Sayo-Villavicencio Law

12/03/2026

Pinagtibay ng En Banc ng ang legalidad ng isang circular ng Department of Justice (DOJ) na nagtaas sa antas ng ebidensiyang kailangan sa mga preliminary investigation at inquest proceeding. Mula sa dating probable cause, kailangan na ngayon ang prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction (may makatwirang katiyakan na hahantong sa pagkakahatol ng may sala).

Nagpasya ang En Banc ng Korte na ang Department Circular No. 15, series of 2024, na naglalaman ng 2024 DOJ–National Prosecution Service Rules on Preliminary Investigation and Inquest Proceedings (DOJ Rules), ay isang lehitimong paggamit ng kapangyarihan ng DOJ sa pangangasiwa at pagpapatakbo ng mga prosesong pamprosekusyon.

Sa ilalim ng bagong pamantayan ng ebidensiya sa preliminary investigation at inquest na itinakda ng DOJ Rules, kailangang tiyakin ng mga piskal na ang ebidensiyang gagamitin para kasuhan ang isang tao ay sapat na nagpapatunay sa lahat ng elemento ng krimen at, dahil dito, may matibay na batayan para humantong sa hatol na pagkakasala.

Kinuwestiyon ni Atty. Hazel L. Meking sa Korte Suprema ang DOJ Rules, at iginiit na lumampas umano ang DOJ sa saklaw ng kapangyarihan nito at nakialam sa konstitusyunal na awtoridad ng Korte Suprema na magtakda ng mga tuntunin sa pleading, practice, at procedure sa lahat ng hukuman. Ayon sa kanya, sa bisa ng DOJ Rules ay tila binago ang Rule 112, Section 3(a) ng Rules of Criminal Procedure, na nagsasaad na probable cause ang kinakailangang antas ng ebidensiya sa mga preliminary investigation.

Hindi pinagbigyan ng Korte ang kanyang petisyon at muling pinagtibay ang naging pasya nito sa A.M. No. 24-02-09-SC, kung saan kinilala nito ang kapangyarihan ng DOJ na maglabas ng sarili nitong mga tuntunin para sa mga preliminary investigation at inquest proceeding.

Ayon sa Korte, ang DOJ Rules ay sumasaklaw lamang sa paraan ng pagsasagawa ng preliminary investigation at inquest ng mga piskal, na itinuturing na mga tungkuling nasa ilalim ng ehekutibong sangay ng pamahalaan. Gayunman, hindi ito umaabot sa mga judicial proceeding, dahil nananatili sa Korte Suprema ang kapangyarihang magtakda ng mga tuntunin ng pamamaraan para sa mga ito.

Binanggit ng Korte na kinilala na nito noon pa na ang preliminary investigation ay nasa eksklusibong saklaw ng mga piskal, nang rebisahin nito ang Rules of Criminal Procedure noong 2005.

Noong 2024, sa pamamagitan ng A.M. No. 24-02-09-SC, iniutos din ng Korte ang pagbasura sa mga probisyon ng Rule 112 na hindi naaayon sa DOJ Rules, para mapag-isa at maging magkatugma ang mga ito.

Nananatiling pinakamataas ang konstitusyunal na kapangyarihan ng Korte na magtakda ng mga tuntunin para sa mga judicial proceeding, gayundin ang kapangyarihan nitong itama ang grave abuse of discretion sa anumang tuntunin o hakbang ng prosekusyon na lumalabag sa mga karapatang itinatakda ng Konstitusyon.

Basahin ang kabuuan ng Press Release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=161871

Basahin ang kabuuang teksto ng Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=161853

Basahin ang Concurring Opinion ni Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=161858

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

12/03/2026

The (SC) has upheld the PHP 2-million fine imposed on Abacus Coal Exploration and Development Corporation (Abacus Coal) for failing to fully disclose in its Audited Financial Statements (AFS) the true value of its assets and additional capital.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the SC’s Third Division denied Abacus Coal’s petition questioning the ruling of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The SEC fined the company after finding it omitted important information from its AFS.

