Atty. Oscar Lim Abadies Jr. - Legal & Notarial Services

01/09/2026

The (SC) has ruled that an affidavit of desistance, or a sworn statement withdrawing a complaint, is considered “highly suspect” when made by a victim of exploitation and cannot be used as a basis to dismiss a trafficking case.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC’s Third Division affirmed the conviction of a woman for qualified trafficking in persons involving a minor. The SC sentenced her to life imprisonment, imposed a fine of PHP 2,000,000, and ordered her to pay PHP 600,000 in damages.

The woman, who was the minor’s neighbor, recruited the minor to provide sexual services to a man in exchange for money. The minor received PHP 15,000 from the man for the sexual act, but the woman later took the money. The woman also bought the minor a cellphone and gave her PHP 3,000.

The minor’s mother discovered the incident and filed a complaint against the woman. The minor testified in court but later signed an affidavit of desistance to withdraw the charges.

During cross-examination, the minor admitted that she accepted PHP 30,000 to sign the affidavit prepared by the woman’s counsel. When the trial court questioned her further, the minor maintained that her earlier testimony was true.

Sustaining the woman’s conviction of qualified trafficking in persons under Republic Act No. (RA) 9208, or the 𝗔𝗻𝘁𝗶-𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗻 𝗣𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗔𝗰𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝟮𝟬𝟬𝟯, as amended, SC held that human trafficking cases should not be dismissed based on the affidavits of desistance executed by the victims or their parents or legal guardians.

The SC explained that affidavits of desistance by victims of exploitation should be treated with caution, as they may have been made under coercion, pressure, or undue influence. This is especially true when the victims are children, who may not fully understand the consequences of withdrawing their testimony.

The SC further stressed that once a criminal case has been filed in court, the complainant can no longer decide whether the case should proceed.

The State has an interest in prosecuting the crime and is the party affected by the dismissal of the criminal action. Thus, an affidavit of desistance, especially one executed while trial is ongoing, does not, by itself, justify dismissal of the case.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=172431

Read the full text of the Decision at
https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=167240

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

01/09/2026

The 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤, during its session on August 26, 2026, acted on G.R. Nos. 260219 and 260231, 𝘋𝘢𝘵𝘶 𝘗𝘢𝘹 𝘈𝘭𝘪 𝘚. 𝘔𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘶𝘥𝘢𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘶 𝘷. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘯 𝘌𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴, 𝘚𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘧𝘢 𝘈𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘭 𝘔𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘶𝘥𝘢𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘶, 𝘈𝘻𝘦𝘭 𝘝. 𝘔𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘶𝘥𝘢𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘶, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘉𝘢𝘪 𝘈𝘭𝘪 𝘈. 𝘜𝘯𝘵𝘰𝘯𝘨, by denying with finality the motion for reconsideration filed by Datu Pax Ali S. Mangudadatu, affirming its earlier ruling that upheld the cancellation of his certificate of candidacy for Governor of Sultan Kudarat and abandoned the “second placer rule.”

The SC held that the resulting vacancy should be filled by the Vice-Governor.

The “second placer rule” refers to the practice of declaring the candidate who received the second highest number of votes as the winner after the candidate with the highest number of votes is later found disqualified or ineligible.

Mangudadatu, in his motion, insisted that the second placer rule has clear basis in law and should not be abandoned.

The SC reiterated that no law authorizes the second placer rule. It emphasized that the 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 recognizes as elected only the candidate who received the highest number of votes.

The SC explained that when the winning candidate is later found ineligible to hold office, a permanent vacancy arises. For local elective positions covered by the 𝘓𝘰𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘎𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 (LGC), that vacancy is filled through the rule on succession, not by proclaiming the second placer as the winner. Accordingly, the Vice-Governor succeeds to the position of Governor for the remainder of the term.

The SC clarified that its ruling is limited to local elective positions covered by the LGC. The case did not address the application or non-application of the second placer rule or succession rules for national elective positions, as these issues were not raised before the Court.

However, the SC stressed that succession for national elective positions like the President and Vice-President is governed exclusively by Article VII, Sections 7 and 8 of the 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, which prescribe the order of succession when the President or Vice-President fails to qualify, dies, or is permanently disabled, removed from office, or resigns.

The SC also clarified that its ruling applies to pending cases, emphasizing that second placers have no vested right or entitlement to be declared the winner.

The full text of the August 26, 2026 Resolution in G.R. Nos. 260219 and 260231 will be uploaded to the Supreme Court website once available.

Read the full text of the Press Briefer at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=171947.

Read the full text of the SC’s April 25, 2025 Decision in G.R. Nos. 260219 and 260231 at http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=146486.

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

29/08/2026

19/08/2026

𝐋𝐎𝐎𝐊: 𝐔𝐩𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐕𝐢𝐫𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐮𝐦𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐇𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐅𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭 𝟔𝟎 𝐄𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐜 𝐍𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐏𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 (𝐄𝐍𝐏) 𝐀𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐀𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐎𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝟏𝟗, 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟔 𝐞𝐍𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐳𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐋𝐚𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐡

𝐂𝐡𝐞𝐜𝐤 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐬! The names of 60 applicants for commissioning as ENP, together with the schedule of their upcoming Virtual Summary Hearings, may be accessed at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/enotarization/notice-of-vsh/.

If you intend to file an opposition to the application of any applicant, the process and relevant information are also available at the same link.

You may download a copy of the 𝘖𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘛𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦 here: https://tinyurl.com/OppositionTemplate.

𝐞𝐍𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐳𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐩𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐨𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐚𝐯𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐎𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝟏𝟗, 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟔.

05/08/2026

04/08/2026

The Unified Legal Aid Service (ULAS) Office has issued ULAS Advisory No. 6, s. 2026 - Clarification on Pro Bono Legal Aid Service by Government Lawyers under the ULAS Rules.

The Advisory clarifies that pro bono legal aid services rendered by lawyers in the government during official time may be credited under the ULAS Rules, provided that such services are authorized by the concerned government agency and do not conflict with the agency's operations or the exigencies of the public service.Government lawyers remain responsible for ensuring compliance with Section 13 of the ULAS Rules, as well as all applicable laws, rules, regulations, and internal office policies.

Read the full text of ULAS Advisory No. 6, s. 2026 here:https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/FINAL-ULAS-ADVISORY-No6-S-2026-CLARIFICATION-ON-PRO-BONO-LEGAL-AID-SERVICE-BY-GOVERNMENT-LAWYERS-UNDER-THE-ULAS-RULES.pdf