I am not a pro bono lawyer. See the PAO or IBP chapter near you for free legal aid.
Wednesday, January 20, 2021
RA 11459 mandates the creation of judges-at-large posts for the regional and municipal trial courts to decongest the courts of its dockets
See - https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1127624
"x x x.
2021 judiciary budget to help decongest courts
www.pna.gov.ph
January 17, 2021, 12:04 pm
MANILA – The judiciary will be able to fast-track the adjudication of several pending court cases with the support provided by Congress under the 2021 national budget for the appointment of judges-at-large, Senator Sonny Angara said Sunday.
Angara, who steered the early approval of the 2021 General Appropriations Act (GAA) as chairman of the Senate’s Committee on Finance, said a total of PHP244.988 million was included in the budget of the judiciary for the implementation of Republic Act 11459 or the Judges-at-Large Act.
Enacted on Aug. 13, 2019, RA 11459 mandates the creation of judges-at-large posts for the regional and municipal trial courts to decongest the courts of its dockets
These appointed judges-at-large will have no permanent salas and may be assigned by the Supreme Court as acting or assisting judges to any RTC or MTC in the country “as public interest may require.”
They are entitled to salaries, privileges, allowances, emoluments, benefits, rank and title of regular RTC and MTC judges.
The funds allocated for the judiciary will pave the way for the appointment of 100 judges-at-large posts for 2021.
Angara noted that the National Expenditure Program submitted by Malacañang to Congress last year did not contain a provision for the appointment of judges-at-large.
“For 2020, the first year of implementation of the law, we provided funding to cover for the creation of 50 judges-at-large posts. For 2021, we will double the number of posts to 100 as requested by our Chief Justice Diosdado Peralta,” Angara said in a news release.
Angara said the Senate wanted to sustain the implementation of the Judges-at-Large Act to help ensure the delivery of speedy justice in the country.
“With the appointment of more judges, we can expect to see the resolution of more cases and eventually free up the courts of its backlog,” Angara added.
The principal authors of RA 11459 are Angara in the Senate and Speaker Lord Allan Velasco in the House of Representatives.
Also included in the budget of the judiciary for 2021 is an augmentation of PHP50 million to cover for the deployment of judiciary marshals to secure the justices, judges and other court officials.
Angara said the inclusion of this funding was prompted by the appeals of the judiciary for the creation of a judicial marshal service as the threats and attacks against judges and other court officials continue to take place in the country.
The Senate is set to approve Senate Bill 1947 or the proposed Judiciary Marshals Act, of which Angara is one of the authors.
Once approved, an office of the judiciary marshals will be established under the Supreme Court and its continued funding will be ensured as part of the annual GAA. (PR)
x x x."
January 17, 2021, 12:04 pm
MANILA – The judiciary will be able to fast-track the adjudication of several pending court cases with the support provided by Congress under the 2021 national budget for the appointment of judges-at-large, Senator Sonny Angara said Sunday.
Angara, who steered the early approval of the 2021 General Appropriations Act (GAA) as chairman of the Senate’s Committee on Finance, said a total of PHP244.988 million was included in the budget of the judiciary for the implementation of Republic Act 11459 or the Judges-at-Large Act.
Enacted on Aug. 13, 2019, RA 11459 mandates the creation of judges-at-large posts for the regional and municipal trial courts to decongest the courts of its dockets
These appointed judges-at-large will have no permanent salas and may be assigned by the Supreme Court as acting or assisting judges to any RTC or MTC in the country “as public interest may require.”
They are entitled to salaries, privileges, allowances, emoluments, benefits, rank and title of regular RTC and MTC judges.
The funds allocated for the judiciary will pave the way for the appointment of 100 judges-at-large posts for 2021.
Angara noted that the National Expenditure Program submitted by Malacañang to Congress last year did not contain a provision for the appointment of judges-at-large.
“For 2020, the first year of implementation of the law, we provided funding to cover for the creation of 50 judges-at-large posts. For 2021, we will double the number of posts to 100 as requested by our Chief Justice Diosdado Peralta,” Angara said in a news release.
Angara said the Senate wanted to sustain the implementation of the Judges-at-Large Act to help ensure the delivery of speedy justice in the country.
“With the appointment of more judges, we can expect to see the resolution of more cases and eventually free up the courts of its backlog,” Angara added.
The principal authors of RA 11459 are Angara in the Senate and Speaker Lord Allan Velasco in the House of Representatives.
Also included in the budget of the judiciary for 2021 is an augmentation of PHP50 million to cover for the deployment of judiciary marshals to secure the justices, judges and other court officials.