In 2008, Abacus Coal increased its capital stock from PHP 20 million to PHP 300 million after acquiring coal mining rights from Abacus Consolidated Resources & Holdings, Inc. worth PHP 2.7 billion. However, its 2008 and 2009 AFS did not reflect these assets in its Balance Sheet and showed them only in the Notes to the AFS.

When asked to explain, the company claimed the omission was due to a supposed conflict between accounting standards and the pending SEC approval of its capital increase.

The SEC rejected this explanation and held that the omission caused the company to understate its total assets, in violation of 𝘚𝘌𝘊 𝘔𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘮 𝘊𝘪𝘳𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳 (𝘔𝘊) 𝘕𝘰. 08-09. The SEC also pointed out that the information was readily available because the capital increase had already been approved in December 2008 before the AFS were issued.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the SEC’s ruling, stating that disclosures in the Notes alone were not enough to provide a complete picture of the company’s financial condition.

The SC agreed. It held that Abacus Coal violated Rule 68 of the 𝘚𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘙𝘦𝘨𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 (SRC), which requires corporations to include in their balance sheets all intangible assets, capital, and reserves. Not disclosing these items results in material deficiencies and misstatements, which are subject to fines under 𝘚𝘌𝘊 𝘔𝘊 𝘕𝘰. 08-09.

Under Rule 68 of the SRC, information is considered material if omitting or misstating it could influence a user’s economic decisions based on the financial statements. The SC stressed that leaving out material information weakens the reliability of financial reports.

In this case, the SC found the understatement of assets significant and clearly material, as the missing information should have been disclosed to help users and future investors make informed decisions based on accurate financial data.

The SC emphasized that including the information in the Notes to the AFS was not enough because Rule 68 of the SRC clearly requires such information to appear directly in the Balance Sheet.

The SC also noted that the revised AFS the company later submitted still did not cure the deficiencies, as it continued to omit the appraised value of the mining rights amounting to PHP 2.7 billion.

The SC upheld the SEC’s computation of the penalty under 𝘚𝘌𝘊 𝘔𝘊 𝘕𝘰. 08-09, which imposes a fine equivalent to 1/10 of 1 percent of the appraised value of the omitted amount, subject to a maximum of PHP 1 million per year of misstatement.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=161713

Read the full text of the Decision https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=161705

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

08/03/2026

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

08/03/2026

08/03/2026

08/03/2026

The Judiciary adopts flexible work arrangements and energy conservation measures starting March 9, 2026 in Memorandum Circular No. 02 - 2026 issued by Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo.

In the Memo, the (SC) observes a four-day on-site and one-day work-from-home (WFH) work arrangement, citing Friday as the generally observed WFH day and provided that at least 25% of the employees in each office or division shall report on-site every Friday, as determined by the head of office or division, to ensure continuity of operations.

The Office of the Chief Justice, the Office of the Senior Associate Justice, the Offices of the Associate Justices, the Cash Collection and Disbursement Division of the Fiscal Management and Budget Office, the Docket-Receiving Section of the Judicial Records Office, the Management Information Systems Office (MISO) with respect to its essential staff, and the Office of the Judiciary Marshals are excluded from this work arrangement, and shall maintain the regular work arrangements.

The Court of Appeals (CA) shall observe the same work arrangements prescribed for the SC, provided that on Fridays, at least 25% of the employees in each office or division shall report on-site, and, at least, three Justices comprising one division, on a rotation basis, shall be available to act on urgent matters, including petitions for extraordinary writs and petitions and motions in connection with Republic Act No. 9160, or the Anti-Money Laundering Act, as amended.

Meanwhile, the Sandiganbayan and Court of Tax Appeals shall continue to observe a full five-day on-site workweek, without special work arrangement.

The First- and Second- Level Courts shall likewise observe a four-day on-site and one-day WFH arrangement.

In single-sala courts, Presiding Judges may adopt either of the following on-site work schedules: (1) on-site work from Monday to Thursday, with Friday designated as the WFH day, or (2) on-site work from Tuesday to Friday, with Monday designated as the WFH day; Provided that pairing courts shall not be on WFH schedule on the same day.

