Nalug Law Office

08/01/2026

Nalug Law Office prides our very own former legal staff who once helped established the flourishing good will and reputation of this Office. She was instrumental in setting the cases won and the legal forms. Truly indeed, she deserves to be part of the legal profession.

Congratulations ATTY. MAE SWEETHEART S. BORRES! Know fully well that we are genuinely and immensely proud of you. Even looking forward to work with us again at your own option.

(Credits to the photo owner)

22/12/2025

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 It maintained that this rule remains in force because it was not repealed by the Cybercrime Prevention Act.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/.

10/10/2025

The (SC) has upheld the conviction of former Quezon City District III Councilor Dante Manzano De Guzman for graft involving over PHP 6-million worth of ghost projects.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, the SC’s First Division affirmed the Sandiganbayan ruling that found De Guzman guilty of violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. (RA) 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

Between 2008 and 2009, De Guzman facilitated the procurement of tents, kiddie raincoats, rain boots, food supplies, and sports equipment for distribution to different barangays in his district.

Following a bidding process, suppliers were selected and paid after delivery of the items to De Guzman’s office.

The Office of the Ombudsman then conducted an investigation after receiving an anonymous complaint alleging the existence of ghost employees and ghost projects involving Quezon City councilors, including De Guzman.

The Ombudsman found that while the items were delivered and received by De Guzman’s staff, they were never distributed to the intended beneficiaries listed in the official distribution records. The Ombudsman further found that De Guzman made it appear that the goods were received by designated area coordinators, using what appeared to be falsified signatures.

De Guzman was charged with four counts of graft before the Sandiganbayan, which found him guilty of graft.

The SC affirmed De Guzman's conviction, sentencing him to a maximum of eight years in prison for each count of graft. It also ordered De Guzman to pay the Quezon City Government PHP 6,411,261.01 plus interest.

Graft under Section 3(e) of RA 3019 is committed when a public officer causes undue injury to any party, including the Government, or gives any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference, in the discharge of his official, administrative, or judicial functions, through manifest partiality, bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.

The SC ruled that De Guzman’s gross inexcusable negligence caused undue injury to the Quezon City Government. While he was not expected to personally distribute the items, he was responsible for ensuring they reached the intended recipients. However, the items were never distributed and could no longer be accounted for.

This led to a financial loss to the Quezon City Government of PHP 6,411,261.01—the total cost of the undelivered items.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=153174.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/.

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

17/11/2024

“Chicks mo dong?”

With this sadly familiar question being used on the streets of many of our cities, the fate of many desperate women is sealed and their futures vanquished. This case resulted in the rescue of two minors from this pernicious practice. Hopefully, there will be more rescues. Trafficking in persons is a deplorable crime. It is committed even though the minor knew about or consented to the act of trafficking.

People vs. Casio
G.R. No. 211465, December 3, 2014, Thru J. Leonen

03/10/2024

Fuertes vs. The Senate of Philippines (En Banc),
G.R. No. 208162, January 07, 2020, Thru J. Leonen

“Section 14 , paragraph 4 of the Anti-Hazing Law, which provides that an accused's presence during a hazing is prima facie evidence of his or her participation, does not violate the constitutional presumption of innocence. This disputable presumption is also not a bill of attainder.

….

Thus, those group members who do not actually perform the hazing ritual, but who by their presence incite or exacerbate the violence being committed, may be principals either by inducement or by indispensable cooperation.”

16/08/2024

15/08/2024

The Supreme Court has affirmed the dismissal of an Ombudsman official for fixing cases in exchange for money.

The Court found Rolando Zoleta from the Office of the Special Prosecutor administratively liable for grave misconduct, serious dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

Read more at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-affirms-dismissal-of-ombudsman-official-for-fixing-cases/

15/08/2024

The Supreme Court has disbarred a lawyer for having multiple extramarital affairs.

The Court found him guilty of grossly immoral conduct, in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA).

Under Canon VI, Section 33(f) of the CPRA, grossly immoral conduct, a serious offense, is an “act that is so corrupt or false as to constitute a criminal act.”

Read more at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-disbars-lawyer-for-extramarital-affairs/

08/07/2024

To sustain a conviction for Grave Threats (without a condition) under paragraph 2, Article 282 of The Revised Penal Code, the following elements must be present, viz.:

• actus reus
(1) the offender threatened another person with the infliction upon their person, honor or property, or upon that of the latter's family, of any wrong; (2) such wrong amounted to a crime; and (3) the threat was not subject to a condition.

• mens rea
The accused intended the utterance to intimidate the complainant or be taken seriously by the latter; whether the complainant was actually intimidated or took the threat seriously is not part of the mens rea.

(Garma vs. People, G.R. No. 248317, March 16, 2022)

03/05/2024

The Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that Republic Act No. 9262, or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 (Anti-VAWC Act), grants protection to women-victims not only from men, but also from women, with whom they are in an intimate relationship.

READ: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-reiterates-that-anti-vawc-act-also-applies-to-lesbian-relationships/

22/04/2024

“The Miranda doctrine requires that: (a) any person under custodial investigation has the right to remain silent; (b) anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law; (c) he has the right to talk to an attorney before being questioned and to have his counsel present when being questioned; and (d) if he cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided before any questioning if he so desires. The said rights are guaranteed to preclude the slightest use of coercion by the State as would lead the accused to admit something false, not to prevent him from freely and voluntarily telling the truth.
….
…any statement obtained in violation of the constitutional provision, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, in whole or in part, shall be inadmissible in evidence. Even if the confession contains a grain of truth, if it was made without the assistance of counsel, it becomes inadmissible in evidence, regardless of the absence of coercion or even if it had been voluntarily given.”

(People vs. Cabanada, G.R. No. 221424, July 19, 2017)