Aguilar Law Office

📢 𝗡𝗟𝗥𝗖 𝗜𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟱 𝗥𝘂𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗲𝗱𝘂𝗿𝗲

The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) has issued the 2025 NLRC Rules of Procedure, published in The Manila Times on 29 December 2025 and set to take effect on 13 January 2026.

The updated Rules strengthen efficiency, transparency, and access to labor justice, while aligning procedures with current laws and reforms.

📘 Read the full text here:
https://nlrc.dole.gov.ph/uploads/content/The%202025%20NLRC%20Rules%20of%20Procedure.pdf
nlrc.dole.gov.ph

As we welcome 2026, we take a moment to reflect on 2025—a year that was not easy and filled with challenges. Despite this, our employees stood strong with dedication, resilience, and teamwork that carried our firm forward.

Thank you for your hard work, perseverance, and commitment during the toughest times. Because of you, we continue to grow and move ahead with confidence.

Here’s to fresh beginnings, renewed strength, and positive momentum in 2026.

Together, we rise and move forward.💪💪💪

The has laid down guideposts for proving who owns or controls a social media account in criminal cases.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, the SC’s First Division affirmed the conviction of an individual ( # # #) for committing psychological violence under Section 5 (i) of the 𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘝𝘪𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘈𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘞𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘯 (𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘝𝘈𝘞𝘊) 𝘈𝘤𝘵 against his ex-girlfriend (AAA) by posting derogatory statements about her on 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬.

The SC sentenced # # # to up to eight years in prison, imposed a PHP 100,000 fine, and ordered # # # to undergo psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment.

The SC stressed that in criminal cases, the prosecution must prove not only the elements of the crime but also the identity of the offender.

It explained that for crimes committed through social media, the basic features of the platform such as 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬, must be considered.

Noting that 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬 is widely used in the Philippines, the SC held that a 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬 account can easily be created by anyone claiming to be at least 13 years old with an email address or mobile number.

Once an account is created, the user can add friends, exchange private messages, and post statements, photos, or videos visible to others depending on the user’s privacy settings. Fake or dummy accounts can easily spread, enabling disinformation, identity theft, or crimes.

Given this, the SC ruled that guideposts are necessary to establish who owns or controls a social media account. It said the following must be shown to prove ownership or access:

1. Admission of ownership or authorship;
2. Being seen accessing the account or composing the post;
3. Containing information known only to the offender or a few people;
4. Language consistent with the offender’s characteristics;
5. Records from the internet service provider, telecommunications company, or social media site, and results from device forensic analysis showing geolocation features, and other attributes linking the account to the offender;
6. Acts consistent with previous posts; or
7. Other instances showing ownership, access, or authorship.

Applying these, the SC found that several factors proved # # # wrote the 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬 post. The account name bore his full name, and the profile photo showed him with his child from his current live-in partner.

AAA’s sister had also received messages from the same account for years.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=158535.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=158446.

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.

📢 BIR Update on De Minimis Benefits

The BIR has issued Revenue Regulations No. 29-2025, introducing updates to the non-taxable thresholds for selected employee benefits.

Employers are encouraged to review their compensation and benefits structure to ensure compliance and maximize tax-exempt benefits.

This shall take effect after 15 days following its publication.

SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS CONVICTION OF EX-QC COUNCILOR OVER P6-M GHOST PROJECTS

| The Supreme Court (SC) has upheld the conviction of former Quezon City District III Councilor Dante De Guzman for graft involving more than PHP6 million worth of ghost projects.

In a 15-page decision penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando, the SC’s First Division affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s ruling that found De Guzman guilty of violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. (RA) 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

Between 2008 and 2009, De Guzman facilitated the procurement of 141 custom-designed tents, 1,177 children's raincoats, 1,177 rain boots, food supplies, and sports equipment. The items procured sometime in 2008 and 2009 were properly delivered to De Guzman and his office.

Following a bidding process, suppliers were selected and paid after delivery of the items to De Guzman’s office. However, an anonymous complaint received by the Office of the Ombudsman alleged the existence of ghost employees and ghost projects involving De Guzman.

