Atty. Hannah Valenzuela-Belgira, CPA - Notary Public

Nagpasya ang na puwedeng kilalanin bilang magkatuwang na may-ari ng ari-arian (co-owners of property) ang mga nagsasama na magkapareho ang kasarian, alinsunod sa Artikulo 148 ng Family Code, kung may sapat na patunay na kapwa silang may aktuwal na ambag sa naturang mga pag-aari.

Sa isang desisyong isinulat ni Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, pinagbigyan ng Second Division ng Korte Suprema ang reklamo ng isang babae para sa paghahati ng ari-arian at kinilala siya bilang isa sa mga may-ari ng bahay at lupang kanyang pinagsamahan kasama ang kanyang kaparehong kasarian na partner.

Ang Artikulo 148 ng Family Code ang nagtatakda ng mga patakaran sa pagmamay-ari ng ari-arian ng mga magkaparehang nagsasama ngunit hindi maaaring magpakasal ayon sa batas, at kinikilala nito ang pagiging magkatuwang na may-ari batay sa aktuwal na ambag ng bawat isa.

Nagsama ang dalawang babae bilang magkarelasyon. Isang taon matapos ang kanilang relasyon, bumili sila ng isang bahay at lupa, at napagkasunduan nilang isa sa kanila na lamang ang irehistrong pangalan para mapadali ang mga transaksyon sa bangko.

Nang maghiwalay sila, napagkasunduan nilang ibenta ang ari-arian at hatiin nang pantay ang kita. Isa sa kanila ang lumagda sa isang Acknowledgment na nagpapatunay na ang isa pa ay nag-ambag ng halos 50% ng gastos sa pagbili at pagpapagawa ng bahay.

Gayunpaman, kalaunan ay hindi siya pumayag na ibenta ang ari-arian at itinanggi niya na ang dating karelasyon niya ay isa ring may-ari nito.

Para maprotektahan ang kanyang karapatan, ang dating kapareha ay naglagay ng adverse claim sa titulo ng ari-arian at humiling ng paghahati nito. Nang hindi ito magtagumpay, nagsampa siya ng kaso para sa paghahati ng real estate at kabayaran sa danyos, gamit ang Acknowledgment bilang patunay ng pagiging magkatuwang na may-ari.

Pinagbigyan ng Korte Suprema ang reklamo para sa paghahati ng ari-arian, habang nilinaw nito ang mga probisyon sa Family Code na namamahala sa ugnayan sa ari-arian ng mga magkasintahang nagsasama ngunit hindi kasal.

Ang Artikulo 147 ay naaangkop sa mga magkasintahang hindi pa kasal ngunit maaaring magpakasal ayon sa batas. Ang ari-ariang nakuha habang sila’y nagsasama ay ipinapalagay na pagmamay-ari ng magkatuwang.

Samantala, ang Artikulo 148 ay naaangkop sa mga magkasintahang hindi pinapayagang magpakasal. Tanging ang mga ari-ariang nakuha sa pamamagitan ng aktuwal na ambag ang itinuturing na pagmamay-ari ng magkatuwang.

Dahil ang Family Code ay nagpapahintulot lamang ng pag-aasawa sa pagitan ng lalaki at babae, itinuring ng Korte Suprema na ang mga magkaparehong kasarian ay sakop ng Artikulo 148.

Dito, napagpasyahan ng Korte Suprema na ang nilagdaang Acknowledgment, kung saan inamin ng isang kapareha na nagbayad ang isa pa ng halos kalahati ng gastos sa ari-arian, ay itinuturing na may bisa at sapat na patunay ng aktuwal na ambag. Ito ang nagpatibay sa pagiging magkatuwang na may-ari.

Basahin ang Press Release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160462.

Basahin ang kabuuang teksto ng Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160431.

Basahin ang Concurring Opinion ni Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160444.

Basahin ang Concurrence ni Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160439.

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

The (SC) has ruled that same-sex couples who live together may be recognized as co-owners of property under Article 148 of the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦, provided there is proof of actual contribution.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, the SC’s Second Division granted a woman’s complaint for partition of property and recognized her as a co-owner of the house and lot she shared with her same-sex partner.

Article 148 of the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 governs the property relations of couples who are living together but cannot legally marry, acknowledging co-ownership based on their actual contributions.

