Cabardo Law Office

19/03/2026

SANDIGANBAYAN, NOT COURT OF APPEALS, HOLDS APPELLATE JURISDICTION OVER GRAFT CONVICTIONS—SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court (SC) has vacated the Court of Appeals’ (CA) decision convicting three former barangay officials in Manila for graft, emphasizing that the Sandiganbayan has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over such cases.

In a 13-page ruling penned by Associate Justice Samuel Gaerlan, the SC's Third Division has vacated the conviction of Barangay 526, Zone 52, District 4, Manila, former Chairman Aniceta Co, ex-Barangay Kagawad and Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) Chair Nestor Co, and Barangay Treasurer Emma Acebedo for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

The case stemmed from the questionable procurement of a barangay motor vehicle in 2014. The barangay officials sent out an Invitation to Bid to several suppliers. The contract was later awarded to Derexon Trading as the participant with the lowest bid.

Later, the Ombudsman found something anomalous with the transaction, as it discovered that the subject vehicle was formerly owned by the brother of Barangay Kagawad Nestor. It was also revealed that said vehicle was mortgaged to secure a loan.

During the trial, the accused denied knowledge of the prior ownership of the subject vehicle and claimed that the procurement and purchase thereof was regularly done pursuant to the proper procedure.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Chairman Aneceta, Kagawad Nestor, and Treasurer Emma guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 and sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment from 6 to 10 years. The said conviction was eventually affirmed by the Court of Appeals, prompting the accused to elevate the case before the Supreme Court.

In declaring the ruling void, the high court held that the CA lacks appellate jurisdiction over the case. It cited Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended by Republic Act No. 10660, which provides that the Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving violations of Republic Act No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

"The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions, or orders of regional trial courts, whether in the exercise of their own original jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction," the Supreme Court said.

It also reaffirmed the principle laid down in the case of Munez vs. People, where the SC vacated the Court of Appeal's decision and held that it had no jurisdiction to review the regional trial court's conviction, since the appellate jurisdiction is properly lodged with the Sandiganbayan.

The high court remanded the case records to the Sandiganbayan and directed it to resolve the case with utmost dispatch.

27/02/2026

For the guidelines on the assignment of judges for night court duty, please see A.M. No. 25-10-18-SC (https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=161361).

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=161372.

26/12/2025

The has laid down guideposts for proving who owns or controls a social media account in criminal cases.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, the SC’s First Division affirmed the conviction of an individual (###) for committing psychological violence under Section 5 (i) of the 𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘝𝘪𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘈𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘞𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘯 (𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘝𝘈𝘞𝘊) 𝘈𝘤𝘵 against his ex-girlfriend (AAA) by posting derogatory statements about her on 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬.

The SC sentenced ### to up to eight years in prison, imposed a PHP 100,000 fine, and ordered ### to undergo psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment.

The SC stressed that in criminal cases, the prosecution must prove not only the elements of the crime but also the identity of the offender.

It explained that for crimes committed through social media, the basic features of the platform such as 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬, must be considered.

Noting that 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬 is widely used in the Philippines, the SC held that a 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬 account can easily be created by anyone claiming to be at least 13 years old with an email address or mobile number.

Once an account is created, the user can add friends, exchange private messages, and post statements, photos, or videos visible to others depending on the user’s privacy settings. Fake or dummy accounts can easily spread, enabling disinformation, identity theft, or crimes.

Given this, the SC ruled that guideposts are necessary to establish who owns or controls a social media account. It said the following must be shown to prove ownership or access:

1. Admission of ownership or authorship;
2. Being seen accessing the account or composing the post;
3. Containing information known only to the offender or a few people;
4. Language consistent with the offender’s characteristics;
5. Records from the internet service provider, telecommunications company, or social media site, and results from device forensic analysis showing geolocation features, and other attributes linking the account to the offender;
6. Acts consistent with previous posts; or
7. Other instances showing ownership, access, or authorship.

Applying these, the SC found that several factors proved ### wrote the 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬 post. The account name bore his full name, and the profile photo showed him with his child from his current live-in partner.

AAA’s sister had also received messages from the same account for years.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=158535.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=158446.

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

18/12/2025

"SUGGESTIVE OUT-OF-COURT IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED INCREASE LIKELIHOOD OF MISIDENTIFICATION"— SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court (SC) has acquitted a man accused of robbery with homicide in connection with the ambush of two police officers who had withdrawn ₱2 million in cash, citing the prosecution’s failure to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

In a 12-page decision penned by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa, the SC's Third Division reversed the criminal conviction of Marlon Malacaman of robbery with homicide due to the failure of the prosecution's eyewitnesses to positively identify him as one of the assailants.

In 2009, Police Senior Inspector Ludivina Ginauli and Senior Police Officer 1 Michael Bamuevo were ambushed by three gunmen riding a motorcycle while they were inside a car. Prior to the incident, PSINSP Ginauli and SPO1 Bamuevo cashed checks and withdrew money intended for clothing allowances for training recruits of their station. While they were on their way back to the police station, the ambush occurred.

