Masangcay Renegado & Partners

19/03/2026

The Supreme Court has affirmed that sending humiliating texts is harassment under the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act, or Republic Act 9262.

Check the full story in our comments.

11/03/2026

The (SC) 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 has upheld the validity of a Department of Justice (DOJ) circular that raised the standard of proof in preliminary investigations and inquest proceedings from probable cause to prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction.

In a Decision written by written by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, the SC 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 ruled that Department Circular No. 15, series of 2024 containing the 2024 𝘋𝘖𝘑-𝘕𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘚𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘙𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘐𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘨𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘐𝘯𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 (𝘋𝘖𝘑 𝘙𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴), is a valid exercise of the DOJ’s authority over prosecutorial processes.

Under the DOJ Rules’ new standard of proof in preliminary investigations and inquest, prosecutors must ensure that the evidence to charge a person with a crime must sufficiently establish all the elements and consequently warrant a conviction.

Atty. Hazel L. Meking questioned the DOJ Rules before the SC, claiming that the DOJ encroached on the SC’s constitutional authority to promulgate rules of pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts. She argued that the DOJ Rules effectively revised Rule 112, Section 3(a) of the 𝘙𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘥𝘶𝘳𝘦, which provides that the quantum of evidence in preliminary investigations is probable cause.

The SC dismissed her petition and reiterated its ruling in 𝘈.𝘔. 𝘕𝘰. 24-02-09-𝘚𝘊, which recognized the DOJ’s authority to promulgate its own rules on preliminary investigations and inquest proceedings.

The SC held that the DOJ Rules govern only the conduct of preliminary investigations and inquests by prosecutors, which are executive functions. These Rules, however, do not extend to judicial proceedings as the power to promulgate rules of procedure over them remains under the authority of the Supreme Court.

The SC noted it had already recognized preliminary investigation as the exclusive domain of prosecutors when it revised the Rules of Criminal Procedure in 2005.

In 2024, through 𝘈.𝘔. 𝘕𝘰. 24-02-09-𝘚𝘊, the SC also ordered the repeal of provisions in Rule 112 which are inconsistent with the DOJ Rules to harmonize them.

The SC’s constitutional rule-making authority over judicial proceedings remains supreme, as well as its power to correct grave abuse of discretion in any prosecutorial rule or action that violates constitutional rights.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=161871

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=161853

Read the Concurring Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=161858

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

04/03/2026

The (SC) has reiterated that search made after a lawful arrest extends to the surroundings within the immediate control of the accused and evidence obtained during such search is admissible even if they are not within the “plain view” of the arresting officers.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, the SC’s First Division upheld the conviction of Jeryl Bautista for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Republic Act No. 9165, or the 𝘊𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘩𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘋𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘋𝘳𝘶𝘨𝘴 𝘈𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 2002, as amended.

During a buy-bust operation, a police officer posed as a buyer and received from Bautista 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘣𝘶 in exchange for PHP 500. After the officer made a pre-arranged signal, the rest of the arresting team rushed to the place of the transaction.

Bautista was arrested and a representative from the Department of Justice, and two barangay kagawads arrived shortly after.

Subsequently, the officer searched Bautista and found three more sachets of suspected 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘣𝘶 hidden inside a cellphone charger. The officer also found a cellphone, screwdriver, weighing scale, and marked money. The police then marked the four sachets, prepared an inventory of the seized items, and took photographs.

Bautista argued that the additional sachets should not be admitted as evidence because they were not within the plain view of the police officers when seized during his arrest.

The Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals both convicted Bautista of illegal possession of 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘣𝘶.

The SC upheld Bautista’s conviction and rejected his argument. It explained that the plain view doctrine is not the only justification for a warrantless search, as the search could be done to a person who has just been lawfully arrested.

Searches and seizures generally require a warrant. If police perform a search or seize property without a valid warrant, any evidence obtained cannot be used in court and is considered inadmissible. However, there are recognized exceptions to this rule.

One of these is the plain view doctrine, which allows police officers to seize evidence in plain sight when: (1) the officer has a lawful reason to be in the place where the item is seen, (2) the discovery of the item is unplanned or incidental, and (3) it is immediately obvious that the item is connected to a crime or is illegal.

Another recognized exception is a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest. To be valid, it must meet these conditions: (1) the accused is lawfully arrested, (2) the arresting officers subsequently made a warrantless search, (3) the search is limited to the person of the accused and the area within the accused’s immediate control, and (4) the search is performed at the place of the arrest.

In this case, Bautista was arrested during a buy-bust operation. He was frisked as part of the arrest. While the sachets hidden inside his cellphone charger were not in the officers’ plain view, the SC held that the warrantless search remained valid because it was done as part of a lawful arrest and the search extended to those that are within the immediate control of the accused at the time of the arrest.

To convict a person of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must prove that the accused had the drug, that the possession was not authorized by law, and that it was done knowingly and freely.