After the probe, the Ombudsman found that while the items were delivered and received by De Guzman’s staff, they were never distributed to the intended beneficiaries listed in the official distribution records.

Instead, De Guzman made it appear that the goods were received by designated area coordinators, using what appeared to be falsified signatures. Thereafter, he was charged with four counts of graft.

The Sandiganbayan convicted De Guzman. This paved the way for him to elevate the case before the Supreme Court.

The high court agreed with the Anti-Graft Court, emphasizing that De Guzman received the procured items, which were not distributed to intended beneficiaries in District III, which turned out to be ghost or non-existent.

The court further noted that the Quezon City government suffered undue injury amounting to P6.411 million, representing the amounts paid by the city government.

“However, owing to the accused-appellant’s gross inexcusable negligence, these procured items could not be located or could not be accounted for after their proper turnover to the accused-appellant’s custody,” the Supreme Court said.

“In jurisprudence, we held that a public officer is guilty of gross inexcusable negligence when there is a serious breach of duty that is committed flagrantly, palpably, and with willful indifference, regardless of whether such breach of duty was done with malicious intent,” it added.

The SC sentenced him to eight years for each of the four counts of graft and ordered him to pay the Quezon City Government PHP6,411,261.01 plus 6 percent annual interest.

ctto

SEC Update: SEC Memorandum Circular (MC) No. 03, series of 2025

Mandatory Use of the Zuper Easy Registration Online (ZERO) in the Registration of Corporation using the ESPARC and OneSEC as Portals

Full text of Annex A -https://www.sec.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/2025MC_Zero_compressed.pdf

The (SC) has clarified that the time limit or prescriptive period for prosecuting crimes, including those under the 2022 Rules on Expedited Procedures in the First Level Courts (Rules of Expedited Procedures), stops running once a complaint is filed with the Department of Justice (DOJ), not when the case reaches the court.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC En Banc abandoned its rulings in the 2023 cases of Republic v. Desierto and Corpus, Jr. v. People, which previously held that the prescriptive period for crimes covered by the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure (Rules on Summary Procedure) stops only when the information is filed in court.

The Rules on Summary Procedure applied to cases handled by first-level courts and cover crimes including those punishable by up to six months of imprisonment and fines up to PHP 1,000. This was replaced in 2022 by the Rules on Expedited Procedures, which expanded the coverage of summary procedure to include those crimes punishable by up to one year of imprisonment and fines up to PHP 50,000.

In 2024, the DOJ issued its Rules on Summary Investigation and Expedited Preliminary Investigation, which provide that a summary investigation shall be done if the prescribed penalty is imprisonment of up to one year.

Given these developments, the SC clarified that the prescriptive period for crimes is tolled upon the filing of a complaint with the prosecution and the start of the summary investigation. This ruling will apply prospectively.

The SC recognized that while criminal cases should ideally be resolved promptly, delays are sometimes unavoidable. Therefore, the State, as the offended party, should not be disadvantaged by delays in the DOJ’s preliminary investigations, even in criminal cases under summary procedure.

The SC also clarified that under Section 281 of the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code, the prescriptive period for criminal tax offenses that are not immediately known starts from the time the violation is discovered. The prescriptive period is interrupted once a preliminary investigation begins.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/26tfrr38.

The full text of the SC En Banc Decision in G.R. No. 258563 shall be uploaded to the SC website once available.

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.

𝗙𝗔𝗤𝘀 𝗼𝗻 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗲𝗿 𝗣𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗥𝗼𝗱𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗼 𝗗𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗲'𝘀 𝗜𝗖𝗖 𝗖𝗮𝘀𝗲: 𝗙𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗮 𝗣𝘂𝗿𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗦𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘆 𝗣𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 (𝗡𝗼 𝗣𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝘀)
by Dean Ralph Sarmiento


𝗔. 𝗝𝘂𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗱𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗜𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲𝘀

𝟭. 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁 𝗥𝗼𝗱𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗼 𝗗𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗲 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗜𝗖𝗖?

