Tumbaga-Calagan Law Office

11/03/2026

The (SC) 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 has upheld the validity of a Department of Justice (DOJ) circular that raised the standard of proof in preliminary investigations and inquest proceedings from probable cause to prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction.

In a Decision written by written by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, the SC 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 ruled that Department Circular No. 15, series of 2024 containing the 2024 𝘋𝘖𝘑-𝘕𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘚𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘙𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘐𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘨𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘐𝘯𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 (𝘋𝘖𝘑 𝘙𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴), is a valid exercise of the DOJ’s authority over prosecutorial processes.

Under the DOJ Rules’ new standard of proof in preliminary investigations and inquest, prosecutors must ensure that the evidence to charge a person with a crime must sufficiently establish all the elements and consequently warrant a conviction.

Atty. Hazel L. Meking questioned the DOJ Rules before the SC, claiming that the DOJ encroached on the SC’s constitutional authority to promulgate rules of pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts. She argued that the DOJ Rules effectively revised Rule 112, Section 3(a) of the 𝘙𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘥𝘶𝘳𝘦, which provides that the quantum of evidence in preliminary investigations is probable cause.

The SC dismissed her petition and reiterated its ruling in 𝘈.𝘔. 𝘕𝘰. 24-02-09-𝘚𝘊, which recognized the DOJ’s authority to promulgate its own rules on preliminary investigations and inquest proceedings.

The SC held that the DOJ Rules govern only the conduct of preliminary investigations and inquests by prosecutors, which are executive functions. These Rules, however, do not extend to judicial proceedings as the power to promulgate rules of procedure over them remains under the authority of the Supreme Court.

The SC noted it had already recognized preliminary investigation as the exclusive domain of prosecutors when it revised the Rules of Criminal Procedure in 2005.

In 2024, through 𝘈.𝘔. 𝘕𝘰. 24-02-09-𝘚𝘊, the SC also ordered the repeal of provisions in Rule 112 which are inconsistent with the DOJ Rules to harmonize them.

The SC’s constitutional rule-making authority over judicial proceedings remains supreme, as well as its power to correct grave abuse of discretion in any prosecutorial rule or action that violates constitutional rights.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=161871

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=161853

Read the Concurring Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=161858

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

08/03/2026

The Judiciary adopts flexible work arrangements and energy conservation measures starting March 9, 2026 in Memorandum Circular No. 02 - 2026 issued by Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo.

In the Memo, the (SC) observes a four-day on-site and one-day work-from-home (WFH) work arrangement, citing Friday as the generally observed WFH day and provided that at least 25% of the employees in each office or division shall report on-site every Friday, as determined by the head of office or division, to ensure continuity of operations.

The Office of the Chief Justice, the Office of the Senior Associate Justice, the Offices of the Associate Justices, the Cash Collection and Disbursement Division of the Fiscal Management and Budget Office, the Docket-Receiving Section of the Judicial Records Office, the Management Information Systems Office (MISO) with respect to its essential staff, and the Office of the Judiciary Marshals are excluded from this work arrangement, and shall maintain the regular work arrangements.

The Court of Appeals (CA) shall observe the same work arrangements prescribed for the SC, provided that on Fridays, at least 25% of the employees in each office or division shall report on-site, and, at least, three Justices comprising one division, on a rotation basis, shall be available to act on urgent matters, including petitions for extraordinary writs and petitions and motions in connection with Republic Act No. 9160, or the Anti-Money Laundering Act, as amended.

Meanwhile, the Sandiganbayan and Court of Tax Appeals shall continue to observe a full five-day on-site workweek, without special work arrangement.

The First- and Second- Level Courts shall likewise observe a four-day on-site and one-day WFH arrangement.

In single-sala courts, Presiding Judges may adopt either of the following on-site work schedules: (1) on-site work from Monday to Thursday, with Friday designated as the WFH day, or (2) on-site work from Tuesday to Friday, with Monday designated as the WFH day; Provided that pairing courts shall not be on WFH schedule on the same day.