The two women lived together as a couple. A year into their relationship, they purchased a house and lot, and agreed to register the property in one partner’s name to facilitate banking transactions.

Upon separation, they agreed to sell the property and divide the proceeds equally. One partner signed an 𝘈𝘤𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘭𝘦𝘥𝘨𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 stating that the other had paid about 50% of the purchase and renovation costs.

However, she later refused to sell the property and denied that her former partner was a co-owner.

To protect her interest, the former partner annotated an adverse claim on the title and demanded partition of the property. When this failed, she filed a case for partition of real estate and damages, relying on the 𝘈𝘤𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘭𝘦𝘥𝘨𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 as proof of co-ownership.

The SC granted the complaint for partition of real estate, as it clarified the provisions in the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 governing the property relations of unmarried couples living together.

Article 147 applies to unmarried couples who may legally marry. Property acquired during their cohabitation is presumed jointly owned.

Article 148, on the other hand, applies to couples who are not permitted to marry. Only properties obtained through actual contribution are considered common property.

Since the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 only allows marriage between a man and a woman, the SC held that same-sex couples necessarily fall under Article 148.

Here, the SC found that the signed 𝘈𝘤𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘭𝘦𝘥𝘨𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵, where one partner admitted that the other paid about half of the property costs, was a binding admission and sufficient proof of actual contribution. This established co-ownership.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160462.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160431.

Read the Concurring Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160444.

Read the Concurrence of Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160439.

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

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 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/.

Congratulations! ✨

Nagpasya ang na bagama’t nananatiling pribado ang mga detalyeng pinansiyal ng mga deposito sa bangko, pinahihintulutan ng Cybercrime Prevention Act ang pagbubunyag ng impormasyon ng mga may-ari ng bank account para sa mga imbestigasyon kaugnay ng mga kasong cybercrime.

Sa Desisyon na isinulat ni Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, tinanggihan ng Unang Dibisyon ng Korte Suprema ang petisyong inihain ng EastWest Rural Bank (EastWest) na kumukwestiyon sa warrant to disclose computer data (WDCD) na inisyu ng hukuman at sa kasunod na Disclosure Order na inilabas ng Philippine National Police Anti-Cybercrime Group (PNP-ACG) na nag-aatas sa kanila na ibunyag ang impormasyon ng may-ari ng isang EastWest bank account.

Nais ng mga otoridad na makuha ang impormasyon tungkol sa may-ari ng EastWest bank account kung saan inilipat ang pera ni Leonard Vendiola matapos siyang maloko ng isang tumawag na nagpapanggap na empleyado ng bangko.

Iniulat ni Vendiola sa PNP-ACG na naloko siya ng tumawag na nagpakilalang empleyado ng bangko na nangako ng gantimpala kapalit ng pagbibigay ng kanyang email at one-time password. Nang suriin niya ang kanyang bank account, nalaman niyang na-transfer ang halagang PHP 10,000 sa isang EastWest account.

Nag-apply ang PNP-ACG para sa isang WDCD para matukoy ang may-ari ng EastWest account na sangkot sa umano’y scam. Pinahintulutan ito ng Regional Trial Court, na nagbigay pahintulot sa PNP-ACG na pilitin ang EastWest na ibunyag at panatilihin ang datos na may kaugnayan sa may-ari ng account. Alinsunod dito, nag-isyu ang PNP-ACG ng Disclosure Order sa EastWest.

Hinamon ng EastWest ang warrant at nangatwiran na mahigpit na nagbabawal sa mga bangko ang Bank Secrecy Law na magbunyag ng anumang impormasyon tungkol sa mga deposito dito kabilang ang pagkakakilanlan ng may hawak ng account. Nanindigan ito na nananatiling may bisa ang panuntunang ito dahil hindi ito pinawalang-bisa ng Cybercrime Prevention Act.

Iginiit din ng EastWest na hindi ito dapat sumailalim sa mga panuntunan sa pagsisiwalat ng Cybercrime law dahil isa itong institusyong pinansiyal sa halip na isang communications service provider.

Tinanggihan ng Korte Suprema ang mga argumentong ito at kinatigan ang bisa ng Warrant to Disclose Computer Data at Disclosure Order.

