Avila & Garcia Law Office

12/11/2021

UPDATE: Starting Dec. 1, government will require COVID-19 vaccination of eligible employees doing on-site work in public, private sector in areas where there are sufficient supplies of vaccines, Malacañang says.

Employees who remain unvaccinated may not be terminated but they shall be required to undergo regular RT-PCR testing, or antigen tests, at their own expense, Malacañang adds.

Public and private establishments can validly refuse entry and/or deny service to individuals who remain to be unvaccinated, or are merely partially vaccinated, Pres'l spox Harry Roque says.

But frontline and emergency services, shall continue to render assistance to all persons, regardless of vaccination status, he adds. | via Daphne Galvez/INQUIRER.net

12/10/2021

: ### v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 241390 • 13 January 2021 [Date Uploaded: 07 October 2021]
Third Division • Delos Santos, J.
Full text can be accessed here: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/21465/

***
SC Affirms Conviction of Psychologically Abusive Husband

The Supreme Court has affirmed the conviction for violation of RA 9262, or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004, of a man who had evicted his wife and their children from their house and cohabitated with his mistress.

The Court upheld the Decision of the Court of Appeals, (CA) which in turn affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iba, Zambales, Branch 71, finding petitioner guilty of Section 5(i) of RA 9262.

The Court, however, imposed a higher penalty on the petitioner. It sentenced him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of six months and one day of prison correccional as minimum, to eight years and one day of prison mayor as maximum. He was also ordered to pay a P100,000 fine.

Furthermore, it directed the petitioner to undergo mandatory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment and to report his compliance therewith to the court of origin within 15 days after the completion of such counseling or treatment.

The Court ruled that the CA committed no reversible error in affirming the conviction of petitioner. It held that psychological violence under RA 9262 was duly established.

The petitioner’s wife claimed that in their 23 years of marriage, the petitioner had a habit of getting drunk and womanizing. In October 2010, she and the petitioner had a fight and evicted her and their children. The eldest of the children convinced his three sisters to return to the house to compel the petitioner to support them, leaving the fifth sibling with their mother. The three, through text messages, reported to their mother that petitioner was always drunk and brought home one night a woman, whom the petitioner introduced to them as their aunt. Petitioner’s wife later learned that the woman was already living with petitioner and their children.

The Court ruled that “a judicious study of the case reveals that all the elements of the crime charged were duly established.”

The elements of violation of Section 5(i) of RA 9262 are: 1) the offended party is a woman and/or her child or children; 2) the woman is either the wife or former wife of the offender, or is a woman with whom the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or is a woman with whom such offender has a common child. As for the woman’s child or children, they may be legitimate or illegitimate, or living within or without the family abode; 3) the offender causes on the woman and/or child mental or emotional anguish; and 4) the anguish is caused through acts of public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, denial of financial support or custody of minor children or access to the children or similar such acts or omissions.

The Court held that the first and second elements of the offense were uncontested. The offended party is a woman and her child or children. The victim is the wife of petitioner with whom he has five children. One of their children testified in court about the infidelity of her father and how his mistress lived with them in her parents’ conjugal home.

As to the third and fourth elements, it was duly established that petitioner committed psychological violence through marital infidelity and public ridicule or humiliation, which caused mental anguish and emotional suffering upon his wife.

The Court dismissed the defense of denial and alibi of the petitioner who had also contended that the RTC and CA Decisions were based on hearsay evidence. He said that his wife could not have suffered psychological violence since she did not have personal knowledge of his alleged marital infidelity and that she only came to know of such through their daughter.

The Court, however said that while hearsay is considered inadmissible evidence under Section 36, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, “the rule does not apply to independently relevant statements.” It stressed that while the legitimate wife indeed did not have personal knowledge of petitioner’s infidelity, her statement “may be considered an independently relevant statement.” It added that her statements were duly corroborated by other evidence that are not hearsay.

“It is fundamental that the defense of denial is inherently weak and cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimony of the prosecution witnesses. In this case, other than bare denials, herein petitioner did not proffer any convincing defense to disprove the testimony of his wife and his daughter about his marital infidelity. As such, there is no cogent reason to set aside the findings of the RTC, as concurred in by the CA, that indeed, petitioner committed marital infidelity against his wife,” the Court said.

The RTC imposed an indeterminate penalty of four years, two months and one day of prison correccional as minimum to eight years and one day of prison mayor as maximum.

On appeal, the CA affirmed RTC ruling. The CA concurred with RTC that all the elements of the offense charged were duly established by the prosecution and that there is no doubt that petitioner inflicted psychological violence upon his wife when he evicted her and their children from their conjugal home and when he maintained an extramarital affair with a woman in their conjugal home where they lived as a couple.