The SC found that all these elements were present. The search revealed three additional sachets of 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘣𝘶 hidden inside a cellphone charger. Bautista could not explain why he had the drugs nor show any authority allowing him to possess them. His act of hiding the sachets inside the charger also showed his intent to keep them.

Bautista was sentenced to a maximum of 16 years in prison and ordered to pay a fine of PHP 300,000.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=161226

Read the full text of the Decision https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=161221

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

04/03/2026

Muling iginiit ng na ang mga corporate directors at officers ay maaaring singilin para sa kabuuang halaga ng pananagutan ng manning agency para sa pagbabayad ng mga benepisyo sa kapansanan ng mga seafarer o marino sa ilalim ng Republic Act No. 8042 o ang Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, as amended.

Sa isang Desisyon na isinulat ni Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, pinagbigyan ng Special First Division ng Korte Suprema ang motion for partial reconsideration sa naunang Desisyon nito na tanging Magsaysay Maritime Corporation (Magsaysay) at Princess Cruises Ltd. (Princess Cruises) ang pinapanagot para sa mga benepisyo sa kapansanan ng seafarer nito. Nagpasya ang Korte Suprema na solidarily liable si Magsaysay Fleet Director Sorwin Joy G. Rivera (Rivera) na ibig sabihin ay maaari siya ang pagbayarin ng buong halagang dapat bayaran.

Kinuha ng manning agency na Magsaysay si Ruthgar T. Parce (Parce) bilang electrical fitter para sa foreign principal nitong Princess Cruises. Matapos siyang masugatan habang nagtatrabaho sa barko, pinabalik siya sa Maynila, kung saan na-diagnose siya ng itinalagang doktor ng kumpanya na siya ay may rotator tendinitis sa kanyang balikat at inirerekomenda nito ang physical therapy.

Pagkalipas ng ilang buwan, sinabihan si Parce na naabot na niya ang maximum na medikal na pagpapagamot at hindi na ipagpapatuloy ang kanyang sickness allowance. Batay dito, idineklara siyang angkop nang magtrabaho sa Princess Cruises.

Humingi si Parce ng pangalawang medikal na opinyon dahil patuloy siyang nakaramdam ng kirot. Sinabi sa kanyang ng kinunsultang doktor na hindi sya karapat-dapat para sa trabahong pandagat. Hiniling ni Parce sa Magsaysay na magpatingin sa pangatlong doktor, ayon na rin sa patakaran, at humingi rin siya ng kopya ng kanyang talaang medikal. Tinanggihan ito ng Magsaysay na humingi ng kopya ng ulat ng pangalawang doktor para tingnan ang isang posibleng pag-aayos. Nagsampa ng reklamo si Parce sa Labor Arbiter (LA) para sa mga benepisyo sa kapansanan at reimbursement ng mga gastusing medikal.

Nagpasya ang LA pabor sa kanya at inatasan ang Magsaysay at Princess Cruises na magbayad ng USD 60,000 sa mga benepisyo sa kapansanan. Sinabi ng LA ang hindi kumpleto ang ulat ng itinalagang doktor ng kumpanya dahil nabigo itong sabihin ng klaro na karapat-dapat na magtrabaho si Parce. Pinagtibay ng National Labor Relations Commission ang LA at sinabing dapat managot si Rivera kasama ng Magsaysay at Princess Cruises.

Binaliktad ng Court of Appeals ang desisyon at binigyang-pansin na hindi agad kinuwestiyon ni Parce ang kanyang medical assessment na nagpahina sa kanyang kaso.

Hindi sumang-ayon ang Korte Suprema na nagsabing dapat managot ang Magsaysay at Princess Cruises dahil hindi kumpleto ang ulat ng doktor na itinalaga ng kumpanya na hindi nagbigay kay Parce ng anumang dokumento para makipaglaban nang maayos. Pinagtibay ng Korte Suprema ang desisyon ng LA na itinuring nang permanenteng may kapansanan si Parce sa ilalim ng batas.

Naghain si Parce ng motion for partial reconsideration na hinihiling na ideklara ring solidarily liable si Rivera kasama ng mga kumpanya. Pinagbigyan ito ng Korte Suprema.

Ayon sa Section 10 ng Republic Act No. (RA) 8042, o ang Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, malinaw na kapag ang isang recruitment agency ay isang korporasyon o partnership, ang mga opisyal, direktor, o partner nito ay mananagot ito sa kumpanya para sa anumang mga claim sa pera na iginawad sa mga overseas Filipino workers.

Ipinaliwanag ng Korte Suprema na habang ang mga opisyal ng korporasyon ay, sa pangkalahatan, hindi personal na mananagot para sa mga kontratang pinasok ng kanilang kumpanya, nalalapat ang isang eksepsiyon kapag partikular ang isang batas na nagpapanagot sa kanila. Sa kasong ito, si Rivera, isang corporate officer ng Magsaysay, ay pinanagutan ng kumpanya para sa permanenteng mga benepisyo sa kapansanan ni Parce. Pinangalanan si Rivera sa reklamo bilang "Owner/President/Manager" at pumirma sa kontrata sa pagtatrabaho sa ngalan ng kumpanya.

