Atty. Justine Dave S. Serrano

04/06/2026

Sen. Tito Sotto on Thursday denied allegations that he received money from 18 alleged former Marines.

He said he was not a senator between 2022 and 2025, when the alleged incident supposedly occurred.

Sotto also disputed claims involving a former executive assistant named “Mark,” saying the person being referred to had died in 2015.

He urged the public not to believe unverified allegations.

04/06/2026

WANTED

After the “smooth” arrest of Sen. Jinggoy Estrada, the Philippine National Police said it will continue pursuing other high-profile personalities who remain at large.

READ MORE: https://inqnews.net/FugitivesOnTheRun

04/06/2026

(LEGAL ETHICS) JUSTICE SAMUEL H. GAERLAN PENNED CASE: Fajardo v. San Miguel Foods, Inc. [B-Meg Plant 1], G.R. No. 267580, November 11, 2024 [Per J. Gaerlan, Third Division]

While the general rule is that a client is bound by the mistakes or negligence of their counsel, there are certain exceptions, viz.: (1) when the reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law; (2) when its application will result in the outright deprivation of the client’s liberty or property; or (3) where the interests of justice so require. Indeed, if the strict application of the rules would tend to frustrate rather than promote justice, the Court is not without power to exercise its judicial discretion in relaxing the rules of procedure and prevent a miscarriage of justice.

04/06/2026

BREAKING: The 18 ex-Marines accused Senator Tito Sotto, Senator Erwin Tulfo, Rep. France Castro, and Rep. Leila de Lima, among others, of allegedly receiving suitcases containing cash during the Blue Ribbon hearing on Thursday. | via News5

LIVESTREAM: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4hDknbRnh0

20/04/2026

(CRIMINAL LAW) JUSTICE SAMUEL H. GAERLAN PENNED CASE: People v. Ramoy, G.R. No. 212738 (2022) [Per J. Gaerlan, First Division]

In a complex crime, two or more crimes are committed, but in the eyes of the law there is only one criminal resolution; thus, there is only one crime and only one penalty is imposed. A complex crime is either: a) a compound crime or delito compuesto which arise when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or b) a complex proper or delito complejo when an offense is a necessary means for committing another offense.

Aside from these, there is also what is called as a special complex crime. Although similar in terminology, it is different from the complex crime that is provided for under Article 48 of the RPC. A special complex crime is one that is defined and given a specific penalty under the Code. Similar to complex crime, in a special complex crime two or more crimes are committed but the law expressly treats them as a single indivisible and unique offense as the acts are a product of a single criminal impulse. It is legislative wisdom which treats and classifies the attendant crimes as a unique offense, that is, a special complex crime.

10/08/2025

BARANGAYS CAN RUN BINGO GAMES TO RAISE FUNDS SANS PAGCOR PERMIT—SUPREME COURT

| The Supreme Court (SC) upheld the local autonomy of barangays in holding games as fundraising activities even without securing permits or clearance from the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (Pagcor).

In a 15-page decision written by Associate Justice Jose Midas Marquez, the SC's En Banc said that barangay councils do not need clearances from Pagcor to allow the operation of bingo games in their respective jurisdictions.

The decision affirmed the rights of Barangays Trancoville, Outlook Drive, and Military Cut-off in Baguio City to hold bingo as barangay events to raise funds for barangay projects, citing the local autonomy provision as prescribed by the 1987 Constitution.

The case stemmed from the resolutions passed by the above-mentioned barangays, which made bingo games official barangay fundraiser events. However, during one event, Baguio City police arrested barangay officials for allegedly violating Presidential Decree No. 1602, or the Anti-Gambling Law.

This prompted the Association of Barangay Councils of Baguio to file a petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) seeking a declaration that the bingo games were a valid exercise of barangay authority.

Meanwhile, the Republic of the Philippines countered the same, as it contends that only the national government, through the Pagcor, has the power to regulate gambling, including bingo games.

The RTC and Court of Appeals (CA) ruled in favor of the barangays, stating that they were authorized under the Local Government Code of 1991 (LGC) to conduct bingo fundraisers for community projects without national or local permits.

Voting 11-4, the high court affirmed the said ruling and declared that barangays are autonomous; as such, they may use bingo games to raise funds. It cited Section 10 of Republic Act No. 9487, or the amended Pagcor Charter of 2007, which explicitly excludes games of chance, cards, and numbers authorized and regulated by local government units from Pagcor's authority to regulate.

