Atty. Russell Jay M. Manglicmot

Jurisprudence update:

People of the Philippines vs. # # #
G.R. No. 258194. May 29, 2024

The Supreme Court recently clarified the distinctions between offenses under different laws, particularly in cases involving charges of human trafficking and child prostitution.

Further, the High Court emphasizes that the protection against double jeopardy does not apply when the elements of two offenses differ, even if they arise from the same act.

In its recent decision (People of the Philippines vs. # # #, G.R. No. 258194. May 29, 2024), the Court determined there was no violation of the accused's right against double jeopardy despite similarities between human trafficking under Republic Act No. 9208 and child prostitution under Republic Act No. 7610.

While both offenses may involve similar acts, they are legally distinct and separate from each other.

Republic Act No. 7610, or the "Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation, and Discrimination Act," focuses on protecting children from exploitation, specifically in cases of child prostitution.

In contrast, Republic Act No. 9208, the "Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003," addresses broader issues of human trafficking, including sexual exploitation.

Follow this page for more updates.

May each day bring you closer to your dreams, and may you find peace and fulfillment in everything you do!

To all the passers of Bar Examinations:

You have now transformed into what you have always wanted to become. As you embark on this journey, remember to consistently embody humility and responsibility in everything you do.

Welcome to the legal profession!

Good luck and God bless to our future lawyers!

[JURISPRUDENCE UPDATE]

Unserved Court Resolutions to Respondent result in the failure of acquiring jurisdiction over his person.

In Bloomberry Resorts vs. Clavito (GR No. 243604, July 3, 2023), the Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals has the prerogative to dismiss the case outright when jurisdiction over the person of the respondent is not acquired.

In this case, the Regional Trial Court acquitted respondent Clavito due to the failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of estafa.

Aggrieved, petitioner Bloomberry filed an appeal to the appellate court. However, the Court of Appeals' Resolutions remained unserved to the respondent.

Under Sec. 4 of Rule 46 of the Rules of Procedure, the court shall acquire jurisdiction over the person of the respondent by serving him [or her] with its order or resolution indicating its initial action on the petition or by his [or her] voluntary submission to such jurisdiction.

Because of this, the Court of Appeals dismissed the case outright for the failure to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the respondent.

Furthermore, Sec. 7 of the same Rule states that the appellate court may decide the case when no comment is filed by any of the respondents.

Therefore, the Supreme Court ruled that the appellate court correctly dismissed the case without violating Bloomberry's right to due process.

Read full text here: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/243604-bloomberry-resorts-and-hotels-inc-vs-josedelio-eliz-meneses-asistio-and-anthony-noveno-clavito/

For legal consultations and representation, feel free to leave us a message anytime.

Bulacan LGU declares State of Calamity. What’s next?

Due to the disastrous flooding after Typhoon Egay, the Local Government Unit (LGU) of Bulacan placed the entire province under a State of Calamity.

According to Section 3 of Republic Act No. 10121 or “The Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010,” “State of Calamity” means a condition involving mass casualty and/or major damages to property, disruption of means of livelihood, roads, and the normal way of life of people in the affected areas as a result of the occurrence of natural or human-induced hazards.

With the declaration of a State of Calamity, the Local Disaster Risk Reduction Management Fund may be utilized and transferred by the Bulacan LGU to support disaster risk reduction work, which is declared under the State of Calamity. The fund comprises not less than 5% of the estimated revenue of the province. This transfer and utilization is allowed under Section 1, Rule 18 of the Implementing Rules and Regulation of R.A. 10121.

With the declaration of a State of Calamity, price ceiling shall be imposed on basic commodities, overpricing shall be monitored and prevented, and funds for the repair of public infrastructures shall be programmed or reprogrammed.

Furthermore, no-interest loans may be granted by the government through cooperatives or people’s organizations.

To date, more than 228,000 Bulakenyo families are affected by the aftermath of the typhoon. Moreover, more than Php 600 million was estimated as agricultural and industrial losses due to the great flooding around the province.

For legal consultations and representation, feel free to leave us a message anytime.

Bulacan is now under State of Calamity.

📣 Be advised of the following work suspensions today, August 1, 2023, due to Typhoon Falcon.

Courts may be reached through their official hotlines and email addresses found at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/court-locator/.

[JURISPRUDENCE UPDATE]

An Affidavit of Desistance, coupled with other circumstances, may create serious doubts as to the liability of the accused.