Dagdag ng Korte Suprema, nang mag-apply ang Magsaysay para sa lisensya nito para gumana bilang isang manning agency, inatasan ang mga opisyal at direktor nito, sa ilalim ng Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) Rules, na magsumite ng isang verified undertaking na ginagawa silang solidarily liable para sa mga claim na nagmumula sa relasyon ng employer-employee.

Binigyang-diin ng Korte Suprema na ang Section 10 ng RA 8042 at ang kaugnay na Mga Panuntunan ng POEA ay itinuturing na bahagi ng kontrata sa pagtatrabaho ng bawat marino. Ang mga probisyong ito ay naaayon sa patakaran ng Estado sa pagbibigay ng proteksiyon sa paggawa at pagpapagaan sa kalagayan ng mga manggagawa at nilayon upang tiyakin ang mga manggagawang Pilipino sa ibang bansa na agaran at sapat na pagbabayad ng dapat sa kanila, ayon sa Korte Suprema.

Basahin ang press release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=161450.

Basahin ang buong Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=161442.

Sumunod sa Credit Attribution Policy ng SC PIO: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.

12/02/2026

The Securities and Exchange Commission warned consumers against a new batch of unauthorized online lending platforms as it steps up its fight against entities operating outside regulatory approval.

04/02/2026

Sa isang Resolusyon na may petsang Nobyembre 4, 2025, sa A.M. Blg. 24-11-02-SC, nagpatupad ang Korte Suprema ng mahahalagang reporma para palawakin ang access sa videoconferencing, lalo na para sa mga indibidwal na may limitadong kakayahang digital (digitally disadvantaged individuals), at para mapahintulutan ang mas malawak na partisipasyon ng mga taong nasa ibang bansa.

Ang Binagong mga Alituntunin ay nalalapat sa pagsasagawa ng videoconferencing sa mga first- at second-level courts, sa Court of Appeals, sa Sandiganbayan, at sa Court of Tax Appeals. Saklaw nito ang lahat ng mga gawain at paglilitis sa alinmang yugto, kabilang ang pag-aayos ng alitan o mediation, konsultasyon, deliberasyon, at ang pagpapalabas ng mga desisyon at resolusyon, kapag isinasagawa sa pamamagitan ng videoconference.

Inaatasan na ngayon ang mga hukuman na tiyakin ang access sa videoconferencing para sa mga indibidwal na may limitadong kakayahang digital, kabilang ang mga nasa malalayong lugar o apektado ng kalagayang pampolitika. Maaaring kabilang dito ang pagde-deploy ng mga kawani ng hukuman para magbigay ng pansamantala o mobile na koneksyon sa internet.

Maaari ring magtayo ang mga hukuman ng mga itinalagang “access point” sa loob ng mga judicial regions kung saan puwedeng gumamit ang mga litigant, mga saksi, at iba pang kalahok sa paglilitis ng mga kompyuter at kagamitang pang-videoconferencing sa ilalim ng pangangasiwa ng hukuman.

Basahin ang kabuuan ng press release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160150.

Basahin ang kabuaan ng Resolusyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/A.M-No.-24-11-02-SC_FINAL.pdf.

Sumunod sa Credit Attribution Policy ng SC PIO: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.

04/02/2026

The (SC) 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤, during its session on February 4, 2026, dismissed the petition filed by Jacinto V. Paras et al., questioning the constitutionality of Executive Order No. (EO) 94, Series of 2025, which created the Independent Commission for Infrastructure (ICI).

In a Resolution written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 ruled that the petition failed to meet the basic requirements for judicial review.

The ICI was created as an independent ad hoc fact-finding body to investigate alleged anomalies in government flood control projects nationwide.

The petitioners argued that EO 94 violates the equal protection clause, usurps the legislative power of Congress, reduces or takes away the powers and functions vested in the Office of the Ombudsman and the Commission on Audit by the Constitution, and violates the Constitutional provision that no money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law.

The SC ruled that the petition violated the hierarchy of courts doctrine because it was filed directly with the SC. While direct recourse it is allowed in exceptional cases, the petition failed to cite any compelling reason to bypass the lower courts.

The SC also found that the petitioners did not show that an actual case or controversy exists, which requires a violation of a legally enforceable right. The petition did not show that their rights were violated, or that EO 94 adversely affected them.

The full text of the Resolution will be uploaded to the SC website once available.

Read the full text of the Press Briefer at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160242

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/.

30/01/2026

The Securities and Exchange Commission warned that individuals promoting Interactive Brokers Group Inc./IBKR in the country — including influencers, endorsers and recruiters — could face criminal charges, with penalties of as much as P5 million pesos or prison terms of up to 21 years.

29/01/2026

27/01/2026

Sent from Viber https://www.viber.com/invite/9a83a5fa6b09685277a4e44805b9794226687d9838fc7dc71bda4f3838ec423f