https://www.instagram.com/atty.zai

Atty. Zai, Cebu City (2026)

23/05/2026

Nabili mong BAHAY/CONDO maraming Sira!

23/05/2026

In 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐯. 𝐏𝐫𝐲𝐜𝐞, 𝐆.𝐑. 𝐍𝐨. 𝟐𝟒𝟑𝟏𝟑𝟑, 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡 𝟖, 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟑, SC ruled that interment services are covered by the 20% discount on funeral and burial expenses provided by the Senior Citizens Act and its amending laws.

On the scope of services covered by the subject 20% discount on funeral and burial services, the Court said that both RA 9257 and RA 9994, in amending RA 7432, do not provide for an exact definition of the term “funeral and burial services.” Notably, the said laws likewise do not limit the scope of the services falling under “funeral and burial services.”

The Court said that based on the definition of the term “burial” as it is commonly understood, “burial service” pertains to any service offered or provided in connection with the final disposition, entombment, or interment of human remains. It held that it follows that burial services necessarily include interment services, such as digging the land for the deceased person’s grave, its concreting, and other services being done during the actual burial.

This conclusion, said the Court, was supported by the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) which prescribe the guidelines in the application of the 20% discount on funeral and burial services in that a comparison of the IRRs of RA 9257 and RA 9994 shows that the two are substantially the same. The exception is that Section 6 of the IRR of RA 9994 expounded on the term “other related services” by including a sample list of “services” and excluding obituary publication and cost of memorial plot.

22/05/2026

Invalid ba ang KASAL pag Mali ang ENTRIES?

22/05/2026

In 𝐁𝐨𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐯. 𝐖𝐞𝐧𝐥𝐞, 𝐆.𝐑. 𝐍𝐨. 𝟐𝟒𝟐𝟗𝟓𝟕. 𝐅𝐞𝐛𝐫𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝟐𝟖, 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟑, the Court laid down guidelines for establishing the validity of administrative warrants:

1. The danger, harm, or evil sought to be prevented by the warrant must be imminent and must be greater than the damage or injury which will be sustained by the one who shall be temporarily deprived of a right to liberty or property;

2. The warrant’s resultant deprivation of a right or legitimate claim of entitlement must be temporary or provisional, aimed only at suppressing imminent danger, harm or evil, with such deprivation’s permanency strictly subjected to procedural due process requirements;

3. The issuing administrative authority must be empowered by law to perform specific implementing acts pursuant to regulatory purposes;

4. The issuing administrative authority must be necessarily authorized by law to pass upon and make final pronouncements on conflicting rights and obligations of contending parties, as well as to issue warrants or orders that are incidental to the performance of the executive or administrative duty entrusted to it;

5. The issuance of an administrative warrant must be based on tangible proof or probable cause and must state a specific purpose or infraction allegedly committed, with particular descriptions of the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized;

6. The warrant issued must not pertain to a criminal offense or pursued as a precursor for the filing of criminal charges and any object seized pursuant to such writ shall not be admissible in evidence in any criminal proceeding;

7. The person temporarily deprived of a right or entitlement by an administrative warrant shall be formally charged within a reasonable time, if no such period is provided, and shall not be denied access to a competent counsel of his or her choice. In cases where a person is deprived of liberty by virtue of an administrative warrant, the administrative body which issued said warrant shall immediately submit a verified notice to the RTC nearest to the detained for purposes of issuing a judicial commitment order; and

8. A violation of any item of these guidelines is a prima facie proof of usurpation of judicial functions, malfeasance, misfeasance, nonfeasance, or graft and corrupt practices on the part of responsible officers.

22/05/2026

Selfie muna bago umuwi….reset ang hearing. 😅

21/05/2026

⚖️ 𝐈𝐍𝐃𝐄𝐓𝐄𝐑𝐌𝐈𝐍𝐀𝐓𝐄 𝐒𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐄𝐍𝐂𝐄 𝐋𝐀𝐖 (𝐀𝐂𝐓 𝐍𝐎. 𝟒𝟏𝟎𝟑 𝐀𝐒 𝐀𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐃𝐄𝐃)

Ang Indeterminate Sentence Law o “ISLAW O ISL ” ay naglalayong bigyan ng pagkakataon ang akusado na magbago (rehabilitation); maiwasan ang sobrang haba ng pagkakakulong kung maaari namang ma-reform; at payagan ang parole bago matapos ang buong sentensya.

Layunin ng ISLAW ay rehabilitasyon at hindi parusa. Ito ay nakatuon sa pagbabago ng ugali ng isang preso o PDL (Person Deprived of Liberty); pagbabalik nya bilang productive member ng komunidad.

