3rd MCTC Kabasalan-Siay ZS

20/09/2026

Celebrating 126 years of dedicated public service. Proud to join the 126th CSC Anniversary!

Ctto:Rj Benitez 🎥 📸

17/06/2026

Happy Birthday to this beautiful soul! May all your prayers be heard by the One above and may your dreams unfold in His perfect time.
Junave Aranas Aranzado

04/05/2026

Raising the flag, lifting our spirits for the week ahead.

13/04/2026

OCA CIRCULAR NO. 61-2026

MANDATORY ELECTRONIC FILING AND SERVICE IN CIVIL CASES IN THE FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS

(Amending Rule 13 of the 2019 Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)

30/03/2026

Wrapping up March with women who inspire, empower, and lead.

27/03/2026

No Work from Home for our station.

Office Schedule:

Monday - Friday
8:00 am to 5:00 pm

21/03/2026

SC Adopts Framework for Judiciary's Use of Artificial Intelligence!

The En Banc has approved the Governance Framework on the Use of Human-Centered Augmented Intelligence in the Judiciary, marking a significant step toward modernizing court operations and improving the administration of justice through new technologies.

In a Resolution dated February 18, 2026, in A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC, the SC issued a comprehensive guide on the responsible use of human-centered augmented intelligence in the judicial system, based on three ethical principles: fairness, accountability, and transparency. These principles support “the ethical and responsible use of human-centered augmented intelligence tools in the Judiciary” and “reinforce the public’s faith and confidence in the independence and impartiality of the judicial system.”

The Framework was developed by a working group chaired by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, with Associate Justices Ramon Paul L. Hernando and Rodil V. Zalameda as vice chairpersons. It was created with the help of other members of the Judiciary, subject matter experts, lawyers, and the academe, and further refined through consultations with the SC En Banc, the SC’s Management Information Systems Office, and the Office of the Chief Attorney. It also draws from global best practices, including the Council of ASEAN Chief Justices Governance Framework on the Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for the ASEAN Judiciaries and UNESCO Guidelines for the Use of AI Systems in Courts and Tribunals, ensuring alignment with international standards.

A key feature of the Framework is the use of the term “human-centered augmented intelligence,” which emphasizes that technology must remain centered on humans and should only support, not replace, human reason and judgment.

Read the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=162306.

Read the full text of A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/25-11-28-sc-re-proposed-governance-framework-on-the-use-of-human-centered-augmented-intelligence-in-the-judiciary-2/

02/03/2026

Sec. 3(j) Rule 131 of the Rules of Evidence establishes a disputable presumption "that a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole act".

The presumption however does not water down the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

In the crime of theft, the presumption, understandably, applies only when there is no direct and positive evidence that the possessor of the stolen item is the actual taker.

Here the prosecution relied on the following pieces of circumstantial evidence:

1.Mugot was rushing inside the bus together with other passengers.

2.Mugot was pinned against on door of the door of the bus by Bacsid on his left side, with his mobile phone placed on his right pocket.

3.Inside the bus, he noticed that his phone was already missing in his right pocket.

4.Mugot alighted from the bus and saw Bacsid walking back to the bus waiting area.

5.Mugot saw Tijam hand over to Bacsid his missing (Mugot) mobile phone.

Bacsid and Tijam denied the accusation of theft.

Tijam disclosed that he met Bacsid at the bus waiting area. They exchanged pleasantries. When about to part ways, he saw a mobile phone on the ground. He picked it up and showed it to Bacsid. It was at that moment when Mugot arrived and grabbed the phone from Tijam.

The RTC convicted both Tijam and Bacsid. The CA sustained the conviction.

In convicting, the disputable presumption was applied based on the foregoing pieces of circumstantial evidence.

The SC reversed the conviction. In reversing, it ruled that the combination of the foregoing pieces of evidence did not form an unbroken chain that lead to one fair and reasonable conclusion that point to Tijam and Mugot, to the exclusion of other persons as the guilty persons because Mugot was rushing inside the bus with other commuters. It was therefore not impossible that the thievery was committed by someone else.

______________________

The analysis of the author of this digest is added in this wise:

More importantly, the fact of thievery itself or the act that Mugot's mobile phone was taken from his pocket was not adequately proven. What was only proven was that he noticed that it was already missing while he was inside the bus. For all we know Mugot's phone may have been accidentally dropped somewhere else earlier that he noticed its loss later.

This is the exact reason why the decision said that "the facts from which the inferences are derived have not been substantially proven ###".

Though unspecified in the decision the author of this digest must specify what are those unproven facts from which the RTC and CA drew their inference that Tijam and Bacsid are the perpetrators:

1.Was there any act of taking or thievery or was there an act of stealing?

2.Did the act of thievery or loss occur while Mugot was rushing inside the bus while being pinned by Bacsid against the door of the bus?

The above facts have not been proven.

Tijam and Bacsid's constitutional presumption of innocence has prevailed over the disputable presumption.

Tijam & Bacsid vs. People, G.R. No.251732, July 10, 2023

10/02/2026

After the court has decided the case in a criminal case and after it has fully implemented its decision, i.e., by committing the convict to jail for service of sentence imposed, THE COURT LOSSES JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE. AFTER THE CONVICT IS COMMITTED TO JAIL, THE COURT LIKEWISE LOSSES JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE CONVICT AS THE SAME IS TRANSFERRED TO THE JAILER.

No court order needed! SC Justice Raul Villanueva clarifies that jail authorities can release PDLs who have served their full sentences. Read the new rules.