Agustin and Partners Law Firm

19/05/2026

The has ruled that non-verbal threatening gestures with criminal intent may be considered grave threats under the 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘗𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 (𝘙𝘗𝘊).

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, the SC’s Third Division acquitted Gregory Israel of grave threats after finding no criminal intent in his gesture of pretending to shoot and behead two individuals.

But it clarified that the crime of grave threats may be committed through non-verbal gestures and not only through spoken or written words.

Israel, who claimed to be a Belgian architect allowed to practice his profession in the Philippines, was hired by Belgian business partners Christine Helena Amanda Navez and Olivier Edmund Denonville for the construction of their building. After Israel refused to correct the construction defects in the said building, Navez and Denonville filed a case for damages against him.

Sometime in 2017, while Navez and Denonville were on their way home from the airport, they nearly collided with Israel’s motorcycle. The latter then allegedly made two overt gestures: pointing his fingers at Navez’s head as if pulling a gun trigger and drawing his fingers across his neck as if threatening to behead Navez.

Israel was convicted of grave threats. When his conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, he sought relief from the SC, arguing that he had no criminal intent when he performed the acts, and that Article 282 of the 𝘙𝘗𝘊 does not cover pure non-verbal gestures.

The SC acquitted Israel after finding that criminal intent was not proven. But it disagreed with his other argument, ruling that non-verbal gestures may be considered grave threats.

To convict for grave threats, the 𝘙𝘗𝘊 requires two elements: the 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗿 𝘂𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝘀 and the 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗶𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗲.

The SC held that Article 282 of the 𝘙𝘗𝘊 does not differentiate between threats conveyed verbally and those expressed through non-verbal gestures. What matters is the communication of a threat intended to intimidate.

Although the second paragraph of the provision specifies that threats can be conveyed orally or in writing, it does not exclude threats conveyed through non-verbal means. Therefore, threats can be either verbal or non-verbal.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=166072.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=164941.

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

19/05/2026

The has clarified that the rules on modifying circumstances—factors that can lessen or increase penalties—apply in cases of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide involving a motor vehicle.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr., the SC En Banc upheld Noli Z. Ilon’s (Ilon) conviction for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, but reduced his sentence because he voluntarily surrendered to the police.

Under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), reckless imprudence is acting without intent to harm but still causing injury or death to another due to a clear lack of precaution. The SC emphasized that motorists are expected to drive at a reasonable speed suited to road and weather conditions, especially near intersections. In this case, Ilon admitted that he failed to slow down despite knowing he was approaching an intersection. He even increased his speed, leading him to hit the trisikad that caused Lee de la Cruz’s death.

The SC clarified that Ilon’s voluntary surrender should be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance that reduces his penalty. It explained that while Article 365 of the RPC generally allows trial courts to impose penalties without applying the rules on mitigating and aggravating circumstances under Article 64 of the RPC, this does not apply when reckless imprudence results in death involving a motor vehicle. In such cases, Article 64 must be followed.

The SC reviewed the amendments to Article 365—from Act No. 3992, or the Revised Motor Vehicle Law, passed in 1932, through Batas Pambansa Blg. 398 passed in 1983—and found that Congress consistently retained the clause excluding cases where death results from reckless imprudence involving motor vehicles from the usual discretion given to trial courts. This means that courts must apply Article 64 to determine the proper penalty.

The SC observed, however, an inconsistency: reckless imprudence resulting in homicide with the use of a motor vehicle may be mitigated, while those resulting in serious bodily injury or damage to property are left to the discretion of the trial courts. Finding this distinction unjust, the SC directed that copies of its Decision be furnished to the President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives, to alert its co-equal branches of this inconsistency and for possible legislative action.

Ilon was sentenced to up to two years and four months in prison and ordered to pay the heirs of de la Cruz PHP 629,883.45 in damages.

In his Concurring Opinion, Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen noted that piecemeal amendments to the RPC have led to inconsistencies in criminal law. He called for the consolidation of all criminal provisions into a single, unified code to ensure fairness, clarity, and the orderly administration of justice.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=166162

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/260538-noli-z-ilon-vs-people-of-the-philippines/

Read the full text of the Concurring Opinion at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/260538-concurring-opinion-senior-associate-justice-marvic-m-v-f-leonen/

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

19/05/2026

The has ruled that the unilateral imposition of reduced workdays and worker rotation scheme amounts to constructive dismissal.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, the SC En Banc found Fiber Textile Manufacturing Corp. (FMC) liable for constructively dismissing seven production workers after reducing their six-day workweek to only two to three days and implementing a work rotation plan without their consent, despite FMC’s claim that the workers agreed to the temporary scheme during a meeting on the shortage of raw materials.

