Cadiogan and Advocates-Dagiwa,Boyongan, Eugenio-Paganaje

21/03/2024

29/02/2024

SC Affirms Conviction of Child Pornographer |

Sending a strong message that child po*******hy, among other forms of sexual exploitation and abuse, presents an acute danger worldwide if facilitated through the internet, the Court affirmed the conviction of a child pornographer and sentenced it to imprisonment and a fine of PHP 2,000,000.

This was the ruling of the Supreme Court En Banc, through Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez, as it denied the appeal of Luisa Pineda (Pineda) who was convicted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) for child po*******hy qualified with the use of a computer system.

The Court found all the elements of child po*******hy under RA 9775 present in Pineda’s case.

Under Sections 4(a), (b), and (c) of RA 9775, the elements of child po*******hy are: (1) the victim is below 18 years old or over but unable to fully take care of himself or herself; (2) the offender either: (i) hires, employs, uses, persuades, induces or coerces a child to perform in the creation or production of any form of child po*******hy; or (ii) produces, directs, manufactures or creates any form of child po*******hy; or (iii) publishes, offers, transmits, sells, distributes, broadcasts, advertises, promotes, exports or imports any form of child po*******hy; and (3) the child’s sexual activities were represented through visual, audio, or written combination, by electronic, mechanical, digital, optical, magnetic, or any other means.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-sentences-child-pornographer-to-imprisonment-and-php2-million-fine/

29/02/2024

SC Fines PAO Chief for Indirect Contempt of Court and Grossly Undignified Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice │

The Supreme Court En Banc unanimously voted to fine Atty. Persida V. Rueda-Acosta the Chief of the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO), for indirect contempt of court under Section 3(d), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court and for Grossly Undignified Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice under Section 33, Canon VI of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), for her actions in connection with her opposition to the proposed new conflict of interest rule for the PAO, which eventually became Section 22, Canon III of the CPRA.

It was determined that Atty. Acosta’s statements and innuendos on her page, which was accessible to the public, attributed ill intent and malice to the Court. The Court also found that by launching a public campaign against the new conflict of interest rule for the PAO using public attorneys and the PAO’s staff and clients and publicizing the contents of the PAO’s letters to Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo requesting the deletion of the same rule, Atty. Acosta tried to sway the public opinion in order to pressure the Court into yielding to her position.

The Court ruled that, aside from constituting indirect contempt, Atty. Acosta’s acts amounted to Grossly Undignified Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice under Section 33(i), Canon VI of the CPRA as the same undermined the public’s confidence in the Court and, consequently, the orderly administration of justice. Atty. Acosta’s actions violated Sections 2 and 14, Canon II of the CPRA which enjoin lawyers to respect the courts, to submit grievances against court officers only through the appropriate remedy and before the proper authorities, and to refrain from making unfounded statements insinuating improper motive on the part of court officers. Atty. Acosta was also found to have transgressed the CPRA provisions on the responsible use of social media.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-fines-pao-chief-for-indirect-contempt-of-court-and-grossly-undignified-conduct-prejudicial-to-the-administration-of-justice/

25/02/2024

SC Grants Writs of Amparo, Habeas Data in Favor of Environmental Advocates |

The Supreme Court has ruled that environmental advocates Jonila F. Castro (Castro) and Jhed Reiyana C. Tamano (Tamano) are entitled to the remedies of writs of amparo and habeas data, as well as a temporary protection order (TPO).

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, the Supreme Court En Banc granted the petition filed by Castro and Tamano (collectively, petitioners) against Lieutenant Colonel Ronnel B. Dela Cruz and members of the 70th Infantry Battalion of the Philippine Army; Police Captain Carlito Buco and Members of the Philippine National Police, Bataan; National Security Council Assistant Director General Jonathan Malaya (ADG Malaya); National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC), and all others acting under their direction, instructions, and orders, (collectively, respondents). Petitioners prayed for the issuance of the writs of amparo and habeas data, with prayer for TPO, permanent protection order (PPO), and Production Order (PO).

Petitioners are volunteers for the Alyansa para sa Pagtatanggol sa Kabuhayan, Paninirahan, at Kalikasan ng Manila Bay (AKAP KA Manila Bay), a network of various environmental advocate groups that aim to advance the concerns of marginalized stakeholders along the Manila Bay Area. Petitioners were thus dispatched by AKAP KA Manila Bay to Orion, Bataan, to coordinate with communities affected by the Manila Bay reclamation projects.

