Atty. Seychelles June Doringo

18/05/2026

SUPREME COURT: NON-VERBAL THREATS MAY CONSTITUTE GRAVE THREATS UNDER RPC

The Supreme Court (SC) ruled that nonverbal gestures, as long as proven to be done with an intent to commit an offense, are criminal acts and can be considered grave threats under the Revised Penal Code (RPC), even without spoken or written words.

In a 16-page decision penned by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa, the SC's Third Division acquitted a Belgian national Gregory Ismael of grave threats after finding that prosecutors failed to prove criminal intent behind gestures he made toward two fellow Belgians.

Private complainants Christine Helena Armanda Navez and Olivier Edmund Denonville, both Belgian nationals, hired Israel to construct a building. Due to alleged construction defects, the complainants filed a civil case for damages against Israel.

On June 7, 2017, at around 9:00 a.m. In Panglao, Bohol, Navez and Denonville were in a vehicle and nearly collided with Israel, who was driving a motorcycle. During this encounter, Israel allegedly made threatening nonverbal gestures towards Navez: (1) pointing his fingers at her "as if pulling a trigger of a gun," and (2) "further crossing his fingers on his neck" (a throat-slitting gesture).

This, according to Navez, caused Christine “sleepless nights and emotional agony,” fearing that Israel would make true his gestures of harming her after supposedly learning that the accused was “very dangerous.”

Navez filed a criminal complaint for grave threats against Israel. Israel denied the charges, claiming an alibi that he was in Tagbilaran City receiving a court summons at the time. He further argued that even if he did make the gestures, Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) does not contemplate purely non-verbal gestures.

Furthermore, he argued that the mens rea (criminal intent) was absent because the gestures were merely spontaneous expressions of displeasure due to the near-collision of their vehicles.

The Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) convicted Israel of grave threats under Article 282, paragraph 2 of the RPC. Both the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed his conviction. Israel then filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

In acquitting the accused, the high court found that Ismael lacked criminal intent, as his threats were without ‘persistence,’ which cannot be considered grave threats under Article 282.

“It is settled that grave threats must be serious in such a way that they are deliberate and that the offender ‘persists’ in the idea involved in the threats,” the Supreme Court said.

It noted that the appellate court and the lower court “precisely failed to fully appreciate the context of Israel’s gestures,” including the events that happened before, during, and after the acts were performed.

“It is not disputed that on the day Israel performed the gestures, he was on his way to the RTC of Tagbilaran to receive summons in relation to a civil case between him and Navez,” the Supreme Court stated.

“En route to the RTC, Israel and Navez nearly collided, and this is where Israel performed the gestures... Afterward, he went on his way to the RTC-Tagbilaran to receive the summons as he originally intended to do,” it added.

It clarified, however, that "the crime of grave threats may be committed through non-verbal gestures and not only through spoken or written words." It explained that Article 282 does not distinguish between verbal and non-verbal threats, emphasizing that what matters is the communication of intimidation.

"What matters is the communication of a threat intended to intimidate. Although the second paragraph of the provision specifies that threats can be conveyed orally or in writing, it does not exclude threats conveyed through non-verbal means."

02/05/2026

SUPREME COURT: FORMER PRES. DUTERTE ABUSED POWER IN DISMISSAL OF FORMER DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN CARANDANG

FIRST ON BATAS PH: The Supreme Court (SC) has voided the dismissal order imposed by former president Rodrigo Duterte against former Overall Deputy Ombudsman Arthur Carandang, ruling that the Office of the President has no authority to impose administrative penalties on high-ranking officials of the Office of the Ombudsman, an independent constitutional body.

In a 28-page decision penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh, the SC's Third Division affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals, which declared Carandang’s dismissal void ab initio, describing it as an assault on the principle of checks and balances.

Carandang was dismissed by former president Duterte in 2018 for allegedly disclosing confidential bank records of the Dutertes which allegedly contain billions in wealth.

Then Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales inhibited herself from handling complaints involving Duterte due to her relation by affinity to the President’s daughter Vice President Sara Duterte . With the Ombudsman recused, the mandate fell to Carandang.

Carandang took over the complaint filed on May 5, 2016 by Senator Antonio Trillanes IV, which accused Duterte of malversation, violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, plunder, and unexplained wealth.

“To ensure the enduring existence and effectiveness of the Office of the Ombudsman, the Constitution expressly labeled it as independent,” the Court said.

The highest bench ruled that Carandang is entitled to all retirement benefits upon the expiration of his term, as well as back salaries covering the period of his preventive suspension and dismissal.