The workers filed a complaint for constructive dismissal, claiming that they were effectively dismissed when they were told not to return to work.

The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the workers, but the National Labor Relations Commission and the Court of Appeals upheld FMC’s actions as a valid exercise of management prerogative.

The SC disagreed. It emphasized that while employers may adopt flexible work arrangements during economic difficulties or national emergencies, these arrangements must comply with the requirements set out in Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Department Advisory No. 2, Series of 2009.

The SC explained that employers must first consult affected employees and obtain the voluntary support of the majority of workers. Employers must also notify the DOLE before implementing the arrangement and prove that the company is suffering from actual or reasonably imminent economic difficulties.

In this case, the SC held that FMC failed to prove that the workers voluntarily agreed to the reduced workdays and worker rotation scheme. The Court ruled that informing employees of the arrangement does not equate to securing their consent.

FMC also failed to notify the DOLE before implementation and failed to prove that it was suffering from actual or imminent economic difficulties that would justify the reduction of workdays.

The SC emphasized that while employers may adopt flexible work arrangements to prevent business losses, such measures must be exercised in good faith and with due regard to the rights of workers.

FMC’s unlawful reduction of workdays amounted to constructive dismissal because it resulted in diminished salaries, making continued employment unreasonable for the workers.

In his Concurring Opinion, Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen stressed that the requirement of mutual consent in flexible work arrangements originates from the consensual nature of employment contracts, such that employers cannot unilaterally alter work schedules in a manner that diminishes employees’ pay.

In his Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa agreed that FMC remained liable for constructive dismissal for failing to prove that the workers voluntarily agreed to the reduced workdays and work rotation plan. However, he emphasized that FMC had no raw materials to work with for several months, significantly affecting production operations. Thus, he stated that FMC faced a reasonably imminent economic difficulty that could justify the temporary adoption of flexible work arrangements.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=166287

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=166264

Read the full text of the Concurring Opinion at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=166269

Read the full text of the Concurring and Dissenting Opinion at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=166274

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

28/04/2026

The (SC) has ruled that ISCO Holding Corporation (ISCO) cannot register its “𝐍𝐈𝐊𝐎𝐍 & 𝐃𝐄𝐒𝐈𝐆𝐍” mark as it constitutes Nikon Corporation’s trade name and is confusingly similar to the well-known “𝐍𝐈𝐊𝐎𝐍” trademark of the said corporation.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the SC’s Third Division denied ISCO’s petition and affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA), which rejected ISCO’s trademark application.

ISCO filed an application for a trademark for its home and household goods containing the design of an anchor enclosed in a circle with the word “𝐍𝐈𝐊𝐎𝐍”.

Nikon Corp., a foreign corporation and prior registrant and user of the “𝐍𝐈𝐊𝐎𝐍” mark in the Philippines, opposed the application, arguing that ISCO’s mark is confusingly similar to its own mark.

The Intellectual Property Office–Bureau of Legal Affairs (IPO‑BLA) agreed with Nikon Corp. and denied ISCO’s application. Although the IPO Office of the Director General later reversed this ruling, the CA reinstated the IPO-BLA’s decision, prompting ISCO to elevate the case to the SC.

ISCO claimed that its goods are unrelated to Nikon Corp.’s and that differences, such as the image of an anchor enclosed in a circle and the color scheme, prevent consumer confusion.

The SC upheld the CA’s ruling and held that ISCO’s mark cannot be registered. It explained that trademarks are used to identify and distinguish goods or services. Under Section 147 of the 𝘐𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦, one of the rights of a trademark owner is to exclude others from using their trademark in a way that would confuse consumers and cause financial harm to the owner.

If a well‑known trademark is registered in the Philippines, no other party may register an identical or confusingly similar mark—even if the goods are different.

In this case, the SC found that Nikon Corp.’s trademark is well‑known. The NIKON mark has long been used, promoted, and registered worldwide, including in the Philippines, with the company enjoying significant global sales and market presence.

The SC also found NIKON to be a highly distinctive trademark. It is a coined or invented word with no ordinary meaning in English or Filipino and is not commonly used in the Philippines except as a trademark.

Analyzing the two marks, the SC found that ISCO’s trademark is confusingly similar to NIKON’s. It applied the 𝐃𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐲 𝐓𝐞𝐬𝐭, which focuses on the most noticeable and memorable part of the marks. Minor differences in design, color, or layout are disregarded.

