Atty. Jefferson Biado

Naglabas ang ng mga gabay sa pagpapatunay ng pagkakakilanlan ng may-ari o gumagamit sa isang 𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘢 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵 sa mga kasong kriminal.

Sa Desisyon na isinulat ni Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, pinagtibay ng Unang Dibisyon ng Korte Suprema ang hatol sa isang indibidwal ( # # #) dahil sa nagawa nitong psychological violence sa ilalim ng Section 5 (i) ng 𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘝𝘪𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘈𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘞𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘯 (𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘝𝘈𝘞𝘊) 𝘈𝘤𝘵 laban sa dating kasintahan (AAA) sa pamamagitan ng mapanlait na 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵 sa 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬.

Hinatulan si # # # ng hanggang walong taong pagkakakulong at pinagmumulta ng PHP 100,000. Ipinag-utos din nitong sumailalim si # # # sa 𝘱𝘴𝘺𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 o 𝘱𝘴𝘺𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘤 𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵.

Binigyang-diin ng Korte na sa mga kasong kriminal, dapat patunayan ng prosekusyon hindi lamang ang mga elemento ng krimen kundi pati na rin ang pagkakakilanlan ng nagkasala.

Sa mga krimeng ginawa sa pamamagitan ng social media, sabi ng Korte, kailangang isaalang-alang ang mga katangian ng platform gaya ng 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬. Paliwanag ng Korte, madaling makagawa ng 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵 sa Pilipinas, kahit ang mga nagpapanggap na labintatlong taong gulang na may 𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘭 𝘢𝘥𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴 at 𝘮𝘰𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘯𝘶𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳. Dahil sa mga pekeng 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵, madali ring kumalat ang pekeng impormasyon, pagnanakaw ng pagkakakilanlan, o krimen.

Para matukoy ang pagmamay-ari o pagkakakilanlan ng may hawak ng 𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘢 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵, kailangan patunayan ang alinman sa mga sumusunod:

1. Pag-amin ng pagmamay-ari o pagiging may-akda;
2. May nakakitang ginagamit ang account o sinusulat ang 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵;
3. Paglalaman ng impormasyon na alam lang ng nagkasala o ng iilang tao;
4. Lenggwaheng naaayon sa katangian ng maysala;
5. Mga rekord mula sa 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘵 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘳, 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘺, o 𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘢 𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘦, at mga resulta sa 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘤 𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘺𝘴𝘪𝘴 na nagpapakita ng lokasyon at iba pang katangiang nag-uugnay sa 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵 sa maysala;
6. Mga kilos na naaayon sa mga dating 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵; o
7. Iba pang mga bagay na nagpapakita ng pagmamay-ari, pag-access o pagiging may-akda.

Gamit ng mga gabay na ito, napatunayan ng Korte na may ilang elemento nagpapakita na si # # # ang nagsulat ng 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵. Buong pangalan niya ang nasa 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵 𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘦 at kasama niya sa 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘱𝘩𝘰𝘵𝘰 ang anak niya sa kanyang kasalukuyang kinakasama.

Nakatanggap din ang kapatid ni AAA ng mga mensahe mula sa kaparehong 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵 sa loob ng ilang taon. Magkapareho ang sitwasyon ng mga mensahe na nagtuturo kay # # # bilang siyang gumagamit ng 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵.

Basahin ang Press Release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=158535.

Basahin ang Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=158446.

Sumunod sa Credit Attribution Policy ng SC PIO: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.

The Supreme Court emphasized that statements against public officers do not constitute oral defamation or slander when these concern their discharge of official duties —unless done maliciously.

In a Decision written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the Supreme Court’s Second Division acquitted an accused of oral defamation for remarks against a barangay kagawad.

The barangay kagawad was walking past the accused’s house, when she yelled from her house’s terrace that the barangay kagawad was uneducated, ignorant, and biased against the accused in their barangay conciliation proceedings. The remarks were heard by many people as the terrace was beside the highway.

Under Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code, there is oral defamation or slander when (1) there is an allegation of a crime, fault, or flaw; (2) made orally; (3) publicly; (4) maliciously; (5) towards a person, alive or dead; and (6) such allegation tends to cause dishonor on the person defamed.

As the law assumes that a defamatory allegation is malicious, or made with knowledge that it is false, the person who made the defamatory remarks has the burden of proving there was no malice.

However, when it comes to defamation against public officers in relation to their duties, the prosecution has the burden to prove there was actual malice in the defamatory remarks. The Court recognizes that the right to free speech empowers citizens to hold public officers accountable because public office is a public trust.

In the present case, the SC said that the prosecution failed to prove there was malice in the accused’s remarks against the barangay kagawad. It stressed that while the statements may be offensive, they are not actionable by themselves: “Being ‘sensitive’ has no place in this line of service."

Read the full press release at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-statements-against-public-officers-not-slanderous-when-related-to-the-performance-of-official-duties/

Read the full text of the Decision at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/246824-argelyn-m-labargan-vs-people-of-the-philippines/

NOTARY PUBLIC IN THE CITY OF BAGUIO

Our law office prepares and notarizes Affidavits, Special Power of Attorney (SPA), Deeds (such as Deed of Sale/Donation/EJS), Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), Authorization, Contracts, Certifications, Certificate of Candidacy (CoC), Articles of Incorporation, Constitution and By-Laws of Corporation, Secretary's Certificate, PDS, Letters, Promissory Note, SALN, Waiver, Quitclaim, ETC.

Requirements:
1. Personal appearance of the affiant(s) or the parties before the Notary Public;
2. Valid government-issued ID of the affiant(s) or the parties;
3. Multiple copies of the document (if already prepared) - we will get 2 original copies (1 copy for the Notary Public and 1 copy will be submitted to the Regional Trial Court);
4. Other related documents for reference.

For inquiries, please visit us at Unit 4-14, 4th Floor, Abanao Shopping Complex, Abanao Street, AZCKO, Baguio City. You may also contact us at 0950-210-2298 or [email protected] for further assistance.

The Supreme Court has ruled that demotion, verbal abuse, and indifferent behavior by an employer that forces an employee to resign constitute constructive illegal dismissal.

Constructive dismissal happens when an employer creates such unbearable working conditions that the employee feels forced to resign.

The Supreme Court’s Second Division, in a Decision penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, stressed that actions demonstrating extreme dislike and hostile behavior, such as demotion, uttering insulting words, and apathetic behavior toward an employee, constitute constructive illegal dismissal when such actions cause the employment conditions to be so unbearable that there is no other choice but to resign.

The Court held that the standard for constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable person in the employee’s position would have felt forced to give up their employment under the circumstances.

While the Court said that strong words may be exchanged in the workplace where there are bound to be disagreements, these should not degrade the dignity of employees to avoid a hostile work environment.

Read the full press release: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-employers-insulting-words-hostile-behavior-toward-an-employee-constitute-constructive-dismissal/

Read the full text of the Decision: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/254465-jonathan-dy-chua-bartolome-vs-toyota-quezon-avenue-inc-lincoln-t-lim-esteban-dela-paz-jr-josefina-de-jesus-and-pauline-bacaling/

📌PAKAAMMO KADAGITI AGBOTOS NU MAYO 2025! Deadline nu September 30, 2024

What: Application for Registration (New, Transfer, Correction, Reactivation)
When: August 1, 2024 - SEPTEMBER 30, 2024
Where: Comelec Baguio Mall Site, Upper Ground Floor, SM City Baguio (Near BDO)

NOTE: Bring at least 1 valid government ID (Preferably National ID) and Ballpen.