In granting their petition, the Court found that petitioners were able to prove by substantial evidence the allegations in their petition meriting the protection of their freedoms through the writs of amparo and habeas data.

Respondents and all the persons and entities acting and operating under their directions, instructions, and orders were thus directed by the Court to comply with the rules on return under Sec. 9 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo and Sec. 10 of the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-grants-writs-of-amparo-habeas-data-in-favor-of-environmental-advocates/

22/02/2024

SC: Surviving Spouse Entitled to SSS Pension Even if Marriage Was Contracted After Spouse’s Disability |

The Supreme Court has voided the provision in the Social Security Act that disqualifies as primary beneficiaries those who become the legitimate spouse of the pensioner only after the latter suffered permanent total disability.

The Supreme Court En Banc, through Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, declared void the proviso “as of the date of disability” in Section 13-A(c) of Republic Act No. (RA) 8282, or the Social Security Act of 1997 (Social Security Law), for being contrary to the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution, as it granted the petition for review on certiorari filed by Belinda D.R. Dolera (Belinda). The petition challenged the rulings of the Court of Appeals (CA) which had upheld the Order of the Social Security Commission (SSC) denying Belinda’s application for survivorship pension following the death of her husband, Leonardo L. Dolera (Leonardo).

Ordering the SSS to process Belinda’s claim for survivorship pension, the Court stressed that the Social Security Law was enacted pursuant to the policy of the State to promote social justice and provide protection to the workers and their beneficiaries against the hazards of contingencies, such as disability and death, resulting in loss of income or financial burden.

As a social welfare legislation, the Social Security Law should be liberally construed in favor of the intended beneficiary, for it is only by giving the law a liberal construction that the constitutional policy concerning promotion of social justice is realized, held the Court.

The assailed provision of Section 13-A(c) of the Social Security Law provides that to be considered a primary beneficiary entitled to receive survivorship pension, the applicant must be the legitimate spouse of the pensioner as of the date of the latter’s disability.

The Court ruled, however, that the said provision is void for being violative of the equal protection clause of the Constitution as it discriminates against dependent spouses who married the pensioners after the latter qualified for their pension.

The Court further ruled that Section 13-A(c) of the law violates the Constitution’s due process clause. Reiterating its 2004 ruling in GSIS, Cebu City Branch v. Montesclaros, the Court held that retirement benefits, including SSS pension, are protected property interest given that these are compulsory contributions that formed part of one’s compensation, rather than a mere gratuity.

In the case of Belinda, the Court held that her right to receive the survivorship pension was already established because as the deceased pensioner’s surviving spouse, she is entitled to the pension. Thus, its “unceremonious denial is an outright confiscation of [Belinda’s] right in violation of the due process clause,” the Court concluded.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-surviving-spouse-entitled-to-sss-pension-even-if-marriage-was-contracted-after-spouses-disability/. Read G.R. No. 253940 (Dolera v. SSS) at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/253940-belinda-d-r-dolera-vs-social-security-system/.

16/01/2024

SC: Receipts Showing Chain of Custody of Seized Drugs Cannot be Altered While in Transit |

The Supreme Court has ruled that even a minimal change in the receipts recording the movement of seized drugs is fatal to the integrity of the chain of custody in drug cases.

Thus held the Supreme Court’s Second Division, in a Decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, as it granted the appeal by Francis Valencia (Valencia) and Ryan Antipuesto (Antipuesto). The appeal challenged the ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA) affirming the Regional Trial Court’s (RTC) conviction of Valencia and Antipuesto for illegal sale of dangerous drugs.

In granting Valencia and Antipuesto’s appeal, the Court held that to be convicted of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following must be proved beyond reasonable doubt: (1) the transaction took place; and (2) the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti, or the fact of the commission of the crime, were established.

While the Court found that the transaction happened, as evidenced by the conducted prior surveillance and the buy bust operations, the prosecution, however, failed to establish the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt.

Under RA 9165, among the requirements for the custody and disposition of the confiscated dangerous drugs and other paraphernalia is the marking of the seized contraband, which is an important component of the first link of chain of custody.