This ruling was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Lucia Manuel v. People (GR No. 213640; April 12, 2023) when it took great consideration of the private complainant’s Affidavit of Desistance.

Prosecuted for Estafa, the prosecution presented witnesses who, according to them, would prove Manuel’s guilt. However, they failed to present the private complainant herself, Flordeliza Uy.

In connection, Uy executed an Affidavit of Desistance in a BP 22 case against the same Petitioner, in which she repudiated material points and allegations in her Complaint-Affidavit and in the Information.

According to the Highest Court, since Uy admitted in her Affidavit of Desistance that she had no existing transactions with Manuel and that there were no demandable obligations between the them.

Furthermore, SC said that the prosecution could have easily presented Uy to prove the petitioner’s guilt, but it failed to do so.

Considering the foregoing circumstances, coupled with the Affidavit of Desistance executed by Uy, there exists a serious and reasonable doubt as to the liability of Manuel.

The SC reversed the decision of the RTC and CA, thereby acquitting Manuel of the crime imputed against her.

Read full text here: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/213640-lucia-manuel-y-cadiz-vs-people-of-the-philippines/

You may message us for further legal consultations and representation.

[Jurisprudence Update]

When a party actively takes part in all stages of a legal proceeding, they may be prevented from raising a lack of jurisdiction argument through a legal principle called estoppel.

The Supreme Court recently applied this rule in the case of Rita Quizon-Arciga and Relia Q. Arciga vs. Jaycee P. Baluyut (GR No. 256612; June 14, 2023).

In this case, Baluyut filed a Judicial Foreclosure of Mortgage against the petitioners due to their nonpayment of a loan.

In 2019, the petitioners filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment, arguing that the Regional Trial Court (RTC) lacked jurisdiction because Baluyut failed to specify the property's assessed and fair market value.

The Supreme Court agreed with the petitioners that the RTC lacked jurisdiction, BUT they ruled that the petitioners were already estopped from raising this argument.

The Court pointed out that the petitioners waited for twelve years after the complaint was filed in 2008 before raising the jurisdiction issue. Moreover, they only raised it for the first time in their motion for reconsideration after the Court of Appeals dismissed their petition for annulment of judgment on February 17, 2020.

Finally, the Supreme Court concluded that since the petitioners actively participated in all stages of the case before the lower court, they are indisputably barred by estoppel from challenging the lower court's jurisdiction.

Read the full text here: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/256612-rita-quizon-arciga-and-relia-q-arciga-vs-jaycee-p-baluyut/

You may message us for further legal advice and/or representation.

[Jurisprudence Update]

In resolving election cases, all doubts shall be resolved in favor of the manifest will of the people. (Subima v. COMELEC, G. R. No. 261344, January 23, 2023).

When the residency qualification of (now Mayor) Frank Ong Sibuma was questioned before the Supreme Court, the Gods of Padre Faura once again respected the will of the electorate.

During the 2022 Elections, Alma L. Panelo and Stefanie Ann Eriguel Calongcagon contended the qualification of Colongcagon's contender Subima and alleged that he is not a resident of the Municipality of Agoo, La Union. Panelo submitted, among others, a Barangay Certification from Bgry. Sta Barbara, Agoo, La Union stating that Subima is not a residence thereof.

Subima, on the other hand, presented his certificate of live birth indicating Agoo as his birthplace, certifications from Don Mariano Marcos State University- Agoo Laboratory High School, Tax Declaration of a property situated in Agoo belonging to him and his spouse, and an Affidavit of Residency signed by 41 affiants stating that Subima resides in Agoo.

The Supreme Court held that the COMELEC should have been guided by the jurisprudential directive that utmost efforts be exerted in resolving the case in a manner that would give effect to the will of the electorate. It should have accorded Sibuma "every possible protection, defense, and refuge, in deference to the popular will."

Further, it said that the Commission should have heeded the majority's verdict by resolving all doubts in favor of Sibuma's residence qualification.

Subima garnered 21,364 votes, as opposed to Eriguel's 16,603.

Read more: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/261344-frank-ong-sibuma-vs-commission-on-elections-alma-l-panelo-and-stefanie-ann-eriguel-calongcagon-2/

You may message us for further legal advice and/or representation.