✅ 𝗦𝗮𝗸𝗹𝗮𝘄 𝗻𝗴 𝗜𝗦𝗟𝗔𝗪 𝗼 𝗜𝗦𝗟
Saklaw nito ang lahat ng taong nahatulan sa mga krimeng may parusang pagkakakulong na hihigit sa isang taon, maliban sa ilang mga kasong nakasaad sa ibaba. Saklaw din nito ang mga krimen sa ilalim ng Revised Penal Code at Special Penal Laws.

❌ 𝗛𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗶 𝗦𝗮𝗸𝗹𝗮𝘄 𝗻𝗴 𝗜𝗦𝗟𝗔𝗪 𝗼 𝗜𝗦𝗟:
Ang ISLAW o ISL ay hindi applicable sa sumusunod:
1. Mga taong nahatulan ng krimeng may parusang death penalty, life imprisonment, o reclusion perpetua;
2. Mga nahatulan ng treason, conspiracy o proposal na gumawa ng treason;
3. Mga nahatulan ng piracy;
4. Mga nahatulan ng rebellion o sedition;
5. Mga habitual delinquent;
6. Mga tumakas sa kulungan o umiwas sa pagsisilbi ng sentensya;
7. Mga lumabag sa kondisyon ng conditional pardon na ibinigay ng Pangulo;
8. Mga may maximum imprisonment na hindi lalampas sa isang (1) taon;
9. Mga nahatulan na ng final judgment bago pa maaprubahan ang ISLAW;
10. Mga pinarusahan ng destierro o suspension;
11. Mga nahatulan ng krimeng may parusang reclusion perpetua, o ang sentensya ay naging reclusion perpetua dahil sa Republic Act No. 9346.

⏳ 𝗠𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗺𝘂𝗺 𝗮𝘁 𝗠𝗮𝘅𝗶𝗺𝘂𝗺 𝗣𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗼𝗱 𝗻𝗴 𝗵𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗹
Sa ilalim ng batas, hindi fixed ang sentensya—ito ay may range. Ang hatol ng korte ay may dalawang bahagi:

1️⃣Minimum Period - Ay itinatakda sa loob ng saklaw ng parusang isang antas na mas mababa (penalty next lower in degree) kaysa sa parusang itinakda para sa krimen.
2️⃣Maximum Period - ay nasa loob ng saklaw ng parusang itinakda ng batas para sa naturang krimen.

𝙏𝙖𝙣𝙙𝙖𝙖𝙣: Ang KORTE ang nagtatakda ng minimum at maximum na parusa. Isinasaalang-alang ng hukom ang nature of the crime; ang presensya ng Aggravating, mitigating, and alternative circumstances; and the range of penalties prescribed under the applicable law.

🔓 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗼𝗹𝗲 𝗘𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆
Parole eligibility under the ISL is determined by serving the minimum sentence:
✔️ Maaaring mapalaya sa parole ang isang bilanggo matapos maisilbi ang minimum term kung: nagpakita siya ng mabuting asal at kakayahang magbago; sumusunod siya sa mga kondisyong itinakda ng Board of Pardons and Parole.

📌 𝗧𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗮𝗻:
Ang parole ay hindi awtomatiko. Ito ay dumadaan sa masusing pagsusuri ng Board of Pardons and Parole, na tumutukoy kung karapat-dapat ang isang aplikante; at nagtatakda ng mga kondisyon upang masiguro ang kaligtasan ng publiko at rehabilitasyon ng nagkasala.

21/05/2026

In 𝐈𝐬𝐫𝐚𝐞𝐥 𝐯. 𝐏𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐩𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬, 𝐆.𝐑. 𝐍𝐨. 𝟐𝟔𝟓𝟕𝟑𝟔, 𝐍𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝟏𝟗, 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟓, the SC acquitted the accused of grave threats after finding no criminal intent in his gesture of pretending to shoot and behead two individuals. But it clarified that, contrary to Israel’s argument, the crime may be committed through non-verbal gestures and not only through spoken or written words.

In this case, the accused 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 after the complainant nearly collided with his motorcycle.

The MTC and RTC convicted the accused and his conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The Accused appealed to the SC and argued 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.

It explained that 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.

20/05/2026

⚖️ 𝐌𝐎𝐓𝐎𝐑𝐂𝐘𝐂𝐋𝐄 𝐇𝐄𝐋𝐌𝐄𝐓 𝐀𝐂𝐓 (𝐑𝐀 𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟓𝟒)

Ang Republic Act No. 10054 o Motorcycle Helmet Act of 2009 ay batas na nag-uutos na ang lahat ng motorcycle riders at back riders ay dapat magsuot ng standard protective motorcycle helmet habang nagmamaneho o nakasakay sa pampublikong kalsada.