In multiple-sala courts, the four-day on-site and one-day WFH arrangement shall be implemented alternately. Within the same week, odd-numbered branches shall initially report on-site from Monday to Thursday, with Friday designated as the WFH day, while even-numbered branches shall report on-site from Tuesday to Friday, with Monday designated as the WFH day. In the following week, the schedules shall be reversed (i.e., the odd-numbered branches shall report on-site from Tuesday to Friday, with Monday as the WFH day, while the even-numbered branches shall report on-site from Monday to Thursday, with Friday as the WFH day.) This alternating schedule shall continue every week until the four-day workweek arrangement is lifted.

The flexible work arrangements prescribed in Memorandum Circular No. 02 - 2026 shall commence on March 9, 2026, and shall remain in force until modified or lifted by the SC.

Read the full text of Memorandum Circular No. 02 - 2026 at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=161689

05/03/2026

🙋‍♀️🙋‍♀️🙋‍♀️

PSA TO GIVE WOMEN CLIENTS FREE BIRTH, MARRIAGE CERTIFICATES

The Philippine Statistics Authority is giving women free copies of their birth or marriage certificates this March in celebration of Women’s Month.

Read more at the link in comments.

02/03/2026

Official launch of the ULAS Portal Phase 1 Deployment and signing of Memorandum of Understanding among ULASO, CHR, NAPC, NCIP, and PCUP

26/02/2026

Some days feel overwhelming. Deadlines pile up. Responsibilities grow heavier. Questions remain unanswered.

But here’s your reminder today: not everything needs to be solved all at once.

Progress is often quiet. Growth is often unseen. And strength is often built in moments of patience and perseverance.

Keep showing up. Keep believing. Your consistency matters more than your worries.

25/02/2026

Muling iginiit ng na ang paghahalughog matapos ang isang legal na pag-aresto ay maaring sumakop sa mga bagay na nasa agarang kontrol ng akusado. Maaaring tanggapin ng hukuman ang anumang mga ebidensiyang makukuha sa paghahalughog kahit hindi ito lantad sa paningin ng mga umarestong pulis.

Sa isang Desisyong isinulat ni Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, pinagtibay ng Unang Dibisyon ng Korte Suprema ang hatol na pagkakasala kay Jeryl Bautista dahil sa illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Republic Act No. 9165, o ang Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as amended.

Naaresto sa isang buy-bust operation si Bautista. Matapos mahuli, kinapkapan siya ng mga pulis at nakuhanan siya ng tatlong sachet ng hinihinalang shabu na nakatago sa loob ng isang cellphone charger.

Depensa ni Bautista, hindi dapat tanggapin bilang ebidensiya ang mga karagdagang sachet dahil hindi ito lantad sa paningin ng mga pulis nang kumpiskahin ito noong siya’y naaresto.

Pinagtibay ng Korte Suprema ang hatol na pagkakasala ng Regional Trial Court at Court of Appeals at isinantabi ang kanyang argumento. Paliwanag nito, hindi lamang ang plain view doctrine ang batayan para maging wasto ang isang warrantless search dahil maaari ring magsagawa ng paghahalughog sa isang taong naaresto nang naaayon sa batas.

Sa pangkalahatan, kinakailangan ang warrant sa paghahalughog at pagsamsam ng anumang ebidensiya. Kapag nagsagawa ang pulisya ng paghahalughog o pagsamsam nang walang wastong warrant, hindi maaaring gamitin sa hukuman ang mga ebidensiyang makukuha. Gayunman, may mga kinikilalang exception o pagpapaliban sa patakarang ito.

Isa sa mga ito ang plain view doctrine na nagpapahintulot sa pagsamsam ng ebidensiyang lantad sa paningin kung: (1) may legal na dahilan ang pulis na naroroon sa lugar kung saan nakita ang bagay; (2) hindi planado ang pagkakadiskubre nito; at (3) agad na malinaw na ang bagay ay may kaugnayan sa krimen o labag sa batas.

Isa pang kinikilalang exception ang warrantless search na kaugnay ng isang legal na pag-aresto. Para maging wasto, kinakailangang: (1) legal ang pag-aresto sa akusado; (2) isinagawa ang paghahalughog nang walang warrant matapos ang pag-aresto; (3) limitado ang paghahalughog sa katawan ng akusado at sa mga bagay na nasa kanyang agarang kontrol; at (4) isinagawa ito sa lugar ng pag-aresto.