Text by the Supreme Court PIO

18/08/2021

On taxes for bloggers and influencer

04/08/2021

https://www.bir.gov.ph/images/bir_files/internal_communications_1/Advisory/2021%20posts/RR%20No.%2016-2021.pdf?fbclid=IwAR38CEx6aQLHMnN1kRwJbUppo9lZVaeKnSXbGtmak4d87DBxN8HHz-km_yw

20/07/2021

Makadawat ug 200% ang mga mo trabaho karong adlawa.

READ: Labor Advisory No. 13, Series of 2021 on the "Payment of Wages for the Regular Holiday on 20 July 2021 in observance of Eid'l Adha."

26/05/2021

UPDATE: The SEC Online Submission Tool (OST) is back up and running. We apologize for the inconvenience and thank you for your patience.

14/05/2021

Inquire or validate your TIN without going physically to the BIR office, use the Bureau’s Mobile TIN Verifier App! This application is a service channel for taxpayers to send online TIN validation and TIN inquiry using their mobile phones with real-time response from the concerned BIR office. See how easy it is to use, follow the steps below.

12/05/2021

12/04/2021

Holiday, celebrate!

President Rodrigo Duterte declares April 14, 2021, a Special Non-Working Holiday in Cebu City.

See the schedule of activities for the celebrations in Cebu City here: http://snstr.co/ctG

26/02/2021

02/02/2021

JUST A FEW CLARIFICATIONS ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CHILD RESTRAINT SEATS (CRS) IN VEHICLES

-The Child Safety in Motor Vehicle Act or RA 11229 is a LEGISLATED and APPROVED LAW that passed through Congress and signed by President Duterte in February 22, 2019, while the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) was approved last December 23, 2019 and took effect on February 2020.

-This is not just a policy or rule implemented by the DOTr nor LTO on its own volition.

-RA 11229 specifically determines the age and height of the child to be covered, as well as the standard of child restraint and penalties to be imposed on violators.

-Since it is a new measure, a transitory period of one year was provided before the mandatory compliance as stated in the IRR. Hence, its effectivity today is BY OPERATION OF LAW.

-The drafting of the IRR underwent a series of public consultations with parents, guardians, among others. The IRR itself was a product of a multi-stakeholder collaboration - various NGOs, CSOs and private sectors were involved in the formulation of this policy.

-Its primary intention, as a matter of state policy, is to uphold the safety of children while aboard motor vehicles.

-A World Health Organization (WHO) study on seat belts and child restraints states that the correct installation and usage of car seats can reduce the risk of death for infants by 70 percent, and 47 to 54 percent for children aged 1 to 4 years old in a road crash incident.

-As stated in RA 11229, the DOTr and LTO will ensure that the provisions on the safety and welfare of infants and children and prevent traffic-related deaths and injuries, including adequately, consistently, and objectively require, regulate, promote, and inform the public on the use of child restraint systems in motor vehicles, and regulate the same access to safe, appropriate, quality and affordable child restraint systems, are in accordance with international standards accepted by the United Nations.

-However, in consideration of the current pandemic, and until a comprehensive information, education, and communications (IEC) campaign is executed in close coordination with NGOs, CSOs, and agencies such as PIA, DepEd and DOH, the DOTr and LTO favor the deferment of its full implementation in terms of enforcement.

-The LTO initially scheduled an Enforcement and Communications Planning Workshop on the Implementation of RA 11229 on March 19-20 last year. However, it was cancelled due to the pandemic and quarantine impositions.

-Part of the planned IEC campaign is the roll out of the information regarding the law, targeting teachers/school officials, children, medical practitioners and manufacturers/retailers/importers, among others. With the lockdown and limitations in the conduct of activities and travel, the initial plan to conduct a nationwide IEC did not push through.

-Currently, the LTO is in the process of finalizing enforcement protocols, considering that special training is needed due to the involvement of children.

-Last week, LTO emphasized, during an online press briefing, that violators will have no fines for now and will initially be warned and given information materials about the law. According to LTO, issuances of fines/ imposition of driver’s license demerit points may be done in three to six months.

-Both the DOTr and LTO are in agreement that a deferment of the full implementation/enforcement of this new rule is warranted, especially given our current economic situation amid this still raging pandemic.

-A press conference shall be held by the DOTr road sector later today, and the matter of focusing first on the IEC campaign in coordination with LTO, and other agencies identified in the IRR for a more effective and coordinated implementation shall be discussed.

Thank you.

🇵🇭️