Angara said the inclusion of this funding was prompted by the appeals of the judiciary for the creation of a judicial marshal service as the threats and attacks against judges and other court officials continue to take place in the country.
The Senate is set to approve Senate Bill 1947 or the proposed Judiciary Marshals Act, of which Angara is one of the authors.
Once approved, an office of the judiciary marshals will be established under the Supreme Court and its continued funding will be ensured as part of the annual GAA. (PR)
x x x."
Best evidence rule - "As such, mere photocopies of documents are inadmissible pursuant to the best evidence rule. Nevertheless, evidence not objected to is deemed admitted and may be validly considered by the court in arriving at its judgment. Courts are not precluded to accept in evidence a mere photocopy of a document when no objection was raised when it was formally offered. "
In the case of SPOUSES MARCELIAN TAPAYAN and ALICE TAPAYAN, Petitioners, vs. PONCEDA M. MARTINEZ, Respondent. G.R. No. 207786, January 30, 2017, the Supreme Court held:
“The best evidence rule requires that the original document be produced whenever its contents are the subject of inquiry, except in certain limited cases laid down in Section 3 of Rule 130. However, to set this rule in motion, a proper and timely objection is necessary. The Court's ruling in Lorenzana v. Lelina is instructive:
The best evidence rule requires that when the subject of inquiry is (sic) the contents of a document, no evidence is admissible other than the original document itself except in the instances mentioned in Section 3, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court. As such, mere photocopies of documents are inadmissible pursuant to the best evidence rule. Nevertheless, evidence not objected to is deemed admitted and may be validly considered by the court in arriving at its judgment. Courts are not precluded to accept in evidence a mere photocopy of a document when no objection was raised when it was formally offered.
In order to exclude evidence, the objection to admissibility of evidence must be made at the proper time, and the grounds specified. Objection to evidence must be made at the time it is formally offered. In case of documentary evidence, offer is made after all the witnesses of the party making the offer have testified, specifying the purpose for which the evidence is being offered. It is only at this time, and not at any other, that objection to the documentary evidence may be made. And when a party failed to interpose a timely objection to evidence at the time they were offered in evidence, such objection shall be considered as waived. This is true even if by its nature the evidence is inadmissible and would have surely been rejected if it had been challenged at the proper time. Moreover, grounds for objection must be specified in any case. Grounds for objections not raised at the proper time shall be considered waived, even if the evidence was objected to on some other ground. Thus, even on appeal, the appellate court may not consider any other ground of objection, except those that were raised at the proper time.40 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied; citations omitted).”
A denied exhibit may be admitted to form part of the testimony of the witness.
In Capital Shoes Factories Ltd. Vs. Traveler Kids Inc., GR No. G.R. No. 200065, September 24, 2014, the Supreme Court held that a denied exhibit may be admitted to form part of the testimony of the witness.
“The transcripts of stenographic notes (TSNs) clearly show that Chiu convincingly explained that CSFL usually prepared two (2) copies of invoices for a particular transaction, giving one copy to a client and retaining the other copy. The Court combed through her testimony and found nothing that would indicate that the documents offered were mere photocopies. She remained firm and consistent with her statement that the subject invoices were duplicate originals as they were prepared at the same time. The Court sees no reason why Section 4(b), Rule 130 of the Rules of Court should not apply. At any rate, those exhibits can be admitted as part of the testimony of Chiu.”
Infanticide; monetary awards
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. GIRALYN P. ADALIA ACCUSED-APPELLANT. G.R. No. 235990, January 22, 2020 .
“x x x.
On the monetary awards, People v. Jugueta109 pronounced:
I. For those crimes like, Murder, Parricide, Serious Intentional Mutilation, Infanticide, and other crimes involving death of a victim where the penalty consists of indivisible penalties:
xxx xxx xxx
2.1 Where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, other than the above-mentioned:
a. Civil indemnity - P75,000.00
b. Moral damages - P75,000.00
c. Exemplary damages - P75,000.00
Thus, the Court of Appeals' awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages should be reduced from P100,000.00 each to P75,000.00 each.
The Court of Appeals also correctly awarded P50,000.00 as temperate damages. Obviously, expenses were made in order to put the child's body to rest. People v. Gervero, et al.110 ruled:
xxx xxx xxx
x x x It was also ruled in Jugueta that when no documentary evidence of burial or funeral expenses is presented in court, the amount of P50,000.00 as temperate damages shall be awarded. In addition, interest at the rate of six percent per annum shall be imposed on all monetary awards from the date of finality of this decision until fully paid. (Emphasis supplied)
X x x."