16/04/2026

SUPREME COURT SLAPS HUSBAND WITH UP TO 8 YEARS IMPRISONMENT FOR HAVING A MISTRESS THAT CAUSED WIFE MENTAL ANGUISH

The Supreme Court (SC) has convicted a man of psychological violence for causing mental and emotional anguish to his wife after abandoning her to live with his mistress, with whom he had two children, noting that criminal intent to cause such anguish is presumed from the act of infidelity.

In a 17-page decision penned by Associate Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier, the SC's Second Division has affirmed the criminal conviction of the accused for violating Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262, or psychological violence, and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of four to eight years imprisonment.

The case stemmed from the criminal complaints filed by his own wife, whom he left for another woman. The accused and complainant were married in 2005 and had a son in 2008. While the wife was pregnant, she noticed the accused frequently coming home in the wee hours of the morning.

She later discovered a text message on his phone from another woman saying, "AYAW KO NG MAGING KABIT" (I don't want to be a mistress). When confronted, the accused dismissed it as a prank. The following day, he left their conjugal home and never returned, only visiting their son on weekends.

The wife later discovered that the accused was living with his mistress, with whom he fathered two children, and publicly flaunted their relationship and their children on social media. Because of this, the wife suffered mental and emotional anguish and was diagnosed by a psychiatrist with depression (dysthymia).

This prompted her to file a criminal complaint against the accused for psychological violence under Section 5(i) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9262, or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) acquitted the accused based on reasonable doubt, reasoning that the complaint was filed belatedly four years after the separation. It noted that the accused continued to provide financial support, and the marital infidelity allegedly occurred after their de facto separation.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion.

The CA reversed the RTC's decision and convicted the husband, ruling that the evidence clearly showed his infidelity caused the wife mental and emotional suffering. This paved the way for him to elevate the case before the Supreme Court, arguing that the CA's reversal of his acquittal violated his constitutional right against double jeopardy.

In dismissing his appeal, the high court ruled that double jeopardy does not attach to void judgments. While a judgment of acquittal is generally final and unappealable, it may be assailed by the People through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 if it is shown that the trial court acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.

It noted that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion by acting with an obstinate disregard of basic and established rules of law and erroneously held that marital infidelity committed after a de facto separation falls outside the scope of R.A. No. 9262.

The highest bench emphasized that a mere de facto separation does not sever marriage bonds; thus, any extramarital affair maintained by a spouse still constitutes marital infidelity.

It underscored that marital infidelity is expressly recognized as a form of psychological violence under Section 3(c) in relation to Section (i) of RA No. 9262. The court added that the requirement of specific criminal intent to cause mental and emotional suffering is already satisfied at the moment the perpetrator commits the act of infidelity, as the act is inherently immoral and depraved.

It gave credence to the psychiatric evaluation, which revealed that the wife suffered emotional anguish as a result of the breakdown of her marriage. She had sleep disturbances, constant self-pity, feelings of hopelessness and worthlessness, palpitations, social withdrawal, and depression.

"At any rate, the law does not require proof that the victim became psychologically ill due to the psychological violence done by her abuser. The law only requires emotional anguish and mental suffering to be proven. To establish emotional anguish or mental suffering, jurisprudence only requires that the testimony of the victim be presented in court since such experiences are personal to this party," the Supreme Court said.

"To be sure, whatever ###'s intention was when he chose another woman over his wife is immaterial. For his leaving their conjugal home and building a family with his mistress are acts that were done by him consciously and deliberately. He could not feign innocence by hiding behind good intentions-may they be excuses that he remained civil with AAA or he constantly supported his legitimate son, BBB. The incontrovertible fact remains: he was unfaithful to his wife, and this caused her irreparable mental and emotional hurt." it added.

Aside from imprisonment, he is also ordered to pay a fine of Php100,000.

16/04/2026

Iginiit ng na ang pagbabawal sa pagdadala ng mga armas sa panahon ng halalan ay nalalapat sa mga baril at mga katulad na regulated na mga armas pero hindi sa mga bladed weapon o matatalas na instrumento tulad ng mga kutsilyo, maliban na lang kung ito ay dinadala sa loob o malapit sa isang polling place o lugar ng botohan.

Sa Resolusyon na isinulat ni Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, binaliktad ng Ikatlong Dibisyon ng Korte Suprema ang nauna nitong desisyon na hinatulang nagkasala ang isang lalaki sa paglabag sa Section 261(p) ng Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, o ang Omnibus Election Code (OEC), as amended by Section 32 ng Republic Act No. (RA) 7166. Sinabi ng Korte Suprema na bagaba’t napatunayan na may dalang kutsilyo ang lalaki noong panahon ng halalan, hindi napatunayan na siya ay nasa polling place o nasa may 100 metro malapit dito sa mga araw at oras na ipinagbabawal sa ilalim ng OEC.