Nilinaw ng Korte Suprema na bagama’t pinoprotektahan ng Bank Secrecy Law ang pagiging kumpedinsyal ng mga bank deposit at ng kanilang mga detalyeng pinansiyal, hindi nito ipinagbabawal ang pagbubunyag ng mga pangunahing impormasyong pagkakakilanlan kapag pinahihintulutan ng batas. Sa ilalim ng Cybercrime Prevention Act, maaaring hilingin ng mga ahensiyang nagpapatupad ng batas, sa bisa ng isang warrant na inisyu ng hukuman, ang pagbubunyag ng mga computer data na kinakailangan para imbestigahan ang mga krimeng may kinalaman sa cybercrime.

Nagpasya rin ang Korte Suprema na itinuturing ang EastWest na isang service provider sa ilalim ng Cybercrime Prevention Act dahil ang mga digital banking service nito—tulad ng mga online banking platform, mobile application, at mga awtomatikong abiso sa pamamagitan ng email—ay nagpapahintulot sa mga kliyente na makipag-ugnayan at magsagawa ng mga transaksyon sa pamamagitan ng mga computer system. Bilang isang institusyong pampinansiyal, nagpoproseso at nag-iimbak din ng malaking halaga ng computer data kapwa sa takbo ng sarili nitong operasyon at sa ngalan ng mga kliyente nito ang EastWest, kaya’t saklaw ito ng batas hinggil sa pagbubunyag ng computer data kapag pinahintulutan ng warrant na inisyu ng hukuman.

Basahin ang press release sa http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=157653

Basahin ang Desisyon sa http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=157646

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

The (SC) has held that while financial details of bank deposits remain confidential, the Cybercrime Prevention Act allows disclosure of bank account holder information for cybercrime investigations.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, the SC’s First Division denied the petition filed by EastWest Rural Bank (EastWest), which questioned the warrant to disclose computer data (WDCD) issued by the court and the subsequent Disclosure Order issued by the Philippine National Police Anti-Cybercrime Group (PNP-ACG) which required EastWest to disclose bank account holder information.

This EastWest bank account holder information sought to be disclosed is the account where Leonard Vendiola’s money was transferred after he was scammed by a caller posing as a bank employee.

Vendiola reported to the PNP-ACG that a caller who introduced herself as a bank employee deceived him by promising rewards contingent to disclosing his email and one-time password. When he checked his bank account, he discovered that an amount of PHP 10,000 was transferred to an EastWest account.

PNP-ACG applied for a WDCD to identify the EastWest account holder involved in the alleged scam. This was granted by the Regional Trial Court which authorized the PNP-ACG to compel EastWest to disclose and preserve data relating to the account holder. Pursuant to this, the PNP-ACG issued a Disclosure Order to EastWest.

EastWest filed a petition with the Court of Appeals challenging the WDCD and arguing that the Bank Secrecy Law prohibits banks from revealing any information about bank deposits, including the identity of the account holder. It maintained that this rule remains in force because it was not repealed by the Cybercrime Prevention Act.

EastWest also asserted that it should not be subject to the Cybercrime law’s disclosure rules because it is a financial institution rather than a communications service provider.

The SC rejected these arguments and upheld the validity of the WDCD and Disclosure Order.

The SC clarified that while the Bank Secrecy Law protects the confidentiality of bank deposits and their financial details, it does not prevent the disclosure of basic identifying information when allowed by law. Under the Cybercrime Prevention Act, law enforcement agencies may, with a court-issued warrant, require the disclosure of computer data necessary to investigate cybercrime offenses.

The SC ruled that EastWest is considered a service provider under the Cybercrime Prevention Act because their digital banking services, such as online banking platforms, mobile applications, and automated email notifications, allow customers to communicate and transact through computer systems. As a banking institution, EastWest also processes and stores substantial amounts of computer data both in the course of its operations and on behalf of its customers, placing it within the law’s coverage for the disclosure of computer data when authorized by a court-issued warrant.

Read the full text of the press release at http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=157653

Read the full text of the Decision at http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=157646

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

Nilinaw ng na “r**e” at hindi “simple r**e” ang tamang terminolohiya o tawag sa krimen sa ilalim ng Article 266-A(1)(a) ng Revised Penal Code (RPC).