In multiple-sala courts, the four-day on-site and one-day WFH arrangement shall be implemented alternately. Within the same week, odd-numbered branches shall initially report on-site from Monday to Thursday, with Friday designated as the WFH day, while even-numbered branches shall report on-site from Tuesday to Friday, with Monday designated as the WFH day. In the following week, the schedules shall be reversed (i.e., the odd-numbered branches shall report on-site from Tuesday to Friday, with Monday as the WFH day, while the even-numbered branches shall report on-site from Monday to Thursday, with Friday as the WFH day.) This alternating schedule shall continue every week until the four-day workweek arrangement is lifted.

The flexible work arrangements prescribed in Memorandum Circular No. 02 - 2026 shall commence on March 9, 2026, and shall remain in force until modified or lifted by the SC.

Read the full text of Memorandum Circular No. 02 - 2026 at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=161689

19/01/2026

Sa unang regular na sesyon nito noong Enero 14, 2026, pinagbigyan ng En Banc ng ang Petition for Certiorari na inihain ni Errol B. Comafay, Jr. at binaliktad ang Resolusyon ng Commission on Elections (COMELEC) na nagkakansela sa kanyang Certificate of Candidacy (COC) para sa posisyon ng Miyembro ng Sangguniang Panlungsod ng Lungsod ng Tabuk, Kalinga, sa halalan 2025 dahil umano sa pagbibigay ng maling tirahan.

Sa kanyang COC, isinulat ni Comafay ang kanyang tirahan bilang “TARAKI NATIONAL RD PUROK 5,” na walang kuwit. Sa ibang bahagi ng COC, isinulat niya ang kanyang tirahan bilang “TARAKI, NATIONAL RD, PUROK 5, BRGY. BULANAO, TABUK CITY, KALINGA,” na may mga kuwit na naghihiwalay sa mga lokasyong heograpikal.

Naghain kalaunan si Paquinto B. Sallaya ng petisyon para kanselahin ang COC ni Comafay at inakusahan siyang gumawa ng material misrepresentation dahil wala umanong umiiral na “Taraki National Road” sa Barangay Bulanao o saan man sa Lungsod ng Tabuk.

Itinanggi ni Comafay ang paratang at iginiit na wala siyang intensyong linlangin ang mga botante nang binigay niya ang kanyang tirahan sa COC.

Nagpasya ang Korte Suprema na hindi maituturing na material misrepresentation ang pagkukulang ng isang kuwit sa tirahang isinulat ni Comafay.

Sa ilalim ng Seksyon 78 ng Omnibus Election Code, ang petisyon para tanggihan o kanselahin ang COC ay maaari lamang ipagkaloob kapag may malinaw na patunay na ang isang kandidato ay gumawa ng mali at material na representasyon hinggil sa mga kwalipikasyon tulad ng paninirahan, edad, o pagkamamamayan.

Para maging batayan ng pagkansela, dapat na parehong material at false o mali ang misrepresentation o maling representasyon. Ito ay material kung may kinalaman sa mga kwalipikasyon ng kandidato sa posisyon, at mali kung ang kandidato ay alam at sadyang gumawa ng hindi totoong pahayag na may layuning linlangin ang COMELEC o ang mga botante.

Sa kasong ito, sinabi ng Korte Suprema na hindi nakaapekto sa mga kwalipikasyon ni Comafay ang nawawalang kuwit. Hindi rin ito nakapipinsala sapagkat hindi nito binago ang kahulugan ng tirahan at wala rin itong kaugnayan sa kanyang mga kwalipikasyon.

Napatunayan din na walang ginawang bad faith si Comafay, sapagkat isinulat din niya ang kanyang address na may kuwit sa parehong dokumento. Bukod dito, palagi niyang ginagamit ang “Taraki, National Rd, Brgy. Bulanao, Tabuk City” sa halos lahat ng kanyang mga transaksyon, legal na dokumento, at mga identification card sa loob ng mahigit isang dekada.

Dagdag pa ng Korte Suprema, gumamit ang COMELEC ng isang labis na literal at makitid na interpretasyon sa kung ano ang maituturing na material misrepresentation.

Ang buong teksto ng Desisyon ay ilalathala sa website ng Korte Suprema kapag may kopya na.

Basahin ang Press Briefer sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=159244

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

19/01/2026

06/10/2025