Both ISCO’s and Nikon Corp.’s marks prominently use the word “𝐍𝐈𝐊𝐎𝐍.” This word is the dominant feature of both marks. They are spelled the same, appear in bold capital letters, and sound exactly the same when pronounced. Because of this, the SC ruled that the two marks create the same visual and auditory impression.

The SC explained that if ISCO were allowed to use its NIKON mark, consumers would likely assume a connection with Nikon Corp. Given its reputation for cameras, the public might believe that ISCO’s household appliances are made, approved, or endorsed by Nikon Corp., or that it has expanded into household products.

The SC also warned that ISCO’s use of the NIKON mark would damage Nikon Corp.’s interests because it would weaken its mark’s ability to uniquely identify a single source of goods. The law protects famous trademarks from such uses to prevent the blurring of their distinctiveness and to preserve their value and reputation.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=164274

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=164266

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy

28/04/2026

The (SC) has acquitted a mother of parricide over her daughter’s death, exempting her from criminal liability after finding that she has schizophrenia and her mental state deprived her of the capacity to recognize the wrongfulness of her act.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC’s Third Division granted a mother’s appeal and overturned her parricide conviction on the ground of legal insanity due to schizophrenia, an exempting circumstance under the 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘗𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦.

The mother was charged with parricide for the killing of her five-year old daughter after she was seen embracing the child and simultaneously jumping off a bridge into a river with her, which led to her daughter’s death. While a man aboard a styrofoam banca was able to save the mother, he was unable to locate the child. The daughter’s lifeless body was found in the river the next day.

The mother claimed she was not in her right mind at the time. She could only remember walking with her daughter and had no memory of the incident itself. She said she only regained consciousness while floating in the water.

A licensed physician from the National Center for Mental Health (NCMH) testified that the mother was diagnosed with schizophrenia.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) brushed aside the claim of insanity as she entered into a plea of “not guilty” and raised insanity as a defense only after the prosecution rested its case. The RTC convicted the mother and sentenced her to reclusion perpetua after finding that she was sane at the time of the incident.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s decision.

The SC disagreed. It ruled that the mother was not criminally liable because her mental condition during the incident prevented her from understanding the nature and wrongfulness of her actions.

Insanity is defined as a disease or defect of the brain manifested in language or conduct. Under Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code, it is one of the circumstances that exempts a person from criminal liability.

In 𝙋𝙚𝙤𝙥𝙡𝙚 𝙫. 𝙋𝙖ñ𝙖, the SC laid down a three-way test to establish insanity as an exempting circumstance:

• 𝙛𝙞𝙧𝙨𝙩, the insanity must be present at the time of the commission of the crime;
• 𝙨𝙚𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙙, it must be medically proven; and
• 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙧𝙙, it must render the accused incapable of appreciating the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of the act.

Insanity must be proven with clear and convincing evidence. Because it involves a person’s state of mind, courts look at overt acts or outward behavior. As a rule, insanity must be supported by medical evidence, unless there are extraordinary circumstances where such evidence is not available. While people who know the accused may testify about their observations, courts give greater weight to the findings and evaluations of qualified medical experts.

In this case, the SC determined that the mother was able to medically prove that she was suffering from schizophrenia at the time of the crime based on the testimony and mental status examination reports from psychiatrists.

The SC further explained that schizophrenia is a chronic mental disorder characterized by the inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality. Often accompanied by hallucinations and delusions, the medical condition deprives a person of discernment, satisfying the third requisite in the 𝘗𝘢ñ𝘢 𝘥𝘰𝘤𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘦.

Here, the psychiatrist testified that the mother was mentally disturbed at the time of the incident, showing signs of paranoia and perceiving threats, gossip, and envy directed at her.

While the SC exempted the mother from criminal liability, it still held her civilly liable and ordered her to pay the victim’s heirs PHP 75,000 in civil indemnity and PHP 200,000 in moral, exemplary, and temperate damages.

The SC also ordered the mother’s immediate transfer from the Correctional Institution for Women to the NCMH for her treatment. She will be released only upon the order of the RTC based on a recommendation from her attending physician at the hospital.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=164320

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=164308

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy.

28/04/2026

Staying Humble in Law School

Pursuing further studies in law is an achievement in itself. The decision on whether or not to study yet again and try your chances in law school is a commendable feat. Accordingly, it can in fact be considered as a badge of bravery and courage. For most, law school is and will always be viewed as a hurdle not easily surpassed. For most, law school is only for the selected few.

Our society views those engaged in the legal profession as well as those studying to be one as members of the community who have a different status. Lawyers are accorded with high respect because of their brilliance. They are viewed as pillars of society who serve as keys in fully attaining justice in whatever form it may be.