Sa isang Desisyon na isinulat ni Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, pinagtibay ng Ikatlong Dibisyon ng Korte Suprema ang hatol na pagkakasala ng isang lalaki sa panggagahasa sa isang 13-taong-gulang na babae at hinatulan siya ng hanggang 40 taong pagkakabilanggo.

Napatunayang nagkasala sa kasong simple r**e ang akusado ng Regional Trial Court at ng Court of Appeals.

Sa ilalim ng Article 266-A(1)(a) ng RPC, nagkakaroon ng r**e kapag ang isang lalaki ay nakipagtalik sa isang babae sa pamamagitan ng puwersa, banta, o pananakot.

Pinagtibay ng Korte Suprema ang hatol na pagkakasala at sinamantala rin ang pagkakataon para linawin na dapat tawaging r**e at hindi simple r**e ang krimen.

Sinabi ng Korte Suprema na walang “simple” sa R**e at ang pagtukoy dito sa ganitong paraan ay nagpapababa sa bigat ng krimen at nagpapamanhid sa publiko sa pinsalang idinudulot nito.

Bagama’t dati nang ikinategorya ang r**e bilang krimen laban sa puri sa ilalim ng Article 335 ng RPC, ikinlasipika ito ng Republic Act No. 8353, o ang Anti-R**e Law of 1997, bilang krimen laban sa tao.

Ang mga krimen laban sa puri, tulad ng adultery at seduction, ay karaniwang mga pribadong krimen na nakatuon sa pagprotekta sa dangal ng biktima.

Samantala, naglalayong pangalagaan ang pisikal na integridad at kapakanan ng mga indibidwal ang mga krimen laban sa tao, tulad ng homicide, murder, at physical injuries.

Basahin ang press release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=157708.

Basahin ang buong teksto ng Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=157708.

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

The has clarified that the proper term for the crime under Article 266-A(1)(a) of the 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘗𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 (𝘙𝘗𝘊) is 𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘦 and not 𝘴𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘦.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC’s Third Division affirmed a man’s conviction for ra**ng a 13-year-old girl, sentencing him to a maximum of 40 years in prison.

The accused was found guilty by the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals of 𝘴𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘦.

Under Article 266-A(1)(a) of the RPC, 𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘦 is committed when a man has sexual in*******se with a woman through force, threat, or intimidation.

The SC affirmed his conviction and also took the opportunity to clarify that the crime should be referred to as 𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘦 instead of 𝘴𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘦:

“After all, there is nothing ‘simple’ about R**e and referring to it in such a manner downplays its severity and desensitizes the public to the harm it inflicts,” said the SC.

While 𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘦 was initially classified as a crime against chastity under Article 335 of the RPC, Republic Act No. 8353, or the 𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘙𝘢𝘱𝘦 𝘓𝘢𝘸 𝘰𝘧 1997, reclassified it as a crime against persons.

Crimes against chastity, such as adultery and seduction, are generally private crimes which focus on protecting the victim’s honor.

On the other hand, crimes against persons, such as homicide, murder, and physical injuries, aim to protect individuals’ bodily integrity and well-being.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=157708.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=157708.

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

Nagpasya ang na may hurisdiksyon lang ang mga voluntary arbitrator sa isang labor dispute kapag ang parehong partido ay malinaw na sumang-ayon dito. Hindi sapat ang pagsang-ayon ng isang partido kung patuloy na tumututol ang isa.

Sa Desisyon na isinulat ni Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, nagpasya ang Ikalawang Dibisyon ng Korte Suprema na walang awtoridad na resolbahin ng panel ng mga voluntary arbitrator (panel) ang mga monetary claim ni Benjie Y. Tandayag (Tandayag) laban sa Magsaysay Maritime Corporation (Korporasyon). Sa halip, nasa Labor Arbiter ang hurisdiksyon.

Si Tandayag ay isang seafarer na kinuha ng Korporasyon para sa isa sa mga barko nito. Habang nasa barko, nagtamo siya ng pinsalang may kinalaman sa trabaho na nauwi sa kanyang pagkakaroon ng permanenteng kapansanan. Walang umiiral na collective bargaining agreement (CBA) sa pagitan niya at ng Korporasyon.

