RTC Branch 72, Lapu-Lapu City

05/08/2026

Blessing of our new courtroom and Judge’s Chambers with advance birthday celebration.

04/08/2026

The said case of People v. Neil Albis, GR No. 266701, July 8, 2026 reiterates the ruling in People v. Gerald Flores, et al., G.R. No. 262686, October 11, 2023, which first required proof of the identity and credentials of the insulating witnesses in drug operations. The July 2026 ruling in the Albis case applied the ruling in People vs. Flores even if the search warrant in Albis was implemented 9 years before the promulgation of the Flores ruling and even if the issue on the lack of proof of identity and credentials of the insulating witnesses was not raised before the trial court and raised for the first time on appeal.

03/08/2026

31/07/2026

With Deputy Court Administrator for Regional Services, Hon. Rainelda H. Estacio-Montesa.

20/07/2026

Amendment to the Law Student Practice Rule

11/07/2026

To clarify conflicting jurisprudence on whether it is necessary to present the firearm as evidence in court, the SC En Banc set the following Guidelines:

“For clarity on whether the exact same firearm must be presented in court, we lay down the following guidelines:

1. Where an accused is charged with violation of Republic Act No. 10591, the presentation of the exact same firearm is required for the court to determine whether the accused should be convicted, and if so convicted, the proper penalty to be imposed.

2. When a firearm is used in the commission of a crime which prescribes a lesser penalty, Section 29 of Republic Act No. 10591 states that the penalty imposable shall be the penalty prescribed for illegal possession of fi****ms. In this situation, the use of a firearm is a qualifying circumstance and the penalty imposable depends on the classification of the firearm.
Thus, the presentation of the exact same firearm is also required. The rule remains that "qualifying circumstances must be proven with the same quantum of evidence as the crime itself."

3. When the use of a firearm is an aggravating circumstance, or is inherent in or absorbed by the nature of the crime charged, the presentation of the exact same firearm is preferred, but the presentation of secondary evidence may be considered by the courts.

4. In all situations where a firearm is confiscated or recovered from an accused, the confiscated firearm must be marked, photographed, and duly authenticated, and its integrity preserved. The failure to comply with the foregoing requirements should not, however, automatically result in an acquittal, but may constitute reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused if not sufficiently justified.

For violations of Republic Act No. 10591, courts should not simply disregard the nonpresentation of the firearm that was actually confiscated. To say that the presentation of the confiscated firearm is not required may cause the imposition of the wrong penalty, or worse, cause the conviction of an innocent person. The presentation of a certificate stating that the accused is not licensed to own and possess the confiscated firearm is not proof beyond reasonable doubt that would justify conviction for violation of Republic Act No. 10591.” [Togado v. People, G.R. No. 260973, August 06, 2024]

01/07/2026

After almost 8 years, RTC 72 finally has its own cute courtroom. Thank you, Lord, and Supreme Court PH!