After years of perseverance in law school, months of preparation for the Bar, and an immeasurable amount of pressure along the way, law students also earned the right to be recognized as important members of society.

However, this particular societal affirmation sometimes goes to the head of some law students. This particular sign of respect makes some law students feel they are so important that they forget their respective purpose. This leads to some law students thinking of themselves as above all others because they have the knowledge of the law in the palm of their hands. Because of such, some law students lose sight of who they are and what they are supposed to do.

Some people say that law school changes a person. Some people believe that law school boosts the confidence of people to the extent that they forget their roots and that they are still students of the law amidst having some ample knowledge in legal proceedings. Some people believe that law school consumes its students so much that the latter could only talk about how his or her schooling went for the day or for the week. Some people see law students as changed persons if and when they step into the sacred halls of their respective law schools.

However, some people view the same differently. For them, law school does not change a person but merely shows a student’s true colors. For some, law school is but a way to finally expose who a person really is from within and who a person is if and when the odds are against him.

Either way, it can be said that law school is and will always be about the students. Take a trip down memory lane and recall how your friends or colleagues were before they entered law school. Indeed, law school has changed them. But because of the circumstances and experiences that in fact happen in law school, who would not change in the first place, right?

Never-ending reading assignments could in fact exhaust a law student. To add fuel to the fire, they are required not only to read these but to understand and memorize the same as well. And these experiences, if and when surpassed, not only serve as a benchmark for success for law students. These serve as confidence boosters as well.

Imagine spending several hours just to finish the coverage for one subject and eventually performing well in the recitation or exam the day after. Imagine sacrificing time to be spent supposedly for your family or friends in order to prepare for an examination which would then lead to a great score for the same. Imagine having to sacrifice a date or two with your loved ones so that you could finish a legal paper due for the next day which would then eventually be graded as one of the highest for the class.

Indeed, law school is about sacrifices, and more often than not, these sacrifices lead to success. Such success is a fruit or product of hard work and perseverance. Such success is a testament that you too can be successful if and when you put the right amount of dedication into the same. While it is indeed a positive thing to experience, some law students use this success in the wrong way.

While success is a thing to be proud of, some law students however see this as a license to belittle others. At times, such success reaches the heads of some law students and affects their interaction with other people. You could see some law students bragging about getting a high mark in their respective subjects. You could see some law students dismissing other arguments because he or she believes that it is only his or her opinion that matters. You could see some law students looking down on some other professions just because they know the law. You could see some law students prying on the naïve and gullible minds making them believe that indeed, they are the only ones you should listen to. You could see some law students promoting their respective names as if they have already done something which contributes greatly to his or her community.

These law students are those who we call arrogant and full of pride. These law students are those who think that because they have a degree in law or are already on their way to achieve such feat, they have the license to talk to other people with conviction and with bias. They believe that because they are successful law students, people should accord them with more respect and higher regard.

These are the law students who do not have the capability to differentiate between pride and arrogance. These are the same law students who think that they are the people who should be looked up to simply because they are future members of the legal profession. These are the law students who need to be taught a lesson.

We must always be reminded that the practice and the study of law is and will always be about attaining justice. It is an instrument to achieve justice. It is a reflection of how integrity and honor must be projected. It must be a tool meant to help those who have less in life. It is a catalyst of change—change for the greater good.

Law students must remember that law school is not meant for creating clout which would eventually grow and listen to one-sided discussions.

Law school is a place where students must learn how to observe proper decorum. It is indeed a haven for brilliant people. However, law school does not only look at the brilliance of its students. It also looks at the moral compass they have from within.

It is the duty of law schools to teach law students the essence and knowledge of the law as well as the values of their respective institutions. It is, however, the duty of law students to uphold such values and to remain grounded whenever the opportunity presents itself. Law students must remember that humility is key. Law students must remember to keep their feet on the ground even if they have been reaching the stars as of late.

To all the law students who may be reading this, may you all be reminded that we are studying law not for ourselves but for others. May we all be reminded that the study of law is a privilege which only a few could afford. We must make the best out of this experience and use our knowledge to help other people and not build a narcissistic image of ourselves to the public. Law school is meant to uplift people, not belittle them. Law school is about honor and integrity. Law school is about humility.

Never forget your purpose on why you are doing this in the first place. Remember that it is okay to dream high. It is okay to continue being great. But you must remember that in the process, you must still be humble. Along the way, you must look back on your moral roots. In the end, what will matter most is how you are remembered not as a great lawyer but as a great person who helped people by using the law in the right way.

