed the evolving landscape of the international legal system, highlighting the need for cooperation in addressing global challenges such as climate change, maritime disputes, human trafficking, and cybercrimes and emphasizing the importance of legal practitioners being proficient in both domestic and international law, especially considering contemporary issues like boundary disputes, digital commerce, and terrorism.

The Advanced Courses Programe is organized by The Hague Academy of International Law in partnership with the Supreme Court and the Philippine Judicial Academy.

Today on , we discuss the concept of a collaborating counsel

Question:

What is a collaborating counsel?

Answer:

A collaborating counsel is a lawyer who is subsequently engaged to assist another lawyer already handling a particular case for a client. He cannot just enter his appearance as collaborating counsel without the conformity of the first counsel.

The same diligence of the first counsel is required of the collaborating counsel [Sublay v. NLRC, G.R. No. 130104 (2000)].

📢 Stay informed with the latest Court Decisions and Resolutions uploaded to the Supreme Court Website.

Read the Decisions and Resolutions in full at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions-and-resolutions/ or scan the QR codes.

SC Grants Writs of Amparo, Habeas Data in Favor of Environmental Advocates |

The Supreme Court has ruled that environmental advocates Jonila F. Castro (Castro) and Jhed Reiyana C. Tamano (Tamano) are entitled to the remedies of writs of amparo and habeas data, as well as a temporary protection order (TPO).

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, the Supreme Court En Banc granted the petition filed by Castro and Tamano (collectively, petitioners) against Lieutenant Colonel Ronnel B. Dela Cruz and members of the 70th Infantry Battalion of the Philippine Army; Police Captain Carlito Buco and Members of the Philippine National Police, Bataan; National Security Council Assistant Director General Jonathan Malaya (ADG Malaya); National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC), and all others acting under their direction, instructions, and orders, (collectively, respondents). Petitioners prayed for the issuance of the writs of amparo and habeas data, with prayer for TPO, permanent protection order (PPO), and Production Order (PO).

Petitioners are volunteers for the Alyansa para sa Pagtatanggol sa Kabuhayan, Paninirahan, at Kalikasan ng Manila Bay (AKAP KA Manila Bay), a network of various environmental advocate groups that aim to advance the concerns of marginalized stakeholders along the Manila Bay Area. Petitioners were thus dispatched by AKAP KA Manila Bay to Orion, Bataan, to coordinate with communities affected by the Manila Bay reclamation projects.

In granting their petition, the Court found that petitioners were able to prove by substantial evidence the allegations in their petition meriting the protection of their freedoms through the writs of amparo and habeas data.

Respondents and all the persons and entities acting and operating under their directions, instructions, and orders were thus directed by the Court to comply with the rules on return under Sec. 9 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo and Sec. 10 of the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-grants-writs-of-amparo-habeas-data-in-favor-of-environmental-advocates/

📢 Stay informed with the latest Court Decisions uploaded to the Supreme Court Website.

Read the Decisions in full at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions-and-resolutions/, or scan the QR codes.

In solidarity with the people of Myanmar, the Philippines donated $100,000 towards the ongoing recovery and rebuilding efforts in the aftermath of Tropical Cyclone Mocha on 06 February 2024.

Read full story here 👉🏻 http://tinyurl.com/2bfj8r87

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/.

SC Affirms Xerox Business’ Solidary Liability as Employer in Sexual Harassment Case |

The Supreme Court has upheld the solidary liability of an employer for unpaid salary and payment of damages resulting from sexual harassment, for its failure to prevent the commission of acts of sexual harassment as well as for its failure to provide procedures for the resolution or prosecution of the acts complained of.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, the Court’s Second Division affirmed the May 31, 2019 Decision and the November 23, 2020 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) finding that Xerox Business Services Philippines, Inc. (Xerox Services) constructively dismissed an employee (complainant) in relation to a sexual harassment case.

In denying the petition, the Court took note that the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, and the CA all ruled that while complainant did not cease to be employed, she was still constructively dismissed due to the hostile, offensive, and intimidating work environment perpetrated by Xerox Business.

The Court did affirm the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC that Xerox Business was remiss in its duty to prevent or deter commission of acts of sexual harassment and to provide procedures for resolution, settlement, or prosecution of said acts, as mandated by Section 4 of Republic Act No. (RA) 7877, or the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995. It thus upheld the ruling that Xerox Business was solidary liable with Dela Peña for payment of damages arising from the acts of sexual harassment, pursuant to Section 5 of RA 7877.

On the proper amount of damages, the Court first highlighted that the essence of sexual harassment is not the violation of the sexuality of the offended party, but the offender’s abuse of power. This abuse of power, the Court said, comes from the fact that the superior can remove the subordinate from the workplace should the latter refuse the superior’s advances.

Sustaining the CA on the modification of the awards of damages, the Court ruled that reducing the amount of moral damages to PHP 100,000.00 and exemplary damages to PHP 50,000.00 was supported not only by the records of the case, but also by prevailing jurisprudence.

Read more at link in bio.

𝗣𝗘𝗢𝗣𝗟𝗘 𝗜𝗡𝗜𝗧𝗜𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗩𝗘

Initiative on the Constitution (Signatures required):

a. 12% of voters nationwide
b. 3% of voters in every legislative district

A PEOPLE INITIATIVE to change the Constitution applies only to an amendment of the Constitution and not to its revision. In contrast, Congress or a constitutional convention can propose both amendments and revisions to the Constitution.

Revision broadly implies a change that alters a basic principle in the constitution, like altering the principle of separation of powers or the system of checks-and-balances.

There is also revision if the change alters the substantial entirety of the constitution, as when the change affects substantial provisions of the constitution.

On the other hand, amendment broadly refers to a change that adds, reduces, or deletes without altering the basic principle involved.

Revision generally affects several provisions of the constitution, while amendment generally affects only the specific provision being amended.

𝗟𝗮𝗺𝗯𝗶𝗻𝗼 𝘃𝘀. 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗰 𝗚.𝗥. 𝗡𝗢. 𝟭𝟳𝟰𝟭𝟱𝟯, 𝗢𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗯𝗲𝗿 𝟮𝟱, 𝟮𝟬𝟬𝟲