Sa kasong ito, inaresto si Bautista sa isang buy-bust operation at siniyasat bilang bahagi ng pagkakaaresto sa kanya. Bagaman hindi lantad sa paningin ng mga pulis ang mga sachet na nakatago sa loob ng cellphone charger, sinabi ng Korte Suprema na wasto pa rin ang paghahalughog dahil isinagawa ito bilang bahagi ng isang legal na pag-aresto at sumasaklaw sa mga bagay na nasa agarang kontrol ng akusado sa oras ng pag-aresto.

Dahil napatunayan ng prosekusyon na: (1) may droga sa kanyang pag-iingat; (2) walang pahintulot ng batas ang naturang pag-iingat; at (3) ginawa ito nang may kaalaman at kusang-loob, hinatulan ng Korte si Bautista ng pagkakakulong ng hanggang 16 na taon at pinagmulta ng PHP 300,000.

Basahin ang press release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=161226.

Basahin ang Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=161221.

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

25/02/2026

The (SC) has reiterated that search made after a lawful arrest extends to the surroundings within the immediate control of the accused and evidence obtained during such search is admissible even if they are not within the “plain view” of the arresting officers.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, the SC’s First Division upheld the conviction of Jeryl Bautista for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Republic Act No. 9165, or the 𝘊𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘩𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘋𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘋𝘳𝘶𝘨𝘴 𝘈𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 2002, as amended.

During a buy-bust operation, a police officer posed as a buyer and received from Bautista 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘣𝘶 in exchange for PHP 500. After the officer made a pre-arranged signal, the rest of the arresting team rushed to the place of the transaction.

Bautista was arrested and a representative from the Department of Justice, and two barangay kagawads arrived shortly after.

Subsequently, the officer searched Bautista and found three more sachets of suspected 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘣𝘶 hidden inside a cellphone charger. The officer also found a cellphone, screwdriver, weighing scale, and marked money. The police then marked the four sachets, prepared an inventory of the seized items, and took photographs.

Bautista argued that the additional sachets should not be admitted as evidence because they were not within the plain view of the police officers when seized during his arrest.

The Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals both convicted Bautista of illegal possession of 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘣𝘶.

The SC upheld Bautista’s conviction and rejected his argument. It explained that the plain view doctrine is not the only justification for a warrantless search, as the search could be done to a person who has just been lawfully arrested.

Searches and seizures generally require a warrant. If police perform a search or seize property without a valid warrant, any evidence obtained cannot be used in court and is considered inadmissible. However, there are recognized exceptions to this rule.

One of these is the plain view doctrine, which allows police officers to seize evidence in plain sight when: (1) the officer has a lawful reason to be in the place where the item is seen, (2) the discovery of the item is unplanned or incidental, and (3) it is immediately obvious that the item is connected to a crime or is illegal.

Another recognized exception is a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest. To be valid, it must meet these conditions: (1) the accused is lawfully arrested, (2) the arresting officers subsequently made a warrantless search, (3) the search is limited to the person of the accused and the area within the accused’s immediate control, and (4) the search is performed at the place of the arrest.

In this case, Bautista was arrested during a buy-bust operation. He was frisked as part of the arrest. While the sachets hidden inside his cellphone charger were not in the officers’ plain view, the SC held that the warrantless search remained valid because it was done as part of a lawful arrest and the search extended to those that are within the immediate control of the accused at the time of the arrest.

To convict a person of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must prove that the accused had the drug, that the possession was not authorized by law, and that it was done knowingly and freely.

The SC found that all these elements were present. The search revealed three additional sachets of 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘣𝘶 hidden inside a cellphone charger. Bautista could not explain why he had the drugs nor show any authority allowing him to possess them. His act of hiding the sachets inside the charger also showed his intent to keep them.

Bautista was sentenced to a maximum of 16 years in prison and ordered to pay a fine of PHP 300,000.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=161226

Read the full text of the Decision https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=161221

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

25/02/2026

On March 3, 2026, the (SC), led by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, will formally launch Phase 1 of the 𝘜𝘯𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘓𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭 𝘈𝘪𝘥 𝘚𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘦 (𝘜𝘓𝘈𝘚) 𝘗𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘭, a centralized digital platform that will streamline how lawyers report and monitor compliance with the mandatory delivery of 𝘱𝘳𝘰 𝘣𝘰𝘯𝘰 legal aid services to underprivileged and indigent Filipinos.