Inaresto ang lalaki noong halalan 2018 matapos siyang mahuli ng mga otoridad na may bitbit na kutsilyo sa labas ng kanyang tirahan nang walang awtorisasyon mula sa Commission on Elections.

Parehong guilty ang hatol ng Regional Trial Court at Court of Appeals sa pagdadala ng nakamamatay na armas noong panahon ng halalan at pinagtibay ito ng Korte Suprema.

Pero pinawalang-bisa ito ng Korte Suprema and inabswelto ang lalaki matapos makitang nabigo ang prosekusyon na patunayan ang lahat ng mahahalagang elemento ng pagkakasala.

Nilinaw ng Korte Suprema ang saklaw ng pagbabawal ng armas tuwing halalan. Sa Buella v. People, sinabi nito na hindi saklaw ang mga matatalas na instrumento ng Section 261(q) ng OEC at Section 32 ng RA 7166, na nagbabawal sa pagdadala ng mga baril sa labas ng tirahan o lugar ng negosyo sa panahon ng halalan.

Gayunpaman, saklaw ng Section 261(p) ang ibang pagkakasala, gaya ng pagdadala ng mga deadly weapon o nakamamatay na armas kabilang ang mga kutsilyo, sa isang polling place o malapit dito, sa panahon ng mga partikular na aktibidad na nauugnay sa halalan.

Hindi tulad ng mga baril na ipinagbabawal saanman sa publiko sa panahon ng halalan, ipinagbabawal lamang ang mga kutsilyo sa polling place o nasa may 100 metro malapit sa isang polling place.

Sa kasong ito, habang napatunayan ng prosekusyon na may dalang kutsilyo ang lalaki sa panahon ng halalan, nabigo itong patunayan na ginawa ang pagdadala ng kutsilyo sa isang polling place o sa loob ng 100 metro nito at nangyari ito sa mga araw at oras na partikular na sakop ng Section 261(p). Sa kawalan ng katibayan na siya ay nasa o malapit sa isang polling place sa mga tinukoy na araw sa ilalim ng batas, hindi napatunayan ang pagkakasala ng lalaki.

Basahin ang press release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=163156.

Basahin ang buong Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=163149.

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

01/04/2026

The (SC) has dismissed the complaint of GMA Network, Inc. (GMA) against ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation (ABS-CBN) over alleged defamatory statements accusing GMA of manipulating a TV ratings survey.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, the SC’s Third Division denied two consolidated petitions—a complaint for damages filed by GMA and the counterclaims filed by ABS-CBN—ruling that the aired statements of ABS-CBN hosts are qualified privileged communications and constitute a fair and true report that GMA personnel visited homes to influence a TV ratings survey.

The SC ruled that the utterances made by ABS-CBN’s hosts and guest speakers are considered qualified privileged communications and constitute a fair and true report based on their interpretation of an AGB Nielsen executive’s radio interview and the data analysis report submitted by AGB Nielsen.

The SC emphasized that there was no malice in the airing of the statements because they were supported by documentary evidence.

ABS-CBN’s counterclaims were also dismissed. The SC said GMA was able to establish a cause of action based on the belief that the subject statements aired on ABS-CBN’s programs were defamatory.

In 2007, ABS-CBN hired AGB Nielsen to supply TV ratings data for Mega Manila and other urban regions nationwide, with sample households called Panel Homes kept strictly confidential to prevent tampering or interference by media industry parties. Protecting the integrity of the TV ratings was crucial, as ABS-CBN relied on them to decide which programs to air, their timing, and target audiences.

ABS-CBN received reports that individuals reportedly hired by GMA contacted some Panel Homes to influence viewing data by persuading residents to watch GMA programs in exchange for monthly incentives of PHP 500 in cash and PHP 300 worth of groceries.

A GMA employee in Iloilo testified that the station manager ordered him and six others to find the Panel Homes and convince the residents to watch GMA programs in exchange for monetary incentives.

In a formal letter and radio interview, AGB Nielsen ’s General Manager, Maya Reforma, admitted that the Panel Homes had been tampered. ABS-CBN then aired program segments that carried Reforma’s statements.

GMA filed a complaint for damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), claiming that ABS-CBN deliberately twisted Reforma’s statements by declaring that GMA had manipulated the ratings. ABS-CBN filed counterclaims for damages.

The RTC dismissed GMA’s complaint, as well as ABS-CBN’s counterclaims. When the Court of Appeals (CA) upheld this decision, the matter was brought to the SC.

Read the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=162758.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=162738.

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

01/04/2026

In reversing the rulings of the RTC and CA, the high court made a clear distinction between “failure to state a cause of action” and “lack of cause of action.” It explained that motions to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action must be based solely on the allegations in the complaint, which are assumed to be true. Only when these allegations fail to justify the relief sought can dismissal be warranted.