05/01/2026

27/12/2025

The has affirmed the murder conviction of three police officers for the killing of 17-year-old Kian delos Santos during an anti-drug operation in Caloocan City in 2017.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, the SC's Second Division found police officers Arnel Oares (Oares), Jeremias Pereda (Pereda), and Jerwin Cruz (Cruz) guilty of murder. They were sentenced to 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘱𝘦𝘵𝘶𝘢, or up to 40 years in prison, and ordered to pay Kian's family PHP 275,000 in damages.

The SC, however, changed the penalty imposed by the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals by removing the phrase "without eligibility for parole." This applies only when there are circumstances that justify the death penalty, which were not present in this case.

On the evening of August 16, 2017, witnesses saw the officers stop and frisk Kian in Baesa, Caloocan City. After allegedly finding suspected drugs, the officers punched him as he cried and begged to be allowed to go home because he had an exam the next day.

The officers then forced Kian to hold a towel covering what appeared to be a gun and made him stand with his shirt raised to cover his head. Witnesses heard one officer ask whether they should take Kian to the police station, to which the others replied, "𝘪𝘣𝘢𝘣𝘢 𝘯𝘢 𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘨 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯 𝘪𝘵𝘰."

The officers dragged Kian toward a dark area near a river. Moments later, Kian was shot multiple times by Oares and Pereda, while Cruz stood guard.

The trial court and the Court of Appeals convicted the officers of murder and imposed the penalty of 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘱𝘦𝘵𝘶𝘢 without eligibility for parole.

The SC affirmed the conviction, ruling that all the elements of murder as defined under Article 248 of the 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘗𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 were present.

In this case, Oares admitted to shooting Kian. Witnesses and forensic evidence confirmed that the officers were responsible for the killing. An examination of Kian's body showed five gunshot wounds, two of which were to the head.

The SC held that the killing involved treachery. A medico-legal officer testified that Kian was likely sitting or kneeling when he was shot, based on the gunshot wounds. The bullets entered from the side and back of his head, showing that he likely did not see his attackers and was unable to defend himself.

The SC also found that the officers deliberately took Kian to a secluded location and placed him in a helpless position, enabling them to kill him with impunity and ensuring the ex*****on of the crime.

Dismissing Oares’ claim that he was merely performing his duties, the SC stressed that "the killing of a minor could not be considered standard in this operation” and that the “performance of duties does not include murder.”

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=158265.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=158245.

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

27/12/2025

The 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 has ordered the dismissal and disbarment of Judge Oscar D. Tomarong, Presiding Judge of Branch 28, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Liloy, Zamboanga del Norte, for the 2019 murder of a fellow judge.

The SC issued the ruling following disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Judicial Integrity Board (JIB). These proceedings stemmed from Judge Tomarong’s criminal conviction for planning the killing of Judge Reymar L. Lacaya, then Presiding Judge of Branch 11, RTC, Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte.

In 2019, the SC reassigned the two judges to each other’s court branches. Shortly after Judge Lacaya finished court hearings in Branch 28 one afternoon, gunshots were heard as he walked to his car parked behind the court building. He was later found dead beside his vehicle.

During the criminal trial, Juliber Cabating (Cabating), a public works employee who also served as Judge Tomarong’s errand aide, testified that Judge Tomarong instructed him to look for hired killers to murder Judge Lacaya. Cabating said Judge Tomarong paid the killers PHP 250,000 through him.

The SC dismissed Judge Tomarong from office, ordered the forfeiture of his retirement benefits, disbarred him from practicing law, and disqualified him from reemployment in the government.

The SC reiterated that murder is a crime involving moral turpitude, a serious offense that warrants dismissal under the 𝘙𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵. “Moral turpitude” refers to acts that are grossly immoral, dishonest, and go against one’s duty to society.

The SC described Judge Tomarong’s actions as among the gravest violations of judicial duty, stating that “At a time when the rise in the attacks against judges has even necessitated the adoption of measures to protect judges, a judge committing the murder of a fellow judge must be punished swiftly and severely.”

Although Judge Tomarong’s criminal conviction is still on appeal, the SC ruled that a final conviction is not required to impose administrative penalties, given that in disciplinary cases, the SC requires only substantial evidence to prove the judge committed a crime.

The SC also ruled that Judge Tomarong is unfit to practice law, emphasizing that the 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘙𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘈𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, or immoral conduct. It stressed that a lawyer who shows “utter disregard for the sanctity of human life” cannot remain a member of the legal profession.

Finally, the SC reminded all courts of their obligation to promptly report any convictions of judges and court personnel to the JIB, now known as the Judicial Integrity Office, in line with the 𝘙𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=158390.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=158384.

Copying of this content is subject to the Supreme Court Public Information Office’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.