The act of marking separates the marked illegal drugs “from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time of seizure from the accused until disposition at the end of criminal proceedings,” said the Court.

“The entire chain of custody is founded on the correct marking of the specimen because the marking serves as a reference point for all succeeding handling of the dangerous drugs,” the Court stressed.

The Court also held that given its crucial purpose, marking should be done immediately right after the seizure of dangerous drugs to preclude unnecessary doubts on the first custodial link. “Failure to mark at the point of seizure endangers the integrity of the chain of custody,” said the Court.

The paper trail or the receipts recording the movement of seized specimen are likewise important evidence showing the chain of custody. “These documents must accurately reflect the marking written on the confiscated drugs and the series of transfers. Succeeding handlers of the seized contraband will have to rely on the marking stated in these documents and compare it with the actual marking on the specimen,” stressed the Court.

Thus, to preserve the chain of custody, the specimen must bear the reference marking stated in the paper trail, the Court held.

In the present case, while the Court found that the marking was done at the place of arrest, there was, however, a discrepancy in the paper trail recording the movement of the seized drugs.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-receipts-showing-chain-of-custody-of-seized-drugs-cannot-be-altered-while-in-transit/. Read G.R. No. 250610 (People v. Valencia and Antipuesto, July 10, 2023) at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/250610-people-of-the-philippines-vs-francis-valencia-y-lorenzo-and-ryan-antipuesto/.

13/01/2024

SC Grants Permanent Environmental Protection Order to Preserve Forest in Mountain Province |

The Supreme Court has ordered the cessation of bulldozing, cultivating, building of improvements, and other earth-moving activities that cause irreparable damage to a forest zone in Sabangan, Mountain Province.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez the Court’s Second Division denied the consolidated petitions for review on certiorari filed by Spouses Robles and Rose Maliones, et al. (petitioners). The petitions challenged the rulings of the Court of Appeals (CA) which had affirmed the Regional Trial Court’s (RTC) grant of environmental reliefs under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases in favor of Mario S. Timario, Jr., et al. (respondents).

In resolving the petitions, the Court upheld the factual findings of the RTC and the CA that there exists an actual or imminent threat that can be attributed to petitioners, including the activities they are conducting on the subject land that violate environmental laws and cause prejudice to the life, health, or property of residents of Barangay Data, Sabangan, Mountain Province.

The Court also affirmed that since the subject land is presumptively part of the public forest, the acts of the petitioners of occupying, fencing off, clearing, planting on, sowing on, and building on the subject land are contrary to the provisions of PD 705, particularly Sections 51, 52, 53, and 78.

The Court added that there is no evidence on record that petitioners obtained or possessed the requisite permits or authorization to enter, occupy, and clear the forest land they claim. In fact, the City Environment and Natural Resources Office expressly declared that petitioners’ earth-moving activities were being done on a portion of the public forest. These facts were not rebutted by the petitioners, held the Court.

The Court also clarified that the present petition under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases is not the proper remedy to assail the validity of the tax declarations in the name of petitioners, nor to seek the recognition of the native title petitioners claim to have inherited from their predecessors.

Thus, the Court held it shall “refrain from resolving the underlying issues on the ownership of the subject land and the recognition of the parties as indigenous cultural communities/indigenous peoples in the present environmental case which must be addressed in the proper case and in the correct forum.”

“Nonetheless, this Court is not precluded from granting reliefs available to [respondents], in accordance with Section 1, Rule 5, of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases,” stressed the Court.

The Court thus made permanent the TEPO earlier issued by the RTC, and issued an EPO, ordering petitioners to cease and desist from bulldozing, cultivating, introducing improvements, other earth-moving activities, cutting trees, kaingin, and other illegal activities that cause irreparable damage to the forest zone and pollution of the soil, water, and the environment.

They were also enjoined from claiming private ownership over the communal forest of Batacang and Am-amoting covered by their tax declarations. Petitioners were likewise ordered to remove their barbed wire fences that restrict the community from the use and enjoyment of the communal forest zone.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-grants-permanent-environmental-protection-order-to-preserve-forest-in-mountain-province/.

24/12/2023

CADIOGAN and ADVOCATES LAW OFFICE would like to congratulate one of its lawyers👏 The office is so, so proud of you Atty. @ Glemor Dagiwa🫲😍🥰

16/12/2023