[Jurisprudence update]

Supreme Court reminds us lawyers that the practice of law is a privilege granted to deserving persons who are learned with law AND possess good moral character.

In its decision promulgated on February 21, 2023 (Norma Flores and Mark Sherwin Flores vs. Atty. William F. Delos Santos [A. C. No. 11495]), Atty. De los Santos solicited Php 160,000 from his client as "bribe money" for the Justices of the Court of Appeals.

He was disbarred and his name was stricken off of the Roll of Attorneys.

Read more: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/11495-norma-f-flores-and-mark-sherwin-f-flores-vs-atty-william-f-delos-santos/

You may message us for further legal advice and/or representation.

What is "reasonable doubt"?
By Atty. RJMM

On May 12, 2023, Muntinlupa City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 204 acquitted former Senator Leila M. De Lima from alleged Conspiracy to Commit Illegal Drug Trading.

In a 39-page decision, RTC Muntinlupa stated, among others, that the retraction of witness Ragos casts reasonable doubt on the participation of Former Senator De Lima in the crime.

Thus, it acquitted her on the ground of reasonable doubt.

But what exactly is “reasonable doubt”?

In the Philippine legal system, there are two ways of acquitting an accused for the crime he or she is being indicted for.

The first type of acquittal is based on the argument that the accused did not commit the act or omission that is being charged against them. In simpler terms, the court is not convinced that the accused did the crime.

Second, is one Muntinlupa City RTC used for the acquittal of Former Senator De Lima: Reasonable Doubt.

Reasonable doubt means the court is not satisfied with the evidence presented by the prosecution, that is, she was involved in the conspiracy to sell prohibited drugs. Thus, casting reasonable doubt on her guilt.

Be reminded that in proving the guilt of an accused, the prosecution shall provide evidence (whether documentary, object, or testimonial) which if counterbalanced against the evidence of the defense, will establish proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Proof beyond reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof. It requires an extensive amount of evidence so that the court can conclude with reasonable certainty that the accused committed the alleged offense.

When the court is not satisfied with the evidence presented by the prosecution, casting doubt on whether the accused actually committed the crime, it will decide in favor of the accused.

Therefore, her acquittal.

In Patula v. People (G.R. No. 164457, April 11, 2012), the Supreme Court reminded us the Prosecution must further prove the participation of the accused in the commission of the offense. Further, the Prosecution must rely on the strength of its own evidence, and not anchor its success upon the weakness of the evidence of the accused.

For more information and legal consultations, feel free to contact us.

Prosecution may object, but plea-bargaining in drug cases still “within the sound discretion of the court”
By Atty. RJMM

Supreme Court (SC) agreed with the decision of the appeals court by affirming its decision in allowing Rene Esma (People v. Rene Esma, G.R. No. 250979) to plea-bargain.

According to its decision, although the public prosecutor may object or concur with the accused’s motion to enter into a plea bargaining agreement, it is still within the sound discretion of the Court as the same is part of the power exclusively lodged within the Judiciary.

Additionally, the ruling indicates that even though the Supreme Court recognizes the Department of Justice Circular No. 27 for aligning with the Court's plea-bargaining system in drug cases, the practice of plea bargaining in criminal cases is actually a procedural rule that falls under the authority of the Supreme Court, as stated in the 1987 Constitution.

Section 5, paragraph 5 of Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution provides that the SC has the power to promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts.

Ultimately, Esma’s plea bargain was allowed and his offenses were lowered from illegal possession and illicit sale of prohibited drugs under Sections 5 and 11 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act to Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus, and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs under the same law.

"What greater gift can our mentors offer the Republic than to teach and instruct, with greater emphasis, the youth of the land in the ancient virtues of industry, perseverance, and the dignity of labor, coupled with proper respect for the rights and property of others!" -People v. Dizon, G.R. No. L-121, March 14, 1946.

Happy Labor Day to everyone!

-Atty RJMM

Lack of Investigating Prosecutors not a ground for delayed resolution of cases- SC
By Atty. RJMM

Resolving a complaint after almost nine years after its institution is an outright violation of the respondent’s right to speedy disposition of cases, Supreme Court (SC) said Thursday.

In Estelita Batungbacal vs. People of the Philippines (G.R No. 255162), SC said that institutional delay cannot be used as a justification if the respondent did not cause or contribute to the delay in the resolution of the case.