Rodrigo Duterte is accused of crimes against humanity, specifically murder, relating to extrajudicial killings during his anti-drug campaign (2016–2019) and earlier as Mayor of Davao City (2011–2016) (Rome Statute art. 7(1)(a); Situation in the Philippines, ICC-01/21, Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision Authorizing Investigation (Sept. 15, 2021)).

𝟮. 𝗪𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗥𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝘂𝘁𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱?

The primary provision implicated is Article 7(1)(a) regarding crimes against humanity (murder), committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against civilians. Official status as head of state does not provide immunity (Rome Statute art. 27).

𝟯. 𝗗𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗜𝗖𝗖 𝗿𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗷𝘂𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗱𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗗𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗽𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀’ 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗱𝗿𝗮𝘄𝗮𝗹 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗥𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝘂𝘁𝗲?

Yes. The ICC retains jurisdiction over crimes committed before the Philippines' withdrawal took effect on March 17, 2019. Withdrawal does not affect proceedings initiated prior to its effective date (Rome Statute art. 127(2); Situation in the Philippines, ICC-01/21 OA, Appeals Chamber Judgment, July 18, 2023).

𝟰. 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗮𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗜𝗖𝗖 𝗷𝘂𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗱𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗗𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗲’𝘀 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲?

The ICC exercises jurisdiction if a state is unwilling or unable genuinely to prosecute. The ICC found that the Philippines failed to conduct genuine domestic investigations, thereby satisfying the complementarity principle (Rome Statute art. 17; ICC-01/21 OA, Appeals Chamber Judgment, July 18, 2023).

𝗕. 𝗟𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗹 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗔𝗿𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗪𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘁

𝟱. 𝗢𝗻 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗯𝗮𝘀𝗶𝘀 𝗱𝗶𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗜𝗖𝗖 𝗶𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲 𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁 𝗗𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗲?

An ICC arrest warrant is issued if judges find reasonable grounds that crimes within ICC jurisdiction were committed and arrest is necessary to ensure trial attendance or prevent obstruction (Rome Statute art. 58(1)). The ICC Pre-Trial Chamber determined these conditions were satisfied.

𝟲. 𝗗𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗗𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗲’𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝘃𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗱 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗮𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗽𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀' 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗱𝗿𝗮𝘄𝗮𝗹?

Yes. The warrant remains valid because jurisdiction is determined by the timing of the alleged crimes, not the current treaty status (Rome Statute art. 127(2); ICC Appeals Chamber Judgment, July 18, 2023).

𝗖. 𝗟𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗹 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗙𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗔𝗿𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁

𝟳. 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗲𝗱𝘂𝗿𝗲𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄 𝗗𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗲’𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗯𝘆 𝗣𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗽𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀?

After arrest, Duterte would appear before Philippine authorities to verify the ICC’s request. Under Republic Act No. 9851 (Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity, § 17), Duterte could be transferred to the ICC for initial appearance, confirmation of charges, and potential trial (Rome Statute arts. 60, 61).

𝟴. 𝗜𝗳 𝗗𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗜𝗖𝗖, 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗯𝗲 𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗱?

The trial would take place at the ICC headquarters in The Hague, Netherlands (Rome Statute art. 3).

𝟵. 𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗗𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗲 𝗯𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗱𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗜𝗖𝗖 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀?

Duterte would be detained at the ICC Detention Centre in The Hague, managed according to international detention standards (Rome Statute art. 59, Regulations of the Court reg. 99).

𝟭𝟬. 𝗖𝗮𝗻 𝗗𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗲 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗯𝗮𝗶𝗹 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗹𝗶𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘁𝘆?

Provisional release (similar to bail) is possible in exceptional circumstances if judges determine no risk of flight, obstruction, or continued crimes exists (Rome Statute art. 60(2)).

𝟭𝟭. 𝗖𝗮𝗻 𝗗𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗼𝗸𝗲 𝗶𝗺𝗺𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗜𝗖𝗖 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘀𝗲𝗰𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝘀 𝗮 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗲𝗿 𝗣𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗽𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁?