Nang tumanggi ang Korporasyon na bayaran ang kanyang disability benefit at iba pang kaugnay na mga benepisyo, nagsampa siya ng kaso sa National Conciliation and Mediation Board na isinangguni sa isang panel ng mga voluntary arbitrator.

Pumasok ang mga partido sa isang submission agreement para isumite ang usapin sa panel ng mga voluntary arbitrator. Gayunman, iginiit ng Korporasyon na walang hurisdiksiyon ang panel sa mga monetary claim. Hindi sumang-ayon ang panel at sinabing isinuko ng Korporasyon ang karapatang kuwestiyunin ang hurisdiksiyon nito nang lagdaan nito ang submission agreement. Sa huli, nagpasya ang panel pabor kay Tandayag.

Kwinestiyon ng Korporasyon ang desisyon sa Court of Appeals (CA) na nagpasya na ang Labor Arbiter at hindi ang mga voluntary arbitrator ang may hurisdiksiyon.

Pinagtibay ng Korte Suprema ang pasya ng CA. Nakasaad sa Labor Code na ang mga money claim na nagmumula sa employer-employee relationship ay dapat ihain sa Labor Arbiter, isang tuntunin na nakasaad din sa RA 8042 o Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act para sa mga claim ng overseas Filipino workers.

Ang mga voluntary arbitrator naman ay humahawak ng mga hindi pagkakasundo na may kinalaman sa mga CBA, mga polisiya ng kompanya, at iba pang usaping pinagkasunduan ng parehong panig na isumite sa kanila.

Sa kasong ito, walang CBA pero umasa sina Tandayag at ang panel sa submission agreement ng mga partido.

Gayunpaman, ipinapakita ng rekord na maagap at paulit-ulit na tinutulan ng Korporasyon ang awtoridad ng mga voluntary arbitrator. Sa katunayan, hiniling pa nitong resolbahin muna ang isyu ng hurisdiksiyon at iginiit na sa Labor Arbiter dapat dalhin ang kaso.

Ipinaliwanag ng Korte Suprema na hindi nangangahulugang tinanggap ng Korporasyon ang hurisdiksiyon ng mga voluntary arbitrator sa submission agreement dahil malinaw itong tumutol mula pa sa simula.

Dagdag pa ng Korte Suprema, bagama’t hinihikayat ang voluntary arbitration, dapat ay malinaw at walang pasubali na pumayag ang parehong partido sa alitan na mapasailalim sa voluntary arbitrator. Hindi sapat ang pagpapasakop sa arbitrasyon ng isang panig kung palagi namang tumututol ang kabila.

Basahin ang buong press release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=156011.

Basahin ang Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=156005.

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

The (SC) has ruled that voluntary arbitrators have jurisdiction over a labor dispute only when both parties clearly and mutually agree to it. One party’s agreement is not enough if the other consistently objects.

In a Decision written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the SC’s Second Division ruled that the panel of voluntary arbitrators lacked authority to resolve the monetary claims of Benjie Tandayag against Magsaysay Maritime Corporation. Instead, the jurisdiction over the dispute lies with the Labor Arbiter (LA).

Tandayag, a seafarer hired by the corporation for one of its vessels, suffered a work-related injury while on board the vessel, leaving him permanently disabled. There was no collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between him and the corporation.

When the corporation refused to pay his disability and other related benefits, he filed a case with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board, which referred it to a panel of voluntary arbitrators (panel).

The parties entered into a submission agreement to arbitrate before the panel. However, the corporation argued that the panel lacked jurisdiction over the monetary claims. The panel disagreed, stating that the corporation waived its right to contest the panel’s jurisdiction when it signed the submission agreement. Ultimately, it ruled in favor of Tandayag.

The corporation challenged this decision before the Court of Appeals (CA), which ruled that the LA, not the voluntary arbitrators, has jurisdiction.

Upholding the CA, the SC cited the 𝘓𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘳 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦, which provides that money claims arising from employer-employee relations must be filed before the LA, a rule similarly stated in RA 8042 or the 𝘔𝘪𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘬𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘖𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘦𝘢𝘴 𝘍𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘰𝘴 𝘈𝘤𝘵 for claims of overseas Filipino workers. Voluntary arbitrators, on the other hand, handle disputes involving CBAs, company policies, and 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀 that 𝗯𝗼𝘁𝗵 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘂𝗯𝗺𝗶𝘁 to them.