The launch will be held at the SC 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 Session Hall at 1 PM.

In the same event, the ULAS Office (ULASO) will also hold an Inter-agency Partnership Ceremony and sign a Memorandum of Understanding with the National Anti-Poverty Commission, Commission on Human Rights, National Commission on Indigenous Peoples, and the Presidential Commission for the Urban Poor. These agencies will coordinate with ULASO in identifying and referring individuals who may be qualified beneficiaries of free legal services.

The Launch will be livestreamed on the SC’s official social media accounts. Lawyers are encouraged to join online, as the program will feature instructional videos on how to navigate the Portal, along with insights and best practices from lawyers on how to comply effectively with the ULAS requirement.

The public is also invited to view the livestreamed Launch to learn how qualified beneficiaries can access the free legal services available through ULAS.

Under the 𝘜𝘓𝘈𝘚 𝘙𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴, covered lawyers must render at least 60 hours of legal aid services every three years to individuals who cannot afford adequate legal representation.

For more information on ULAS, visit the ULAS Microsite at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/ulas/.

Read more at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=161202

10/02/2026

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/.

04/02/2026

The Supreme Court (SC) 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 has approved the 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘎𝘶𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘝𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘰𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘯𝘨, further strengthening the rules on virtual court hearings and remote appearances of parties and witnesses.

In a Resolution dated November 4, 2025, in A.M. No. 24-11-02-SC, the SC introduced key reforms to expand access to videoconferencing, particularly for digitally disadvantaged individuals, and to enable wider participation by individuals abroad.

The 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘎𝘶𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴 apply to videoconferencing before first- and second-level courts, the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, and the Court of Tax Appeals. It covers all actions and proceedings at any stage, including mediation, consultation, deliberation, and the promulgation of decisions and resolutions, when conducted through videoconference.

Courts are now directed to ensure access to videoconferencing for individuals who are digitally disadvantaged, including those in geographically or geopolitically marginalized areas. This may include deploying court personnel to provide temporary or mobile internet access.

Courts may also establish designated “access points” within judicial regions where litigants, witnesses, and other participants can use computers and videoconferencing equipment under court supervision.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160150.

Read the full text of the 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘎𝘶𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘝𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘰𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘯𝘨 at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/A.M-No.-24-11-02-SC_FINAL.pdf.

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

28/01/2026

The 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤, during its session today, January 28, 2026, denied the petition filed by the Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, which questioned the removal of an annotation on respondent Antonio V. Mitra’s (Mitra) land title.

Mitra owns a parcel of land in Quezon City. After his transfer certificate of title (TCT) was presumed lost or destroyed, he applied for administrative reconstitution.

Following Republic Act (R.A.) No. 26, the law that governs the reconstitution of lost or destroyed titles, the reconstituted title contained an annotation stating that it was without prejudice to any party whose right or interest in the property was duly noted on the original copy at the time it was lost or destroyed.

Twenty-seven years later, Mitra asked the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to cancel the annotation, pointing out that no one had claimed any interest in the property during that period. The RTC granted the request and ordered the removal of the annotation. The Court of Appeals upheld the RTC, ruling that the publication and posting requirement no longer applied because of the long lapse of time since the title was reconstituted.

Agreeing with the Court of Appeals, the SC explained that under R.A. No. 26, posting and publication are required only if the petition to cancel the mandatory annotation is filed within two years from the date of administrative reconstitution, and no petition to annotate an omitted interest has been filed during that period.

Read the full text of the Press Briefer at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=159902.

The full text of the Decision in G.R. No. 264862, Republic of the Philippines v. Antonio V. Mitra, shall be uploaded to the Supreme Court website once available.

27/01/2026

It is a privilege. ⚖️

Stop saying a notarial stamp is “just a stamp.” People sacrifice time, sleepless nights, and so much more to earn the right to use it. If you think it’s easy, go ahead—stamp and sign it yourself.

📸 Atty. Phil Juris