No. Official status, including as head of state or former head of state, does not grant immunity before the ICC (Rome Statute art. 27).

𝗗. 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗘𝘅𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻

𝟭𝟮. 𝗜𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗽𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗗𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗜𝗖𝗖?

From the ICC’s perspective, yes. Obligation to cooperate continues for investigations initiated before withdrawal (Rome Statute art. 127(2)). Domestically, however, cooperation is discretionary under Philippine law post-withdrawal (Republic Act No. 9851, §17).

𝟭𝟯. 𝗖𝗮𝗻 𝗣𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗙𝗲𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗠𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗼𝘀 𝗝𝗿. 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗿𝗲𝗳𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗗𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗜𝗖𝗖?

Legally, yes. Without a binding treaty or domestic legal obligation explicitly compelling surrender post-withdrawal, the decision to cooperate remains discretionary under Philippine law (Republic Act No. 9851, §17).

𝟭𝟰. 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗽𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝗳𝘂𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝗜𝗖𝗖 𝗰𝗼𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻?

The ICC may declare the Philippines non-cooperative and refer the matter to the Assembly of States Parties. This has diplomatic and reputational implications but does not involve enforceable sanctions (Rome Statute art. 87(7)).

𝗘. 𝗧𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗣𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀

𝟭𝟱. 𝗜𝗳 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘃𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱, 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗜𝗖𝗖 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗻 𝗗𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗲?

Penalties include imprisonment for a term not exceeding 30 years, or life imprisonment in extreme cases, along with possible reparations to victims (Rome Statute arts. 75, 77).

𝟭𝟲. 𝗜𝗳 𝗗𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗼𝗻𝗲𝗱, 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗲 𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲?

Sentences are served in a state designated by the ICC from among willing States Parties, not at The Hague itself (Rome Statute art. 103).

𝗙. 𝗕𝗿𝗼𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗜𝗖𝗖 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗲𝘅𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗜𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀

𝟭𝟳. 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗗𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗲’𝘀 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗜𝗖𝗖 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗼𝗹𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲?

Like cases involving Omar al-Bashir (Sudan) and Laurent Gbagbo (Ivory Coast), Duterte’s case underscores accountability regardless of official status. However, Duterte’s case uniquely addresses jurisdiction after withdrawal from the ICC (Rome Statute arts. 27, 127(2)).

𝟭𝟴. 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗱𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗼𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗰 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝘆 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘂𝗹𝘁 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗗𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗲’𝘀 𝗜𝗖𝗖 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲?

Non-cooperation risks diplomatic friction with ICC-supportive states, potentially affecting international relations, aid, and trade incentives.

𝟭𝟵. 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗿𝗼𝗹𝗲 𝗱𝗼 𝗵𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝘀 𝗼𝗿𝗴𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘃𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗺𝘀’ 𝗳𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝘆 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗜𝗖𝗖?

These entities document crimes, submit evidence, advocate for accountability, and participate in ICC proceedings. Victims may participate directly through legal representatives and can claim reparations if convictions occur (Rome Statute arts. 68, 75).

𝟮𝟬. 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗲𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗺𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗗𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗲’𝘀 𝗜𝗖𝗖 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗳𝘂𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗼𝗹𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲?

It may clarify ICC jurisdiction post-state withdrawal, reinforce non-immunity of official status, and influence future ICC handling of similar cases involving former national leaders (Rome Statute arts. 27, 127(2)).

𝗥𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀:

1. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

2. ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision authorizing investigation (Philippines), ICC-01/21 (2021).

3. ICC Appeals Chamber, Judgment on Appeal against authorization decision (Philippines), ICC-01/21 OA (2023).

4. Republic Act No. 9851 (Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity, 2009).

5. Philippine Supreme Court Decision, Pangilinan v. Cayetano, G.R. No. 238875 (2021).

Credit to Dean Ralph Sarmiento

The (SC) has ruled that land buyers must verify ownership by checking the certificate of title and reviewing the records in the Registry of Deeds to avoid fraudulent transactions.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, the Court’s Third Division upheld the rulings of the Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals which voided the land titles of a married couple who failed to conduct due diligence when they bought the properties from someone who acquired her titles through fraud.