In this case, there was no CBA, but Tandayag and the panel relied on the parties’ submission agreement.

However, records show that the corporation promptly and repeatedly objected to the voluntary arbitrators’ authority. In fact, it even asked that the jurisdiction issue be resolved and insisted that the case belonged to the LA.

The SC explained that the submission agreement did not mean the corporation accepted the voluntary arbitrators’ jurisdiction, since it clearly raised the issue from the start.

The SC added that while voluntary arbitration is encouraged, “𝘪𝘵 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘣𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘨𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘶𝘯𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘷𝘰𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘣𝘰𝘵𝘩 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘱𝘶𝘵𝘦 𝘢𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘣𝘪𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘰𝘳.” Submission to arbitration by one side is not enough if the other side consistently objects.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=156011.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=156005.

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

𝐁𝐈𝐑 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐫 𝐌𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐨𝐳𝐚 𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐬𝐮𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐋𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐌𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐎𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐢𝐞𝐥𝐝 𝐚𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐬

In a joint announcement at the Department of Finance today, Finance Secretary Frederick Go and Bureau of Internal Revenue Commissioner Charlito Mendoza announced the immediate and temporary suspension of all field audits and related operations of the BIR.

“I have ordered the immediate suspension of all field audits and related operations, including the issuance of Letters of Authority and Mission Orders, effective immediately, in accordance with Revenue Memorandum Circular 107-2025. No Letter of Authority or Mission Order shall be created, printed, signed, or served during the suspension period,” detailed Commissioner Mendoza.

In his first week in office, Commissioner Mendoza convened key units of the Bureau of Internal Revenue to gain a thorough understanding of existing audit operations and to identify long-standing issues that have affected taxpayer experience and internal discipline. The suspension was issued after extensive internal consultations and was undertaken with the guidance and strategic oversight of Finance Secretary Frederick Go to ensure full alignment with national priorities on good governance, taxpayer protection, and efficient revenue administration.

“This is in response to the concerns raised by the taxpayers regarding the issuance of Letters of Authority and Mission Orders. We hear the people, we hear your concerns, and are immediately acting on them. The people deserve better,” said Secretary Go, emphasizing that the Department of Finance is committed to protecting taxpayers from potential abuse through a comprehensive review of our existing policies and procedures.

The temporary suspension applies to all BIR offices involved in audit and field operations, including the Large Taxpayers Service, Revenue Regions and District Offices, Assessment Divisions, VAT Audit Units, and Intelligence and Special Audit Units. The exceptions to RMC 107-2025 apply only to urgent or legally mandated cases such as active criminal investigations, one-time transactions, audits prescribing within six months, refund claims that require audits, or immediate action on taxpayers flagged by verified intelligence.

“This suspension is necessary to protect taxpayer rights, strengthen internal discipline, and ensure the integrity of our audit processes. We take every complaint seriously, and any misuse of authority, harassment, or irregularity has no place in the Bureau,” Commissioner Mendoza emphasized.

“All taxpayers shall be treated with the highest degree of professionalism, courtesy, and adherence to the rule of law. Our economy is built upon the contributions of our taxpayers, who deserve fair and honest tax audits,” explained Secretary Go.

Commissioner Mendoza also instructed the creation of a Technical Working Group on LOA and Mission Order Integrity and Audit Reforms to lead the reform efforts. The group is tasked with evaluating existing procedures, identifying operational and systemic vulnerabilities, recommending revised LOA protocols, and integrating digital safeguards and uniform audit standards.

“Our goal is to create processes that are predictable, evidence-based, technology-driven, and fair,” explained Commissioner Mendoza, reiterating that these systems are meant to protect taxpayers while helping the Bureau perform its mandate efficiently.

“I cannot overemphasize President Ferdinand Marcos, Jr.’s directive for the BIR to continue meeting revenue targets while strengthening service delivery for workers, small business owners, and all taxpayers who rely on predictable and transparent audit processes. The overarching directive of the President when I assumed office is to ensure efficient and fair revenue collections,” Commissioner Mendoza said to end the joint announcement.

RMC No. 107-2025: https://tinyurl.com/bdynx69h