On the other hand, determining whether there is a lack of cause of action requires examining evidence presented during trial. The SC stressed that lower courts must not consider extrinsic evidence when resolving such motions.

SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES RULE WHEN TO DISMISS A CASE FOR FAILURE TO STATE CAUSE OF ACTION

The Supreme Court (SC) has clarified when courts may dismiss a case for failure to state a cause of action, resolving confusion caused by conflicting rulings.

In a 28-page ruling written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh, the SC's Third Division ruled that lower courts erred in dismissing a petition for quieting of title involving a land dispute in Pasig City.

The case stemmed from the disputed claims between the groups of Inocencio Taganile and Filomena Delos Santos Dolar over a property along Dr. Sixto Antonio Avenue in Rosario, Pasig. Taganile’s group asserted long-term possession since 1970.

Dolar’s group, on the other hand, argued that Taganile’s group were mere lessees. They filed a motion to dismiss the petition, arguing that it did not state a cause of action because it lacked supporting documents.

The Regional Trial Court dismissed the petition for failure to state a cause of action due to lack of supporting documents; the said ruling was later affirmed by the Court of Appeals, prompting Taganile to elevate the case before the Supreme Court.

In reversing the rulings of the RTC and CA, the high court made a clear distinction between “failure to state a cause of action” and “lack of cause of action.” It explained that motions to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action must be based solely on the allegations in the complaint, which are assumed to be true. Only when these allegations fail to justify the relief sought can dismissal be warranted.

On the other hand, determining whether there is a lack of cause of action requires examining evidence presented during trial. The SC stressed that lower courts must not consider extrinsic evidence when resolving such motions.

“Once the trial court considers other pleadings submitted by the parties or evidence admitted during the proceedings, it is no longer determining a failure to state a cause of action, but rather the very existence of one. In doing so, the ground for dismissing the complaint or petition ceases to be ‘failure to state a cause of action’ and becomes ‘lack of cause of action,'" the Supreme Court stressed.

In this case, it found that both the RTC and the appellate court improperly relied on evidence submitted by Dolar’s group, effectively ruling on the merits without allowing Taganile’s group to present its case. Based on the complaint’s allegations, the SC found that the petition was able to establish a case for quieting of title, noting the Taganile group’s claims of long-standing possession and houses built on the property since the 1970s.

The Court ordered the case remanded to the trial court for further proceedings and reception of evidence. It noted that the ruling aims to guide lower courts in properly applying procedural rules and ensuring parties are given a fair opportunity to prove their claims.

23/01/2026

𝐑𝐔𝐍 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐉𝐔𝐒𝐓𝐈𝐂𝐄 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟔
𝐅𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭 𝐍𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐰𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐈𝐁𝐏 𝐅𝐮𝐧 𝐑𝐮𝐧 & 𝐅𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐲 𝐃𝐚𝐲

In celebration of the 53rd Founding Anniversary of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines

📅 15 February 2026
🎗 Theme: Run for Justice – Supporting the NCLA Legal Aid Program

Join IBP lawyers, their families, friends, and partner institutions nationwide for a day of fitness, fellowship, and advocacy for access to justice.

🏁 Fun Run Categories: 2K | 3K | 5K | 10K

📍 Main Hubs:

Ortigas (Luzon)
Cebu City (Visayas)
Davao City (Mindanao)

👨‍👩‍👧‍👦 Family Day: Chapter-led activities nationwide

📝 REGISTRATION:
✔ Registration shall be done with the IBP Chapter where the lawyer is a member
✔ Family members and friends must register through the same Chapter of the lawyer-registrant
✔ Registration fees (if any) are determined by the Chapter
✔ Required details: Name, IBP Chapter/Affiliation, Race Category, Shirt Size, Contact Number, Email

⏰ DEADLINE FOR OFFICIAL RACE KIT:
📌 25 January 2026, 5:00 PM (STRICT)

📣 Please coordinate directly with your IBP Chapter for registration links, fees, race routes, and local arrangements.

Let’s run together—for health, for family, and for justice.

11/01/2026

"DON'T FEEL GUILTY ABOUT RESTING"

Angelica Mitra emphasized that having enough rest played an important role in helping her survive the bar review journey, which eventually led her to place fourth in the recently released 2025 Bar Examinations.

In an interview, Mitra said that listening to one’s body and taking time to rest are important to survive the grueling journey. She explained that pushing oneself despite fatigue is counterproductive, as it only leads to burnout rather than effective learning.

Mitra finished her law degree from the De La Salle Lipa College of Law

07/01/2026

Congratulations to our New Lawyers! ⚖️🎉

Welcome to the legal profession. As you begin this new chapter, may you always uphold justice, integrity, and service to the people. The IBP–National Center for Legal Aid looks forward to working with you in advancing access to justice for all.

07/01/2026