Following its earlier decision in Cagang vs. Sandiganbayan, the SC recognized the difficulties government lawyers continuously encounter due to heavy caseloads that cause a delay in the resolution of cases filed before them.

However, in this case, it explained that since Batungbacal did not employ dilatory tactics, her constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases was clearly violated by the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) of Balanga.

OCP defended itself by stating that there was only one prosecutor in Balanga City, hence the delay in the resolution of said case.

The SC discarded OCP’s argument explaining that the amount of time it took to resolve the case is still unacceptable as the case does not involve complicated questions of law.

A complaint for Batungbacal’s alleged falsification of public documents was filed before the OCP in 2007. However, it only issued a subpoena to Batungbacal in 2010 and resolved the same in 2016, or nine years after the complaint was initially filed.

The 2008 Revised Manual for Prosecutors requires termination and resolution of preliminary investigations involving cases cognizable by the MTCC within sixty (60) days from the date of assignment to the investigating prosecutor.

Supreme Court reiterates the importance of stating facts in the Information, waiving defects of the same after entering a plea

“Treachery and evident premeditation are conclusions of law, not factual circumstances.”

This long-time rule was echoed in the recent decision of the highest court of the land in the case of People v. Pilen (G.R. No. 254875). According to the Supreme Court, the qualifying circumstances must sufficiently be pleaded in the Information in order to “not violate the accused right to be properly informed of the nature and cause of the charge against him”.

Qualifying circumstances are those conclusions of the law threshed out from factual allegations which elevate simple homicide to that of murder.

Further, since such defect is waivable, it reiterates that failure to question the same constitutes a waiver of his right to question the defective statements alleged in the Information. Thus, allegations contained in the defective information may be proven in trial.

Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure defines Information as an accusation in writing charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the prosecutor and filed with the court.

The same rule explains that an Information sufficient if it states the name of the accused; the designation of the offense given by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate date of the commission of the offense; and the place where the offense was committed.

In this case, since Pilen did not question the defect in the Information before entering his plea, he is deemed to have waived any defects in the Information, therefore, he deemed to have “understood the acts imputed against him by the Information.”

-Atty. RJMM

Where art thou, Romeo? Abandonment and marital infidelity are forms of Psychological Violence

The Supreme Court (SC) of the Philippines declares the act of abandonment falls under Sec. 5(i) of Republic Act 9262, more commonly known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act (VAWC).

In its decision on # # # v. People (G.R. No. 250219), the SC stated that accused’s acts of marital infidelity, ultimately leading to his abandonment of her family to cohabit with his mistress, caused the wife and their child to suffer mental or emotional anguish.

This mental pain suffered by the wife and their children constitutes psychological violence in relation to Sec. 5(i) of the Anti-VAWC Act.

Section 5(i) of the Anti-VAWC Act states that acts of violence are committed by causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule, or humiliation to the woman or her child, including, but not limited to, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, and denial of financial support or custody of minor children or access to the woman’s child/children.

According to the decision promulgated on March 1, 2023, marital infidelity is one of the forms of psychological violence.

The accused's cohabitation with his mistress and his abandonment of his wife and their marital child provided evidence of the trauma experienced by the private complainants.

The SC ordered accused to suffer imprisonment for two to eight years.

-Atty. RJMM.

On this day, we also commemorate our valorous unsung heroes who sacrificed their lives for the freedom we enjoy now.

Let us not waste the lessons of our past but rather utilize them to awaken the heroism within our hearts.

-Atty. RJMM

"He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay." -Matthew 28:6, NIV

May God's divine grace bring you new hope, happiness, prosperity, and abundance this Easter Sunday.

-Atty. RJMM

📢 The Supreme Court of the Philippines, in collaboration with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), cordially invites IBP members to attend a 30-minute webinar discussing the ins and outs of the Judiciary ePayment Solution (JePS) on March 18, 2023 at 10:00 A.M to 11:00 A.M.

Certificates of Participation will be provided to those who will attend the webinar.

Interested participants may register through this link: https://tinyurl.com/OOJEPS or by scanning the QR code.

Guided by the virtues of a Thomasian Lawyer and the teachings of St. Jude Thaddeus, RJMM Law focuses on compassionate legal counseling, competent legal representation, and full commitment to its client to ensure full client advocacy and representation in the courts and quasi-judicial bodies of the Philippines.