The same law also extended Pagcor’s franchise for another 25 years but made reservations that its authority to regulate public and private gaming requires “the consent of the local government unit that has territorial jurisdiction over the area chosen as the site for any of its operations.”

Meanwhile, four magistrates dissented from the majority opinion, namely Associate Justices Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa, Amy Lazaro-Javier, Henri Jean Paul Inting, and Maria Filomena Singh.

Associate Justice Caguioa, in his dissenting opinion, said that barangays have no authority over bingo games under the PAGCOR Charter, even as a fund-raising activity.

02/08/2025

‼️

| The Supreme Court (SC) has acquitted a man of illegal possession of fi****ms, citing lack of animus possidendi, or criminal intent, after finding that the subject firearm was owned by the Philippine National Police (PNP).

In a 10-page decision written by Associate Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier, the SC's Second Division has found Noel Untalan not guilty of illegal possession of fi****ms under Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended by Republic Act No. 8294.

In July 2009, the Philippine National Police (PNP) confiscated an M-16 rifle with 10 pieces of live ammunition and 1 short magazine from Untalan's house following a search warrant. The police required Untalan to present his license to possess the firearm and pieces of ammunition, but he could not produce any, which led to his arrest.

Untalan, on his part, denied the ownership of the firearm, as the same was allegedly owned by the two police officers who have been designated as his security details. He explained that Police Senior Inspector Randy Moratalla issued a Detail Security Assignment with the designation of two police officers in his house to secure his safety pending investigation on the disappearance of his brother.

Both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals convicted the accused and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of 4 to 6 years. The CA ruled that since illegal possession of fi****ms is malum prohibitum, the fact that Untalan had no license or permit to possess the subject firearm at the time of his arrest is sufficient to convict him for the offense. This prompted Untalan to elevate the case before the Supreme Court.

In reversing his conviction, the SC cited the case of Del Rosario vs. People, as it held that even though illegal possession of a firearm is a malum prohibitum, which does not necessarily require malice or intent, still the fact of possession coupled with animus possidendi, or intent to possess, must still be proven.

It held that although there is physical or constructive possession on the part of Untalan, the prosecution failed to prove that he had animus possidendi of the subject firearm.

The high court gave credence to the sworn statements of the two police officers who testified that they were appointed as Untalan's security detail as a precautionary measure pending investigation on the disappearance of his brother. They added that the items recovered in the possession of Untalan are issued by the PNP-Regional Intelligence Division as their service firearm.

“Animus possidendi is a state of mind, the presence or determination of which is largely dependent on attendant events in each case and may be inferred from the prior or contemporaneous acts of the accused, as well as the surrounding circumstances,” the Supreme Court said.

“The circumstances in this case clearly paint one picture: the firearm, magazine, and pieces of ammunition were never owned or possessed by Untalan; they were the PNP's through PO3 Causaren,” the Supreme Court added.

24/07/2025

𝗗𝗘𝗠𝗨𝗥𝗥𝗘𝗥 𝗧𝗢 𝗘𝗩𝗜𝗗𝗘𝗡𝗖𝗘
(Tagalog translation in the comments)

After the prosecution presents all its witnesses and evidence in a criminal trial, the court will ask the defense if they now want to present their own evidence.

But before the defense proceeds, there is one powerful option available: filing a demurrer to evidence.

A demurrer to evidence is basically the accused saying, "Your Honor, even if we accept everything the prosecution just presented as true, it’s still not enough to convict me." It challenges the strength of the evidence and asks the court to dismiss the case right then and there, without the defense having to present anything.

Now here is the important part: when can this be filed?

A demurrer can only be filed after the prosecution has rested its case, which means they are done presenting all their evidence. Once that happens, the defense has five days to act. You can either file the demurrer with leave of court or without leave of court.

Filing with leave of court means you are asking the judge for permission first. This is the safer route. If the court allows it and you file your demurrer but it ends up getting denied, you can still present your own evidence. You do not lose your chance to defend yourself.

Filing without leave of court is riskier. You skip the permission and file it directly. If the court agrees with you, the case is dismissed and you are acquitted. But if the court denies it, you lose your right to present evidence. The case will be submitted for decision based only on what the prosecution presented. It is a gamble.

That is why lawyers usually think very carefully before filing a demurrer without leave. If the evidence is clearly weak, it might work. But if there is doubt, it is usually safer to ask for leave first.

In short, the demurrer to evidence is like telling the court: “The prosecution had their chance. They failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. There is no need for me to even present my side.”

If granted, you go home. If denied, and you did not ask for leave, you may have thrown away your chance to fight back.

Thank you, Juan Wick for this suggested topic!