SPO1 Bamuevo sustained four gunshot
wounds, including one to his head. He felt numbness all over his body. He then pretended to be dead while he waited for the gunmen to leave. Meanwhile, PSINSP Ginauli incurred five gunshot wounds, including two fatal wounds, one in the head and one in the chest, which led to her immediate death.

While SPO1 Barnuevo was confined, he was shown several photographs of persons from the police precinct's rogues' gallery and identified Malacaman from among them. A bystander who also witnessed the incident corroborated the identification of Malacaman.

Malacaman, on his part, denied the accusations and testified that he was at home with his mother, wife, and daughter the entire day when the incident happened.

The Regional Trial Court convicted Malacaman and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, or up to 40 years imprisonment. The said ruling was later affirmed by the Court of Appeals, prompting the accused to elevate the case before the Supreme Court.

In acquitting Malacaman, the high court denounced the serious lapses in the out-of-court identification conducted by the police by showing mug shots and photographs taken from the precinct’s rogues’ gallery, noting that the procedure was unduly suggestive.

It stressed that SPO1 Bamuevo’s identification of Malacaman as one of the perpetrators, and later corroborated by another eyewitness, was tainted, as a Philippine National Police officer had informed them that the person shown in the photograph was the suspect in the crime.

The SC underscored that suggestive confrontations are disapproved because they increase the likelihood of misidentification, and unnecessarily suggestive ones are condemned. It emphasized that the eyewitness "positive identification" is the bedrock of many pronouncements of guilt.

But the high court warned that more often than not, eyewitness identification is but a product of flawed human memory, as it does not accurately record events like a video recorder.

It added that human memory is more selective than a video camera. That's why courts should be careful in making convictions, most especially when the identification is made by a sole witness and the judgment in the case totally depends on the reliability of the identification.

The highest bench also flagged the failure of the police officers to testify on how the presentation of photographs was conducted and why Malacaman's photo was included.

It urged the Philippine National Police (PNP) to establish formal guidelines for out-of-court identification of suspects in police investigations, noting that such procedures have yet to be codified in the PNP Manual of Operational Procedures.

05/12/2025

"EXCESS FUNDS MUST BE USED TO INCREASE BENEFITS OR REDUCE MEMBERS' CONTRIBUTIONS"

The Supreme Court (SC) castigated the government for transferring P60 billion Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth) excess funds, emphasizing that the move undermines the very purpose of the Universal Health Care Act (UHCA) and ultimately deprives the people’s right to health and to affordable, sustainable, and accessible public health insurance.

In a decision penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, the Supreme Court En Banc unanimously ordered the government to return the PHP 60 billion in PhilHealth funds previously transferred to the National Treasury.

The Court emphasized that any excess PhilHealth funds must be used to increase benefits under the National Health Insurance Program (NHIP) and reduce members’ contributions, as mandated by law.

The high court also issued a permanent restraining order prohibiting the transfer of the remaining PHP 29.9 billion fund balance.

It also said that the fund transfer constituted a grave violation of both the Universal Health Care Act and the Sin Tax Laws, which require PhilHealth to maintain reserve funds up to a ceiling equivalent to two years of projected program expenses.

29/11/2025

The (SC) has set guidelines that the courts must follow before declaring an individual as a fugitive from justice, ruling that they are barred from seeking judicial reliefs as the courts do not acquire jurisdiction over them.

A fugitive from justice is someone who not only flees after conviction to avoid punishment, but one who also flees after being charged to avoid prosecution. The essential element is the intent to evade prosecution or punishment.

The SC ruled that it is vital that the person knows that an Information or criminal charge has been filed or that a warrant of arrest has been issued. Such knowledge may come from actual notice, such as personally receiving a copy of the Information, or from constructive notice, such as clear, public, and documented efforts by law enforcement to serve legal process even if personal service was evaded or unsuccessful.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 laid down the following guidelines that the courts must apply before declaring an individual fugitive from justice:

1. After finding probable cause, the court shall issue a warrant of arrest.

2. The warrant of arrest, including an e-warrant, shall be implemented within 10 calendar days from its receipt by the executing officer.

3. If there is a failure to execute the warrant of arrest by reason that the accused is outside the Philippine jurisdiction, as stated in the executing officer’s return, the court may, either by motion or motu proprio, and after assessment of the circumstances of the case, declare the accused a fugitive from justice. From then, such person loses their standing in court, can no longer participate in the proceedings, and seek any judicial relief. They can only restore their standing before the court through voluntary surrender.

4. A warrant of arrest which was not served personally to the accused because they are outside the Philippine jurisdiction shall remain outstanding until its eventual implementation.

5. The criminal case shall be archived only if the accused remains at large for six months from the date of the issuance of the warrant of arrest or creation of the e-warrant, without prejudice to the revival of the case upon successful implementation of the warrant of arrest or upon notice to the court that the person subject of the warrant of arrest has been arrested or committed under a different warrant.