Penalty for infanticide
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. GIRALYN P. ADALIA ACCUSED-APPELLANT. G.R. No. 235990, January 22, 2020 .
“x x x.
Article 255 provides:
Art. 255. Infanticide. — The penalty provided for parricide in Article 246 and for murder in Article 248 shall be imposed upon any person who shall kill any child less than three days of age.
If the crime penalized in this article be committed by the mother of the child for the purpose of concealing her dishonor, she shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, and if said crime be committed for the same purpose by the maternal grandparents or either of them, the penalty shall be prision mayor.
Article 255, in relation to Article 248 of the RPC,105 provides that the offense of infanticide is punishable by reclusion perpetua in its maximum period to death. Applying Article 63(2) of the RPC,106 the lesser of the two (2) indivisible penalties shall be imposed when there is no mitigating or aggravating circumstance which attended the killing, as in this case.
Appellant claims, however, that should her conviction be affirmed here, the lesser penalty of prision correccional, not reclusion perpetua, should be imposed on her. She asserts that as the prosecution itself had purportedly narrated, she committed the crime only because she wanted to conceal her dishonor.
The argument utterly lacks merit.
There is absolutely no evidence on record showing that appellant killed her child supposedly to conceal her dishonor for being an unwed mother or a woman who bore a child although she did not have a boyfriend. This alleged circumstance, not being found on the record cannot be used to benefit appellant by reducing the imposable penalty from reclusion perpetua to prision correccional.
Verily, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals correctly sentenced appellant to reclusion perpetua.
It is unnecessary, however, to specify that appellant is not eligible for parole. Under Administrative Matter No. 15-08-02-SC,107 the qualification "without eligibility for parole" is only specified when the proper penalty would have been death were it not for the enactment of Republic Act No. 9346.108 Here, in view of the absence of any aggravating circumstance, appellant should be sentenced to reclusion perpetua only, not death. Hence, the term of reclusion perpetua need not be qualified by the phrase "without eligibility for parole."
X x x.”
Credibility of witnesses
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. GIRALYN P. ADALIA ACCUSED-APPELLANT. G.R. No. 235990, January 22, 2020 .
“x x x.
In cases where the issue rests on the credibility of witnesses, as in this case, it is important to emphasize the well-settled rule that "appellate courts accord the highest respect to the assessment made by the trial court because of the trial judge's unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grueling examination."
We explained in Reyes, Jr. v. Court of Appeals that the findings of the trial court will not be overturned absent any clear showing that it had overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight or substance that could have altered the outcome of the case, viz.:
Also, the issue hinges on credibility of witnesses. We have consistently adhered to the rule that where the culpability or innocence of an accused would hinge on the issue of credibility of witnesses and the veracity of their testimonies, findings of the trial court are given the highest degree of respect. These findings will not be ordinarily disturbed by an appellate court absent any clear showing that the trial court has overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight or substance which could very well affect the outcome of the case. It is the trial court that had the opportunity to observe 'the witnesses' manner of testifying, their furtive glances, calmness, sighs or their scant or full realization of their oaths. It had the better opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grueling examination. Inconsistencies or contradictions in the testimony of the victim do not affect the veracity of the testimony if the inconsistencies do not pertain to material points. (Emphasis supplied)
X x x.”
Circumstantial evidence
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. GIRALYN P. ADALIA ACCUSED-APPELLANT. G.R. No. 235990, January 22, 2020 .
“x x x.
In the main, appellant asserts that there was no direct evidence to prove that the charge of infanticide against her, hence, she should have been acquitted.
The absence alone of direct evidence against an accused does not per se compel a finding of innocence. Circumstantial evidence may be offered to take the place of direct evidence, especially in cases involving crimes which by their nature are usually committed in utmost secrecy. People v. Pentecostes47 decreed that circumstantial evidence is by no means a "weaker" form of evidence vis-a-vis direct evidence. It elaborated:
Direct evidence of the commission of a crime is not indispensable to criminal prosecutions; a contrary rule would render convictions virtually impossible given that most crimes, by their very nature, are purposely committed in seclusion and away from eyewitnesses. Thus, our rules on evidence and jurisprudence allow the conviction of an accused through circumstantial evidence alone, provided that the following requisites concur:
(i) there is more than one circumstance;
(ii) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
(iii) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
Simply put, an accused may be convicted when the circumstances established form an unbroken chain leading to one fair reasonable conclusion and pointing to the accused - to the exclusion of all others - as the guilty person.
xxx xxx xxx
In People v. Casitas, Jr.,48 the Court explained that establishing guilt through circumstantial evidence is akin to weaving a "tapestry of events that culminate in a vivid depiction of the crime of which the accused is the author."
