Mondares Law Office

26/08/2026

A standard driver is not an absolute insurer against all road accidents.

Here, a passenger jeepney driver was driving slowly through a school zone when a 14-year-old student ran up from his blind spot, tried to board the moving vehicle, slipped, and was run over.

The lower courts rushed to find criminal liability, but the Supreme Court stepped in to clarify the true elements of negligence.

The Court ruled that a driver's duty is to keep their eyes on the road ahead. They are not required to foresee or guard against reckless, unexpected actions by pedestrians. Because the student's actions were the sole proximate cause of the accident, the driver was cleared of reckless imprudence.

Furthermore, the Court rejected a conviction for simple negligence based on the driver's failure to stop immediately after feeling a bump. The medical evidence proved that the fatal injuries were instantaneous; stopping a second earlier would not have changed the outcome.

This case serves as a vital reminder that criminal negligence requires a direct causal link, not just a tragic result.



📚 Norman A. Gaid vs. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 171636, April 7, 2009)

🖋️ Justice Dante O. Tinga

21/08/2026

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1DhK8iHsiU/?mibextid=wwXIfr

The Supreme Court ordered real estate developer Empire East Land Holdings, Inc. to refund P130,000 in payments a buyer made and pay P260,000 in exemplary damages.

Link to full story in the comments section.

01/08/2026

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1VCtsnhhE9/?mibextid=wwXIfr

17/07/2026

SC Acquits Employee Accused of Stealing Electrical Wire; Rules Prosecution Failed to Prove He Took It

The Supreme Court acquitted an employee previously convicted of qualified theft after ruling that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he unlawfully took his employer's property. Although a roll of electrical wire purchased by the company later went missing, the Court found that the evidence failed to establish that the accused ever acquired actual or constructive possession of the property before it disappeared.

"..The guilt of the accused may be established by circumstantial evidence,36 provided: ( 1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (3) the combination of all circumstances is such as to produce conviction beyond reasonable doubt.37 In addition, under the amendment introduced by A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC, "inferences cannot be based on other inferences." Conviction must be based on strong, clear, and compelling evidence.38 In this case, the prosecution failed to meet these standards.."

—GAERLAN, J.

Supreme Court, First Division
G.R. No. 230519, June 30, 2021



Read the full text in the comments section.

09/07/2026

A PHOTOCOPY can be admitted in COURT as evidence as provided under the 2019 Rules of Court, as amended.

However, please do not photocopy Philippine bills; surely, Manang in the carenderia will not accept them as payment and will report you to the police! 🤣😇

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/19Gmxm3XKk/?mibextid=wwXIfr

23/06/2026

To educate people a little about the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act (RA 9344).

Many believe that children are automatically exempt from accountability under this law.

That is not entirely accurate.

While the law emphasizes rehabilitation and restorative justice, children who act with discernment may still face appropriate interventions and legal consequences, depending on their age and the circumstances of the offense.

The law seeks to balance accountability with the recognition that children have the capacity to reform and become productive members of society.

Note: Credits belong to the owner of this photo.

24/05/2026

Empowering schools through strengthened Child Protection Committees (CPC) and Learners’ Rights and Protection (LRP) mechanisms; ensuring every learner is safe, heard, protected, and properly supported through timely intervention, documentation, and reporting.

10/05/2026

SC: Verbal Resistance and Fear Are Enough to Establish Non-Consent in R*ape

The Supreme Court (SC) ruled that refusing to heed a victim’s expression of resistance constitutes force in r*ape cases, regardless of whether the resistance was made before or during the se*xual act. The Court stressed that it is not for courts to dictate how and when victims should resist se*xual abuse.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, the SC’s First Division affirmed with modification the conviction of a member of the Citizen Armed Force Geographical Unit (CAFGU) for three counts of r*ape and one count of acts of lasc*iviousness committed against a 14-year-old girl inside and near a patrol base in Ligao City, Albay.

The SC further held that the victim’s repeated pleas for the accused to stop, as well as her attempts to stand up while he restrained or pushed her down, were sufficient expressions of resistance. The Court explained that force in ra*pe need not be irresistible, so long as it overcomes the victim’s will.

Read the full text in the comment.