Atty. Clenntroy Vicka Guzman-Magbual

10/02/2026

🏳️‍🌈

19/12/2025

VAWC PROSECUTION AND EVENTUAL CONVICTION MAY STILL PROCEED DESPITE COMPLAINANT'S DEATH—SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court (SC) ruled that violation of Republic Act No. 9262, or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004, is a public offense that may be initiated by anyone with personal knowledge, even after the complainant’s death.

In a 16-page decision penned by Associate Justice Mario Lopez (retired), the SC's Second Division affirmed the criminal conviction of a husband for psychological violence under Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 after he entered into an illicit relationship with another woman that bore a child and for abandoning his family.

The complaint was filed in 2006, when the complainant alleged that she suffered mental torture from various acts of the accused, such as maintaining illicit relations with a paramour with whom he sired a child and abandoning his family.

In 2017, the complainant died during the pendency of the case. But despite this, the prosecution still pursued the case and presented the son of the complainant and accused, who testified that his mother was shot to death by his father when he was still in Grade 3.

He also narrated that his father abandoned them for his mistress. He added that he saw his father and the woman naked. Meanwhile, the accused denied the allegations and claimed that the complainant filed a case against him because he refused to give her P2 million as capital for her business.

The Regional Trial Court convicted the accused and his mistress of violation of Sec. 5(i) of R.A. 9262, or the VAWC Act. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of the husband but acquitted the mistress on the ground that only those who had a sexual or dating relationship with the victim may be held liable under the VAWC Act.

The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals, emphasizing that the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of psychological violence under Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262.

It clarified that VAWC seeks to penalize not the occurrence of marital infidelity but the psychological violence from the accused's act of unfaithfulness, the abandonment of his family, and the utter disregard of the feelings of his wife and children, which resulted in the mental and emotional sufferings.

The highest bench underscored that since violation of the VAWC Act is a public crime, its prosecution can still proceed despite the death of the complainant. It noted that any citizen having personal knowledge of the circumstances involving its commission can initiate the filing of cases.

The SC noted that public crime is different from private crimes, such as adultery and concubinage, which may only be prosecuted upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse.

"Even if the complainant is absent or can no longer give a testimony, the criminal proceedings may still proceed, so long as there are other witnesses with personal knowledge and supporting pieces of evidence to support the prosecution's theory," the Supreme Court said.

"Despite her death, [the victim's] mental and emotional anguish may still be established by (1) the documentary evidence offered by the prosecution and (2) testimonies of the other witnesses," it added.

The SC sentenced the accused to a penalty of up to eight years imprisonment and ordered him to pay the victim's heirs PHP 100,000 as a fine and PHP 25,000 as moral damages.

21/09/2025

A person may be detained only for 12, 18, or 36 hours without charges under the Revised Penal Code, or up to 14 days—extendable by 10 more days—under the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020.

Read more in the comment section.

11/08/2025

20/07/2025

When seeking legal advice or notarial service, please bring all necessary documents, multiple copies if possible, and present to the lawyer concerned. This will allow the lawyer to assess the situation and give proper advice without any delay.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Send a message to learn more

04/07/2025

We have moved to a new office address at: Brgy. 2 Garreta, Badoc, Ilocos Norte• 1st Floor• Triplets Building• Please refer to the photos below.

25/05/2025

We are closed on Monday to Wednesday, May 26 to 28, 2025.
Thank you.

16/05/2025

The (SC) has reiterated that once a job offer is accepted, an employer-employee relationship is already formed. Employers cannot just claim redundancy to justify terminating workers – they must present clear proof that a valid redundancy program is in place.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, the SC’s Third Division found that Alltech Biotechnology (Alltech) illegally dismissed Paolo Landayan Aragones (Aragones) for failing to prove there was redundancy in the company.

Alltech had offered Aragones the position of Swine Technical Manager - Pacific, with a monthly salary of PHP 140,000. He accepted the offer and resigned from his previous job.

Before Aragones’ start date, however, Alltech informed him that the position had been abolished due to a global restructuring. Alltech offered him the amount of PHP 140,000 as goodwill payment. Aragones then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.

The SC ruled that the employment contract was perfected as soon as Aragones signed the job offer. The delay in his start date merely postponed the obligations of Aragones to report for work, and of Alltech to pay his salary.

However, the SC emphasized that employers must provide solid evidence to justify terminating an employee due to redundancy, which Alltech failed to provide.

Alltech only submitted an affidavit from its Vice President stating that the company decided to shift from regional to local support to better respond to its customers’ needs.

The SC found the statement vague and unsupported by other documents. It did not explain how or why certain positions like Aragones’ were removed. It thus ordered Alltech to pay Aragones backwages and separation pay.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/38vp842u.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/2tfywuhu.

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

15/05/2025

Ang isang duplicate o photocopy ng mga orihinal na dokumento, maging sa papel o electronic form, ay maaaring tanggapin bilang ebidensya sa korte, basta’t walang duda o kwestiyon tungkol sa pagiging tunay o pagiging patas sa paggamit ng kopya.