🏍️ 𝗠𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝗛𝗲𝗹𝗺𝗲𝘁 𝗨𝘀𝗲
Maliban na lang sa mga tricycle drivers, lahat ng nagmomotorsiklo, kabilang ang mga driver at ang kanilang mga angkas, ay dapat magsuot ng standard na protective motorcycle helmet sa lahat ng oras habang nagmamaneho, malayo man o malapit ang biyahe, sa anumang uri ng kalsada o highway.

🪖 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝗛𝗲𝗹𝗺𝗲𝘁 𝗥𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁
Ang bawat nagbebenta at/o dealer ay dapat maglaan ng bagong motorcycle helmet na may Philippine Standard (PS) mark o Import Commodity Clearance (ICC) mula sa Bureau of Product Standards (BPS), at sumusunod sa mga pamantayang itinakda ng BPS, sa tuwing may bibiling bagong unit ng motorsiklo. Ang mamimili ay may opsyong bilhin ito o hindi. Ang pagkabigong sumunod sa mga kinakailangang nakasaad sa seksyong ito ay ituturing na paglabag sa Batas na ito.

🚫 𝗠𝗴𝗮 𝗜𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗯𝗮𝗯𝗮𝘄𝗮𝗹:
Ipinagbabawal ang paggamit ng pekeng o substandard helmet; pagbebenta o distribusyon ng non-compliant helmets; at hindi pagsusuot ng helmet habang nagmamaneho o sakay.

💰𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘂𝘀𝗮:
Para sa mga lumalabag:
• 1st offense: ₱1,500
• 2nd offense: ₱3,000
• 3rd offense: ₱5,000
• 4th offense: ₱10,000

20/05/2026

In 𝐎𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐯. 𝐂𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐚𝐧𝐠, 𝐆.𝐑. 𝐍𝐨. 𝟐𝟔𝟏𝟕𝟓𝟕, 𝐉𝐚𝐧𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝟐𝟗, 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟔, the SC has affirmed that the President does not have the power to remove the Deputy Ombudsman.

The SC stressed that the Constitution expressly characterizes the Ombudsman as independent: free from executive control, supervision, or political influence. It explained that: 𝙄𝙣 𝙖 𝙣𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙡𝙤𝙣𝙜 𝙫𝙪𝙡𝙣𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙗𝙡𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙜𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙣𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙡 𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙘𝙝, 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙪𝙚𝙙 𝙘𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙚𝙧𝙫𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙤𝙛 𝙜𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙡𝙨 𝙖𝙜𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙨𝙩 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙘𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙥𝙤𝙬𝙚𝙧 𝙧𝙚𝙢𝙖𝙞𝙣 𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙖𝙡 𝙩𝙤 𝙙𝙚𝙢𝙤𝙘𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙘 𝙡𝙞𝙛𝙚. 𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙛𝙧𝙖𝙢𝙚𝙧𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 1987 𝘾𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙩𝙪𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙙𝙚𝙡𝙞𝙗𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙡𝙮 𝙞𝙣𝙨𝙪𝙡𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙊𝙛𝙛𝙞𝙘𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙊𝙢𝙗𝙪𝙙𝙨𝙢𝙖𝙣, 𝙖𝙬𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙘𝙖𝙣𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙧𝙞𝙫𝙚 𝙬𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙥𝙚𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙞𝙨 𝙢𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙡𝙮 𝙖𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡.”

In this case, Carandang assumed responsibility for handling Senator Trillanes’s complaint against former President Duterte, and shortly after the ambush interview, he was charged, preventively suspended, and eventually dismissed by the very office whose actions he was investigating.

The SC said that this case shows why constitutional and legal limits on presidential power are necessary—to uphold the rule of law and prevent unchecked authority. Allowing the President to discipline officials investigating possible wrongdoing within the administration risks retaliation and political pressure, and the attempt to remove Carandang illustrated the very abuse that Gonzales sought to prevent.

The SC reiterated that only the Ombudsman has authority to discipline a Deputy Ombudsman.

20/05/2026

What a busy Wednesday morning… 🤯 Assisted a client in posting bail, then attended two hearings, both for trial, one for a cybercrime case and another for judicial recognition of foreign divorce.

Nanginginig na ako sa gutom juskolord. 😩Mangaon na ta!

Atty. Zai

23/05/2026

23/05/2026

22/05/2026

22/05/2026

22/05/2026

21/05/2026

21/05/2026

20/05/2026

20/05/2026

20/05/2026

Address

Website

Alerts

Shortcuts

Share