Rublico & Associates Law Office

25/02/2026

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1AgNT6XNJh/?mibextid=wwXIfr

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

31/01/2026

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1CzB4xY8pP/?mibextid=wwXIfr

The has approved the Proposed Amendments to the Guidelines on the Conduct of Videoconferencing.

The Guidelines shall take effect on February 16, 2026, 15 days following its posting on the Supreme Court and OCA websites.

The Guidelines expand the definition of “overseas venues,” which now covers “Philippine consulates and embassies, other Philippine government offices abroad, other places allowed under applicable bilateral or multilateral agreements, and any other venue authorized by the Supreme Court for videoconferencing from abroad.” [Section 2(j), Part 1]

Section 4, Part 2 of the Guidelines details how videoconferencing is initiated:

“In civil and criminal cases, the parties, through their counsel, individually or jointly, may, by written or oral motion, move that they be allowed to participate via videoconferencing.

“In criminal cases, a motion to participate via videoconferencing shall be accompanied by a waiver of the right of the accused to meet witnesses face to face when the videoconferencing specifically involves the confrontation of a witness.

“Videoconferencing shall be the preferred mode in cases involving PDLs and CICL at all stages of the proceedings.

“It shall also be the preferred mode for arraignment, bail hearings, and hearings involving minor incidents of other accused, such as, but not limited to, clarificatory hearings, compliance hearings, and other similar ancillary matters where the presence of the accused is not necessary, unless the court deems it appropriate for the accused to appear in person.

“For a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of cases, the court may, on its own instance, order that the proceedings be conducted through videoconferencing at any or all stages”

Copies of the Guidelines are available at:

Supreme Court website:https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/A.M-No.-24-11-02-SC_FINAL.pdf

Office of the Court Administrator website:https://oca.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/A.M-No.-24-11-02-SC_FINAL.pdf

27/01/2026

MTC/MCTCs do not have their own sheriffs. So…

Are clerks of court in single-sala RTC/MeTC/MTCCs allowed to execute writs issued by MTC/MCTCs, in their capacity as ex oficio sheriff?

Yes, subject to the guidelines laid down in the recent OCA Circular 6-2026.https://oca.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/OCA-Circular-No.-06-2026.pdf

22/01/2026

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/16HjdQpJPt/

18/01/2026

Supreme Court clarifies that when the RTC retries an MTC case on the merits under Rule 40, Section 8, it still acts in appellate jurisdiction—so the proper appeal to the Court of Appeals is a Rule 42 petition for review, not a notice of appeal.

GAERLAN, J.

Read the full story in the comment section.

17/01/2026

(LEGAL ETHICS) JUSTICE SAMUEL H. GAERLAN PENNED CASE: Mendoza v. Atty. Santiago, Jr., A.C. No. 13548 (2023) [Per J. Gaerlan, Third Division]

Notarization is not an empty, meaningless routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest. The notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. A notarial document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. A notary public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties; otherwise, the public's confidence in the integrity of the document would be undermined.

17/01/2026

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1DhkZrZSDd/

16/01/2026

SUPREME COURT: DELAYED PAYMENT OF JUST COMPENSATION EARNS INTEREST AS “FORBEARANCE OF MONEY”; RATE MUST FOLLOW BSP CHANGES

The Supreme Court has issued a major ruling clarifying how interest is computed when government delays payment of just compensation for private property taken for public use. The Court held that such delay is treated as a forbearance of money, and interest must be computed using the prevailing legal interest rates set by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) over time.

Read more in the comments section.

09/01/2026

INTENT TO CAUSE MENTAL ANGUISH PRESUMED IN CASES OF PSYCHOLOGICAL VIOLENCE ARISING FROM INFIDELITY— SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court (SC) clarified that in cases of psychological violence under Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262, or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children (VAWC) Act, the intent to cause mental and emotional anguish, which is an essential element of the offense, is presumed when the source of such anguish is marital infidelity.

In a 10-page decision penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando, the SC En Banc denied the motion for reconsideration filed by a husband who questioned the SC's earlier ruling convicting him of psychological violence under the Anti-VAWC Act.

The conviction stemmed from his act of maintaining a mistress and fathering a child with her, which the court found to have caused mental and emotional anguish to his wife.

The aggrieved wife discovered that her husband has been keeping a paramour for four years, with whom he begot a child. Upon confrontation before the barangay, the husband admitted that he was truly the father of the child.

The wife claimed that she was so greatly devastated when she knew about her husband's infidelity that she was unable to work for three to four months and could not sleep. This prompted her to file a complaint for psychological violence against her husband.

For his part, the accused admitted having a child with another woman. However, he denied maintaining any intimate relationship with his supposed mistress and asserted that the child was only the result of a one-night stand.

He added that he did not live with the said woman and their child, as he only visited once in a while. He noted that he could not have caused the complainant emotional and mental anguish.

Both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals convicted the accused. This prompted him to elevate the case before the Supreme Court, arguing that the prosecution failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the mental and emotional anguish suffered by his wife was caused by his unfaithfulness.

Initially, the high court sustained his criminal conviction, emphasizing that the elements of the psychological violence under the Anti-VAWC Act were successfully proven by the prosecution. It gave credence to the observation of the RTC and CA that the mental and emotional anguish suffered by the wife was the result of the accused's philandering, as evidenced by her emotional breakdown while narrating.

Thereafter, the accused filed a motion for reconsideration before the Supreme Court en banc, reiterating the same arguments.

In dismissing his motion for reconsideration, the high court reiterated that psychological violence under Section 5 (i) of Republic Act No. 9262 punishes any form of harassment or violence that causes mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule, or humiliation to the woman or her child, which technically includes marital infidelity.

It also cited Section 3(a)(C) of Republic Act No. 9262, which specified marital infidelity as constitutive of psychological violence that evidently falls under the phrase "any form of harassment or violence" under Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262.

The SC also clarified that the requirement of specific criminal intent to cause mental and emotional suffering is already satisfied the moment the perpetrator commits the act of marital infidelity.

It underscored that the same is supported by the language of Section 5(i) of RA 9262, which merely looks at the consequences or effects of marital infidelity upon the aggrieved spouse or child. In contrast, Sections 5(e), 5(f), and 5(h) of the same law specifically require intent on the part of the violator in order to support a conviction.

It explained that this is because marital infidelity is inherently immoral and depraved under prevailing societal, cultural, and religious norms, mentioning the court's decision in Regir vs. Regir, which said that it is morally reprehensible for a married man or woman to maintain intimate relations with a person other than their spouse."

"Verily, the absence of any such term requiring intent on the part of the defendant supports the conclusion that intent is not required in Section 5(i) of RA 9262," the Supreme Court said.

"When the cause of mental or emotional distress is marital infidelity, which is inherently wrongful, specific intent is not necessary, as the spouse's intent to cause mental or emotional anguish upon the spouse or their child is already presumed upon the spouse's mere commission of the act of marital infidelity." it added.