Orencio and Eloisa Manalese purchased two parcels of land from Carina Pinpin, who presented certificates of title in her name and claimed to have bought the properties from the original owners, the late Narciso and Ofelia Ferreras.

However, the administrator of the Ferreras estate, alleged that Pinpin fraudulently obtained duplicate titles by submitting a false affidavit of loss and a forged deed of sale. Pinpin then used these to sell the properties to Spouses Manalese a year later.

The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ findings, stressing that buyers must check both the certificate of title and the Registry of Deeds records before purchasing land. Relying solely on a certificate of title is insufficient, especially if there are signs of fraud or irregularity.

In this case, the Spouses Manelese failed to investigate despite multiple warning signs, making them liable for not exercising due diligence. Several key documents were already on record, including the affidavit of loss procured by Pinpin, the issuance of another set of duplicate titles, a second affidavit of loss by a certain Zenaida Ferreras, and the nearly simultaneous registrations of these three annotations on the titles.

Said the Court: “Since petitioners did not inquire into the register, and even without such inquiry, they are nonetheless constructively notified of every registration affecting the said subject properties, they cannot feign ignorance of such
registrations.”

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-land-buyers-must-check-both-title-and-registry-of-deeds-records/.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/3njh86mk.

Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting at https://tinyurl.com/3k2p236k.

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.

WARRANTLESS ARREST IN A PRIVATE PREMISES

This case is important!

In response to the report made by a concerned citizen, police operatives raided a certain lot. The police personnel caught Jonel while cultivating a ma*****na plant on the lot owned by Leonila. Islao was placed under arrest. Thereafter, the accused was charged with violation of Section 16, RA 9165 (Cultivating ma*****na).

When charged, the trial court convicted the accused which decision was affirmed by the appellate court.

One of the issues raised by the accused before the Court was the validity of his arrest. He argued that the arrest was illegal since the arresting officers did not have a warrant of arrest. He further argued that, assuming that he was committing a crime, the police officers should not have entered the premises since it was privately owned.

Was the accused correct?

No. The Court set aside the arguments raised by the accused.

The constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures is purely personal and may be invoked only by a person who has a requisite connection to the place, or by one who has asserted ownership or a possessory interest over the property searched.

It was explained that if the property is owned by a third party and not by the person asserting the exclusionary rule, the claimant must demonstrate that he or she, personally, has an expectation of privacy in the place searched and that this expectation is reasonable, i.e., an expectation of privacy outside of ownership of the property, either by reference to concepts of real or personal property law or to understandings that are recognized and permitted by society.

In this case, the police officers allegedly trespassed a private land owned by Leonila. Hence, even granting that arrest and search warrants were necessary, Jonel has no standing to invoke the right against unreasonable search and seizure because he has not asserted ownership of the land, a possessory interest over it, or any legitimate expectation of privacy while on the lot owned by Leonila.

Plainly, without showing a requisite connection to the private land where the seized items were confiscated, Jonel's bare invocation of the exclusionary rule necessarily fails.

Assuming arguendo that Jonel had the requisite connection to the land where the seized items were located, the Court has long recognized that a violation of the statute in flagrante delicto permits law enforcers to enter the domicile of another without a warrant.

In this case, Jonel was seen in flagrante cultivating ma*****na plants in violation of Section 16 of RA 9165. Given the situation, even if Jonel was seen on a private land, the arresting police officers had valid reasons to effect not only his arrest but also the search of his person and the immediate area within his control.

(People v. Gepitulan, G.R. No. 259381, February 26, 2024)

Credit to Fiscal Fred Nojara

https://www.manilatimes.net/2025/01/12/legal-advice/employees-without-fiduciary-duties-cannot-be-dismissed-for-loss-of-trust-and-confidence/2037195 Employees without fiduciary duties cannot be dismissed for loss of trust and confidence

Employees without fiduciary duties cannot be dismissed for loss of trust and confidence Employees without fiduciary duties cannot be dismissed for loss of trust and confidence

Will done via video recording Dear PAO,