Atty. Jonathan Apolog Langbayan- Notary Public & Legal Services

24/09/2025

The (SC) has reiterated that preventing employees from entering company premises and doing their jobs, without a valid reason, is considered illegal dismissal.

In a Decision written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the SC’s Second Division upheld the labor arbiters’ ruling that 12 workers from Constant Packaging Corporation (Constant Packaging), a company that prints packaging materials, were illegally dismissed.

Constant Packaging hired the workers as sorters and packers on a 𝘱𝘢𝘬𝘺𝘢𝘸 basis (paid per output).

The workers later raised concerns about their below-minimum wage earnings, 12-hour work day, 7-day work week, non-remittance of their SSS, PhilHealth, and PAG-IBIG contributions, and delay in the release of their salaries. Constant Packaging responded by telling them to leave if they were unhappy with their working conditions.

The workers filed a complaint with the Department of Labor and Employment. Soon after, the company security guard prevented them from entering the company premises, leading the workers to file a complaint for illegal dismissal.

Ruling in favor of the workers, the SC clarified that an employee who is able and willing to work is considered illegally dismissed if they are prevented from entering the workplace without a valid or lawful reason.

In this case, the company’s security guard blocked the workers from entering the company premises without any valid reason. This action amounts to dismissal.

Moreover, as the workers were suddenly dismissed without following the required procedures, their dismissal was unlawful.

The SC thus ordered Constant Packaging to pay the workers separation pay, back wages, service incentive leave, and holiday pay.

However, since the workers were hired on a 𝘱𝘢𝘬𝘺𝘢𝘸 basis, the SC ruled that they are not entitled to 13th month pay.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-preventing-employees-from-reporting-to-work-without-valid-reason-is-illegal-dismissal/.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph?p=152126.

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

13/09/2025

SUPREME COURT ACQUITS MAN OF PLANTING MA*****NA DUE TO BREACH IN CHAIN OF CUSTODY

| The Supreme Court (SC) has acquitted a man accused of planting ma*****na after finding that the police failed to strictly follow the required chain of custody for the seized evidence.

In a 23-page decision written by Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez, the SC En Banc reversed the ruling of the Regional Trial Court, which convicted Allan Acdang for planting ma*****na in violation of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

In 2011 Acdang and his brother were arrested in a police operation conducted in Kibungan, Benguet, for cultivating and maintaining a ma*****na plantation.

The police failed to secure the presence of the insulating witnesses, including a representative from the media, an elected official, and the DOJ, during the initial inventory and photography of the seized ma*****na at the plantation site. Acdang escaped but later surrendered in 2016.

Initially, the RTC and Court of Appeals convicted him for violating the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. This prompted him to elevate the case before the Supreme Court.

In reversing his conviction, the high court took into consideration the failure of the police officers to bring the necessary witnesses during the inventory and photography of the seized ma*****na.

It emphasized that such failure to strictly follow the chain of custody rule, as outlined in Republic Act No. 9165, cannot be brushed aside, as it casts doubt on the integrity and authenticity of the evidence.

The SC cited the 2022 case of Nisperos v. People, which required that the marking and inventory of confiscated drug items must be done immediately at the place of seizure, in the presence of the offender, in the presence of the accused or their representative, and in the presence of the required witnesses.

It also rejected the contention of the police officers, as it pointed out that even in a remote location, the police did not demonstrate a genuine effort to bring the required witnesses.

Due to the breach in the chain of custody, the high court acquitted the accused Allan and ordered his immediate release.

27/08/2025

| The Supreme Court (SC) held that not all denials and alibis to the commission of a crime should be regarded as fabricated, most especially if the prosecution failed to discharge the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

In a 25-page ruling penned by Associate Justice Japar Dimaampao, the SC's Third Division has acquitted Marvin Nuguid of murder for allegedly shooting Dutch national Wilhelmus Johannes Joseph Geertman to death on the grounds of reasonable doubt and for the failure of the prosecution to sufficiently establish his guilt.

Geertman was the executive director of Alay Bayan, Inc., a non-government organization engaged in disaster preparedness. Initially, Nuguid, along with three others, was indicted for murder and robbery stemming from an incident that happened in 2012. The victim, Geertman, was gunned down by two assailants who entered the Alay Bayan Inc. premises.

The unidentified men escaped by riding a motorcycle driven by a third man, parked just outside the compound. Geertman was immediately rushed to the hospital but was declared dead on arrival. It was only in 2014, or roughly two years after the incident, when the police searched Nuguid's house and arrested him for the crime.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) acquitted Nuguid for robbery due to the prosecution's failure to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But on the other hand, he was convicted for murder, giving great weight to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. The said ruling was later upheld by the Court of Appeals, prompting the accused to elevate the case before the Supreme Court.

In acquitting Nuguid, the SC held that the lower courts committed reversible error in hastily convicting him based on questionable evidence. It noted the basic and immutable principle in criminal law that an accused individual cannot be convicted if there is reasonable doubt in his commission of a crime.

"Indeed, proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt must be adduced by the prosecution; otherwise, the accused must be acquitted, even if, on the face of it, he or she appears to be most suspicious or even if there is no other possible or identifiable perpetrator [on] the records despite there having been a crime committed," the Supreme Court said.

It took into consideration the admission of some of the supposed witnesses who said that they did not personally witness the shooting of the victim and they cannot testify as to the real identity of the shooter.

Meanwhile, some supposed eyewitnesses also failed to give a concrete description of the assailant they purportedly saw and eventually acknowledged that they did not see who fired the gun that caused the death of Geertman.

The court found that the glaring inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses, as well as in the evidence on record, are vital to the integrity of the case. It emphasized that the said inconsistencies were not based on minor details that greatly affect the credibility of the witnesses.

"The first duty of the prosecution is not to prove the crime but to prove the identity of the criminal, for even if the commission of the crime can be established, there can be no conviction without proof of identity of the criminal beyond a reasonable doubt," the Supreme Court said.

"The inconsistent statements inexorably lead this Court to conclude that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proving the guilt of Nuguid for the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. It is elementary that the prosecution must rely on the strength of its evidence and not on the weakness of that of the defense," it added.

The high court also underscored that while Nuguid relied on mere denials in asserting his innocence, and while these are the weakest evidence of all, it said not all alibis should be regarded as fabricated. Due to this acquittal, the court ordered the immediate release of the Nuguid from detention.

19/08/2025