Here, the following circumstances make up the chain of events which culminated in a graphic portrayal of how appellant's cold-blooded slaying of her newborn child was committed, viz.: x x x.
X x x.”
In the main, appellant asserts that there was no direct evidence to prove that the charge of infanticide against her, hence, she should have been acquitted.
The absence alone of direct evidence against an accused does not per se compel a finding of innocence. Circumstantial evidence may be offered to take the place of direct evidence, especially in cases involving crimes which by their nature are usually committed in utmost secrecy. People v. Pentecostes47 decreed that circumstantial evidence is by no means a "weaker" form of evidence vis-a-vis direct evidence. It elaborated:
Direct evidence of the commission of a crime is not indispensable to criminal prosecutions; a contrary rule would render convictions virtually impossible given that most crimes, by their very nature, are purposely committed in seclusion and away from eyewitnesses. Thus, our rules on evidence and jurisprudence allow the conviction of an accused through circumstantial evidence alone, provided that the following requisites concur:
(i) there is more than one circumstance;
(ii) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
(iii) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
Simply put, an accused may be convicted when the circumstances established form an unbroken chain leading to one fair reasonable conclusion and pointing to the accused - to the exclusion of all others - as the guilty person.
xxx xxx xxx
In People v. Casitas, Jr.,48 the Court explained that establishing guilt through circumstantial evidence is akin to weaving a "tapestry of events that culminate in a vivid depiction of the crime of which the accused is the author."
Here, the following circumstances make up the chain of events which culminated in a graphic portrayal of how appellant's cold-blooded slaying of her newborn child was committed, viz.: x x x.
X x x.”
Infanticide
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. GIRALYN P. ADALIA ACCUSED-APPELLANT. G.R. No. 235990, January 22, 2020 .
“x x x.
Article 255 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) reads:
Art. 255. Infanticide. — The penalty provided for parricide in Article 246 and for murder in Article 248 shall be imposed upon any person who shall kill any child less than three days of age.
xxx xxx xxx
Thus, to convict an accused charged with infanticide, the following elements must be proved: (a) a child was killed; (b) the deceased child was less than three (3) days old; and (c) the accused killed the child.
X x x."
Monday, January 18, 2021
Fake drug buy-bust police operation
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RONALD SUATING Y SAYON ALIAS "BOK", ACCUSED-APPELLANT. G.R. No. 220142, January 29, 2020.
"Only the police testified for the prosecution. The actual poseur - buyer was not presented, and the police officers were 10 meters away. The alleged contraband was laid out on the table when the barangay official came. There was no testimony on the chain of custody from the attesting officers to the persons who tested the alleged contraband.
In contrast, the accused presented five (5) witnesses from the community to prove that the alleged contraband was not taken from the accused, and that no buy-bust operation occurred. The accused testified that when he was searched, they only found two pesos and fifty centavos (P2.50) on his person.
Yet, the trial court and the Court of Appeals were willing to send this accused to a life in prison and to impose a fine of P500,000.00 for allegedly selling a stick of marijuana.
We reverse. Efforts of law enforcers to go after the real drug syndicates are undermined by these obviously fictitious arrests. All it accomplishes is alienate our people, enable corrupt law enforcers, and undermine the confidence of our people—especially those who are impoverished and underprivileged—on our court's ability to do justice.
Courts must exercise "heightened scrutiny, consistent with the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, in evaluating cases involving miniscule amounts of drugs for these can be readily planted and tampered."1"
In contrast, the accused presented five (5) witnesses from the community to prove that the alleged contraband was not taken from the accused, and that no buy-bust operation occurred. The accused testified that when he was searched, they only found two pesos and fifty centavos (P2.50) on his person.
Yet, the trial court and the Court of Appeals were willing to send this accused to a life in prison and to impose a fine of P500,000.00 for allegedly selling a stick of marijuana.
We reverse. Efforts of law enforcers to go after the real drug syndicates are undermined by these obviously fictitious arrests. All it accomplishes is alienate our people, enable corrupt law enforcers, and undermine the confidence of our people—especially those who are impoverished and underprivileged—on our court's ability to do justice.
Courts must exercise "heightened scrutiny, consistent with the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, in evaluating cases involving miniscule amounts of drugs for these can be readily planted and tampered."1"