The case stemmed from carnapping, violation of Public Service Act and grave coercion charges filed against Ricardo V. Yanson, Jr. (Yanson), who was Vice President for Maintenance of Vallacar Transit, Inc. (VTI).

Yanson left the country on March 7, 2020, after the Informations for carnapping had been filed in court on March 4, 2020 and before the other charges for grave coercion and violation of the Public Service Act were filed on June 9, 2020.

Yanson, through a petition filed by his counsel, secured a ruling from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacolod City suspending the proceedings for grave coercion before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), because of a pending intra-corporate dispute. VTI questioned the RTC ruling before the SC.

The SC ruled that when the accused is declared a fugitive from justice, he is not entitled to any judicial reliefs, creating an exception to a prior ruling.

Previously, in 𝘔𝘪𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘢 𝘷. 𝘛𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘰, the court is allowed to proceed to grant or deny the reliefs sought by an accused who is not physically under its custody but whose jurisdiction over his person was acquired when he or she participated in the case and asked for affirmative reliefs.

However, the SC noted that under this ruling, there is no assurance or guarantee that any decision would be enforceable on a fugitive from justice.

Thus, as an exception to the 𝘔𝘪𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘢 𝘳𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨, it declared that jurisdiction over the person of an accused, who is a fugitive from justice, would not be acquired by the courts simply by the filing of any pleading or by participating in the case through his or her lawyers.

The SC applied the fugitive disentitlement doctrine, a doctrine which originated in the United States that disentitles fugitives from seeking relief from the judicial system whose authority they seek to evade.

It cited the totality of circumstances that indicate Yanson’s intent to evade law enforcement and judicial processes — his flight, and his failure to return and surrender despite knowledge of pending criminal proceedings against him, and particularly the existence of Informations filed against him prior to his departure from the Philippines.

The SC remanded the case to the MTCC to apply the guidelines and determine if the warrant of arrest could not be executed because Yanson is outside Philippine jurisdiction, and if so, to declare him a fugitive from justice not entitled to any judicial relief.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=156092

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/259337-vallacar-transit-inc-and-nixon-banibane-vs-ricard-v-yanson-jr/

Read the Concurring and Dissenting Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/259337-concurring-and-dissenting-opinion-senior-associate-justice-marvic-m-v-f-leonen/

Read the Concurring and Dissenting Opinion of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/259337-concurring-and-dissenting-opinion-associate-justice-alfredo-benjamin-s-caguioa/

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

18/11/2025

Court of Appeals Associate Justice Jose Lorenzo R. dela Rosa, a member of the Remedial Law Department of the Philippine Judicial Academy, discusses
mortgage and sale of properties under RA 6657, or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, in Episode 94: When Agrarian Land is Mortgaged or Sold.

What is Republic Act No. 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988? What is the logic and wisdom behind the prohibition on the sale or transfer of awarded lands within 10 years of the award?

This week's podcast is available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, YouTube, Facebook, and the website.

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/6YH60c0erH64qWOV3ABchQ?si=CVMIysfiSJ-0pRet8wGwnw

Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/ph/podcast/supreme-court-ph-podcast/id1852172756?i=1000736719029

YouTube: https://youtu.be/MkfL9RK92hw

SC website: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/podcasts/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/share/v/19rssC3zrQ/

30/07/2025

Dedication and hard work are required as the law is a zealous endeavor. Blessings received for the month of July.

25/03/2025

The (SC) has ruled that security guards cannot be held criminally liable for illegal possession of a firearm if they reasonably believe that the firearm issued by their agency is licensed.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, the SC’s First Division acquitted a security guard charged with unlawful possession of a firearm under Republic Act No. (RA) 10591 or the 𝘊𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘩𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘍𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘈𝘮𝘮𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘙𝘦𝘨𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘈𝘤𝘵.

The case stemmed from the arrest of a security guard by a police officer who saw him carrying a firearm issued by his security agency. The police officer noticed that the guard was not wearing his prescribed uniform and asked for the firearm’s license. When the guard failed to present one, he was arrested.

While both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found the accused guilty of unlawful possession of fi****ms and ammunition, the SC reversed the conviction.

It ruled that under the 1983 𝘐𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘙𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘙𝘦𝘨𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 (𝘐𝘙𝘙) 𝘰𝘧 𝘗𝘋 𝘕𝘰. 1866, private security agency guards can carry fi****ms on work premises so long as authorized by a Duty Detail Order (DDO). The 2018 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘐𝘙𝘙 𝘰𝘧 𝘙𝘈 10591 confirms that the DDO serves as the authority for security personnel to carry their issued firearm within the assigned location and period.

The issuance of a DDO assumes the presence of a valid license for the fi****ms listed in the order.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/mpse8pzk.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/y4aym6e2.

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

15/02/2025

I couldn’t agree more.

💯 Absulatly Yes 👑 CLAIM It 🔥
💸
**
*
*
**
**
**
**

**

*
**
**

**

14/12/2024

Advance christmas celebration in appreciation of the Associates for being great at whatever legal tasks they do and to the Staffs as well. “Cheers to future achievements and past glories.”