Sa Desisyon na isinulat ni Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo, pinagtibay ng Unang Dibisyon ng ang hatol kay Ybo Lastimosa para sa pagpatay kay Ildefonso Vega, Jr. Gumamit ang prosekusyon ng photocopy ng death certificate ni Vega bilang pangunahing ebidensya sa kaso.

Sa paglilitis, tumestigo ang mga saksi na binaril ni Lastimosa si Vega sa ulo sa labas ng isang sabungan sa Cebu City. Tumestigo din ang asawa ni Vega na patay na siya nang madatnan sa ospital. Para suportahan ito, ang prosekusyon ay nagprisinta ng photocopy ng death certificate ni Vega na nagkumpirma na namatay siya dahil sa mga tama ng bala sa ulo at leeg.

Guilty sa kasong homicide ang hatol kay Lastimosa ng Regional Trial Court na binigyan ng timbang ang photocopy ng death certificate at eyewitness accounts. Sa apela, inangat ng Court of Appeals ang hatol sa murder.

Umapela si Lastimosa at nangatwiran na nabigo ang prosekusyon na patunayan na nangyari ang krimen dahil ang orihinal na death certificate ay hindi iprinisinta sa paglilitis. Dagdag niya, ang isang photocopy, nang walang paghahambing sa orihinal para sa pagpapatunay, ay hindi dapat tinanggap bilang ebidensya.

Pero tinanggihan ng Korte Suprema ang argumentong ito. Paliwanag ng Korte, sa ilalim ng Rule 130, Section 4(c) ng 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence, na nagkabisa noong 2020, ang isang duplicate ay tinatanggap bilang orihinal maliban kung may genuine na tanong tungkol sa pagiging tunay ng orihinal o kung magiging hindi patas ang paggamit ng duplicate. Nalalapat ang panuntunang ito sa parehong papel at elektronikong mga dokumento, na nagpapakita ng kasalukuyang realidad kung saan ang mga duplicate ay kadalasang maaasahan tulad ng mga orihinal.

Sa kasong ito, binanggit ng Korte na ang photocopy ng death certificate ay tinatanggap dahil walang pagtatalo sa pagiging tunay ng orihinal na dokumento, at walang anumang pag-aangkin na hindi patas sa pag-rely sa duplicate.

Gayunpaman, binigyang-diin ng Korte na habang ang isang photocopy ay maaaring tanggapin, ang bigat o halaga nito ay nakasalalay sa kung gaano ito kahusay na nagpapatunay o sumusuporta sa iba pang magagamit na ebidensya. Sa kasong ito, suportado ng testimonya ng asawa ng biktima at ng ibang mga testigo ang pagkamatay ni Vega.

Pinagtibay ng Korte ang sentensiya ni Lastimosa na reclusion perpetua o pagkakakulong ng hanggang 40 taon at inutusan siyang magbayad ng PHP 275,000 bilang civil indemnity at danyos, na may interes.

Basahin ang buong teksto ng press release sa https://tinyurl.com/36r9m76u.

Basahin ang buong teksto ng Desisyon sa https://tinyurl.com/mwe35fhe.

15/05/2025

The (SC) has acquitted a security guard accused of violating the election gun ban due to a defect in the Information or the formal charge sheet filed against him.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC’s Third Division overturned the conviction of Efren Sadiarin Baguinon, Sr. (Baguinon), previously found guilty by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) for carrying a firearm during the election period without proper authorization.

Baguinon, a security guard for AFM Protective Agency, was driving home on his motorcycle when he collided with a tricycle driven by Nestor Badiong (Badiong). A heated argument followed, during which Baguinon drew his service firearm, aimed it at Badiong, and fired four shots. None of the shots hit Badiong.

He was charged with violation of the election gun ban under Section 32 of Republic Act No. (RA) 7166, in relation to Commission on Elections Resolution No. 6446.

The SC ruled that Baguinon’s conviction could not stand because the Information failed to clearly state all the essential elements of the crime, as required in criminal cases. The prosecution failed to indicate it was done in a public place.

Since the Information failed to include the essential element that the offense was committed in a public place, Baguinon was not properly informed of the accusation against him, justifying his acquittal. The right to be fully informed of the charges is a fundamental part of due process, allowing the accused to prepare a proper defense.

The SC also found that the prosecution mistakenly combined elements from the two separate offenses, mixing parts of Section 261(s) of the OEC with Section 32 of RA 7166:

The first offense prohibits anyone from carrying fi****ms in any public place during the election period, as outlined under Section 32 of RA 7166.

The second punishes members of security or police organizations for the unauthorized carrying of fi****ms outside their official place of work during the campaign period, the day before the election, the election day, and 30 days after the election, as provided under Section 261 (s) of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC). In both cases, the prosecution must clearly specify the place where the alleged crime occurred, as this is an essential element that must be included in the Information.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/4897c94f.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/2p9whd3c.

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