Mendoza Palacao Condat Law Office - MPC Law

03/10/2026

28/09/2026

The has adopted the term "𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘮-𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘷𝘰𝘳" when referring to persons who have experienced s*xual violence.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, the SC’s Third Division affirmed a man’s conviction for the r**e of a 12-year-old child.

The minor testified that while everyone was asleep, the accused, who was the common-law spouse of the minor’s mother, dragged the child outside the residence of her uncle, r**ed her, pointed a knife at her, and threatened to kill her if she told anyone about the incident.

She told her uncle and aunt that the accused had been s*xually abusing her since she was nine years old. She did not report it earlier because she feared his threats.

The SC found all the elements of r**e present and the accused positively identified as the ra**st. In addition to the penalty of 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘱𝘦𝘵𝘶𝘢 or up to 40 years in prison, the SC ordered the man to pay the victim-survivor PHP 450,000 in civil indemnity and damages.

The SC clarified its terminology in cases involving s*xual violence. Rather than using the term "𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘮," it adopted "𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘮-𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘷𝘰𝘳" to acknowledge both the harm caused by the crime and the strength victims show in enduring and recovering from such violence.

As part of the government’s efforts to provide comprehensive support for victim-survivors, the SC also directed the Department of Social Welfare and Development to refer the minor to the proper r**e crisis center for assistance.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=174013.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=168013.

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

07/09/2026

From the bloodline of Januario Mendoza of Liloan, Cebu 🥰

WHO IS THIS DEFENSE LAWYER

READ: http://dlvr.it/TVMFxb

LOOK: Lawyer Justin Gular is part of the defense team representing Vice President Sara Duterte in her impeachment trial.

On Day 22, he appears for the defense during the prosecution’s presentation of PSA Assistant National Statistician Marizza Grande as a witness.

04/09/2026

The (SC) has ruled that evidence of credit card hacking cannot be seized under a search warrant that authorizes only the search for illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia unless they are discovered in plain view.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, the SC’s Third Division acquitted an accused of violating Republic Act No. (RA) 8484, or 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘋𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘙𝘦𝘨𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘈𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 1998. Section 9(e) of the law prohibits the possession of counterfeit access devices, including fake credit cards.

The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) received information that the accused was involved in illegal drug activities and computer hacking, particularly credit card fraud.

To verify the report, the NBI instructed the informant to buy methamphetamine hydrochloride (𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘣𝘶) from the accused. Laboratory test later confirmed that it was indeed 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘣𝘶.

The NBI obtained a search warrant for violation of RA 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, authorizing the search for 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘣𝘶 and other drug-related items.

During the search of the accused’s residence, NBI agents seized several items including computers, ATM cards, laptops, a money counter, a dry seal, and a card-scheming device.

They also recovered two American Express credit cards bearing the name “V S Tan.” An American Express manager later confirmed that the cards were fake because their numbers did not match the records of the original account holder.

Both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals convicted the accused based on the evidence seized in the implementation of the search warrant.

The SC reversed the conviction and explained that, as a general rule, authorities may seize only items specifically described in a search warrant. One exception is the plain view doctrine, which allows officers to seize evidence they discover while lawfully present in a place.

For the 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸 𝘥𝘰𝘤𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘦 to apply, the officers must have a lawful reason to be in the place where the evidence is found; the discovery must be inadvertent or unintentional; and it must be immediately clear that the item may be connected to a crime.

The SC found that only the first requirement was met.

The search warrant covered only illegal drugs and related paraphernalia. It did not authorize the seizure of credit cards or other access devices.

Their discovery of the credit cards was also not made in plain view. The credit cards were inside a non-transparent bag. Their contents could not be seen until the bag was opened. Even then, the cards did not appear fake on their face. Their alleged connection to a crime became apparent only because of the NBI’s prior information and their subsequent verification by American Express.

Although the NBI agents were lawfully inside the accused’s residence, their discovery of the credit cards was not accidental. The agents already had information linking the accused to alleged credit card fraud and hacking but did not obtain a search warrant covering those offenses.

The SC thus ruled that the credit cards were unlawfully seized and could not be used as evidence against the accused. Without them, the prosecution failed to prove his guilt under RA 8484.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=172645

Read the full text of the Decision athttps://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/273931.pdf

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

03/09/2026

The Supreme Court fundamentally changed how courts review s*x crime cases in the Philippines.

For decades, judges used the "Maria Clara" doctrine—an old assumption that a traditional Filipino woman would never lie about a s*xual assault because of the social stigma involved.

If a complainant spoke clearly, the court often accepted it as automatic truth, putting the defense at a serious disadvantage.

In this case, two men from Davao City were convicted of r**e during a local fiesta and sentenced to life in prison. Their convictions were based almost entirely on the complainant's statements.

However, when the case reached the Supreme Court, the high court reviewed the record more closely. The justices found major gaps in the timeline, conflicting statements by the witness, and a medical report showing no signs of the physical violence described.

The Supreme Court didn't just reverse the conviction; it dismantled the outdated "Maria Clara" stereotype entirely.

Writing for the Court, Justice Samuel Martires stated that modern Filipino women are independent and dynamic individuals who cannot be judged by colonial-era cliches. The Court ruled that no social stereotype can replace real evidence or override an accused person's constitutional right to be presumed innocent.

This decision makes it clear: in a modern courtroom, cases must be decided by facts and proof, not by outdated cultural assumptions.

📚 People of the Philippines v. Juvy D. Amarela and Junard G. Racho (G.R. Nos. 225642-43)

🖋️ Associate Justice Samuel R. Martires