BARANGAY JUSTICE SYSTEM 1

On June 11, 1978, Presidential Decree No. 1508 R.A 1760 was issued, which established
a system for amicably resolving disputes at the barangay level. While the official recognition of
the time-honored practice of settling disagreements amicably and without the use of force
among family and barangay members at the barangay level would hasten the administration of
justice and carry out the constitution's mandate to preserve and develop Filipino culture and
strengthen the family as a fundamental social institution. In order to help relieve the courts of
this docket congestion and so enhance the quality of justice delivered by the courts, it is also
seen necessary to legally establish and institutionalize a system of amicably settling problems
at the barangay level.

In the Philippines, there is a local justice system called Katarungang Pambarangay,

sometimes known as the Barangay Justice System. The barangay, the smallest of the local
government entities, is in charge of running it, and the barangay captain, who

serves as both its executive and highest elected official, is in charge of overseeing it.
Together with other barangay residents, the barangay captain sits on the Lupon
Tagapamayapa, a body that adjudicates disputes and other issues. They are not a court
because they lack judicial authority.
Throughout the Philippines, the Barangay Justice Systems handle thousands of cases a year
and primarily serve as an "alternative, community-based mechanism for dispute resolution of
conflicts," also referred to as a "compulsory mediation procedure at the village level." The
courts are more numerous and accessible than other courts, and because of this, the courts
are able to hear more cases and respond more quickly. This is because officials have more
latitude in making decisions, including from complex evidence rules, and because they receive
some resources from the government.
The barangay captain sits on the Lupon Tagapamayapa, which is the body that makes up the
barrio judicial system, together with 10 to 20 other members. They receive no compensation
other than honoraria, allowances, and other emoluments as permitted by law or barangay,
municipal, or city ordinance. The body is typically constituted every three years and serves
until a new body is constituted in the third year. Almost all civil cases as well as many criminal
offenses could result in prison terms of one year or less or fines of $5,000 or less. Pesos from
the Philippines are included in the system. The barrio judicial system may be replaced with
traditional dispute resolution processes like a council of elders in barangays where the majority
of residents are indigenous Filipinos. The next working day after receiving the complaint, the
committee's chairman—typically the barangay captain—must notify the parties of a mediation
meeting. If, after 15 days for the first meeting, mediation is unsuccessful, a more formal
procedure involving the pangkat or body must be followed. The pangkat may extend the time
limit for a further 15 days in order to resolve the disagreement through this more official
method. If an agreement cannot be reached, a case may be brought before the Philippines'
normal judicial system.

The Lupong Tagapayapa is officially established in each barangay as a body to be known as

Lupong Tagapayapa (hence referred to as Lupon), comprising of the Barangay Captain
serving as chairman and not fewer than ten (10) nor more than twenty (20) members, to be
elected every two years. When we use the term "barangay," we don't just
mean the barrios that Presidential Decree No. 557 designated as barangays; we also mean
the barangays that Presidential Decree No. 86 designated as citizens assemblies. According
to Presidential Decree No. 557 and Presidential Decree No. 86, the terms "barangay captain"
and "chairmen of barangays," also known as "citizens assemblies," respectively, refer to the
barangay captains of the barrios that have been declared barangays. The conciliation panels
that are subsequently set for will be under Lupon's administrative control. It will meet regularly
once a month in order to: (1) provide a forum for discussion among its participants and the
general public on issues pertaining to the peaceful resolution of disputes; and (2) allow the
various panels to exchange information and lessons learned regarding the expeditious
resolution of disputes.

The Lupon of each barangay shall have the authority to bring together the parties actually
residing in the same city or municipality for amicable settlement of all disputes except:

1. Where on the party is the government or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof;

2. Where one party is a public officer or employee, and the dispute relates to the
performance of his official functions;

3. Offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding 30 days, or a fine exceeding

P200.00;

4. Offenses where there is no private offended party;

5. Such other classes of disputes which the Prime Minister may in the interest of justice
determine upon recommendation of the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Local
Government.

However, The Lupon shall have no authority over disputes such as; (1). involving parties who
actually reside in barangays of different cities or municipalities, except where such barangays
adjoin each other; and (2)Involving real property located in different
municipalities. Then, if any Pangkat member willfully refuses to do so without a valid reason,
as established by a majority vote of all other Lupon members, whose decision on the matter
shall be final, he will be permanently barred from holding public office in the city or
municipality for a period of one year.
UNTV LIFE: MONEY LAUNDERING IN THE PHILIPPINES

Money laundering is the practice of acquiring illegally obtained funds and passing them
off as money earned legally. Individuals or businesses involved in money laundering may
attempt to transfer illegally obtained funds to other parts of the world through money
remittance centers, banks, and/or digital payment systems.

The Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA) of 2001, also known as Republic Act 9160,
criminalizes unlawful behaviors such as bribery and corrupt practices, fraudulent practices,
robbery and extortion, swindling, and plunder, among others. In many circumstances,
authorities will only be able to uncover money laundering if officers or workers report
questionable financial activities. AMLA requires specific organizations to comply with
anti-money laundering legislation in the Philippines, including (1) Banks, trust entities, and
other institutions regulated by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP);(2) Insurance companies;
(3) Brokers, salespeople and investment agents;(4) Closed-end investment and pre-need
companies (e.g., memorial chapels, schools);(5)Money changers, payment, remittance, and
transfer companies and lastly, Financing and lending companies. If your company falls under
one of the above-mentioned organizations and fails to declare such money laundering
activities, you might face up to four years in prison and/or a P100,000 fine. Even if your
organization is well beyond the reach of AML requirements, it would be beneficial to be able to
identify any potentially fraudulent or illegal activity that may occur with your clients.

Here are some possible characteristics of potential money laundering transactions which could
require further review:
✓ Involves high-risk countries, where there are serious strategic deficiencies to counter
money laundering, terrorist financing, and financing of other suspect activities

✓ Involves suspicious transaction patterns, such as a high frequency of transactions in a

 short period of time or several larger transactions out of the ordinary. ✓ Involves persons
(or countries) on sanctions lists or watch lists.

✓ Involves oddly complex transactions that don’t fit the customer’s usual behavior.

If you discover any questionable financial behavior during your examination, you must
promptly notify firm management and evaluate whether such activity necessitates reporting to
the Anti-Money Laundering Council.

Money laundering is a constant threat to a country's financial system. Where money is

involved, there will always be businesses or individuals looking for methods to take advantage
of the system and profit themselves, such as through unlawful or unethical financial tactics. To
mitigate this threat in the Philippines, the government has developed an AML regulatory
framework to a) monitor and ensure the integrity of the country's financial system and b) seek
the support of companies and individuals to support the government's goal of achieving a
robust and fraud-free financial framework.
BOUNCING CHECK LAWS

Estafa, which implies deceiving someone else. It is made up of two parts:

(1) abuse of confidence and (2) deception. For example, fraudulent acts in which the
post-dated issue of a check was empty. It must also be done on purpose, prior to, and
concurrent with the deception. This signifies that the person obtained products or services
through deception. The Basic Principle of Estafa was to outlaw deception under the law. Keep
in mind that the objective of a check is to be presented for payment, and the exception was
acceptance. As a result, it should be present within 180 days, and if it does not meet the time
period or surpasses 180 days, it will be considered a steal. Essentially, it will be dishonored,
and it will make no sense whether it has a fund or is insufficient. In summary, because the
check was already dishonored, you will not be held accountable for Estafa. A notice of
dishonor would be sent within three days to deposit the funds, and failure to do so would result
in difficulty. So, regardless of the amount, the following Estafa penalties apply:

8.8 million <× RP ( Reclusion Perpetua 40 yrs of Imprisonment), 4.4 million <×
<× 8.8 million RP ( Reclusion Temporal 20 yrs of Imprisonment),2.4 million <×
<× 4.4 million RT ( Reclusion Temporal 20 yrs of Imprisonment), 1.2 million <×
<× 2. 4 million PM ( Presume Mayor 12 yrs of Imprisonment), and 40k <× <×
1.2 million PM ( Presume Mayor 12 yrs of Imprisonment) ×≤ 40K (PM)

Mala in SE where they have a criminal purpose or are fundamentally incorrect. Mala
Prohibita is only wrong because it is against the law. If the check was issued, drawn, and
bounced, it would exist. Checks were written in two ways: (1) for value, which indicates
there is no pre-existing duty, and (2) on account, which means there is already an
obligation, thus it is exempt under Estafa.
However, under B.P 22, the notice of dishonor was given(5) five banking days to pay or
arrange for credit. And a presumption of knowledge will exist for 90 days but not between 180
days. Remember that the 3-day and 5-day banking periods are different, but it is important
because, according to authorities, payment, whether it is Estafa or B.P 22, is an absolute
defense, which means you will not be liable for imprisonment regardless of the circumstances
that occurred on the first period or issue unless you pay for it on the time period that was
already given to you on notice of dishonor, then you will no longer qualify as a criminal liability.
Take notice that if you violate the rule, the following are the grounds for imprisonment under
B.P 22, however it would be better to set aside for Estafa because the incarceration will not be
based on the amount of theft.

Imprisonment 30≤ × ≤ 1 year. Fine # per check ×≤ dishonor of 200k. Both

However, it will modify based on the number of checks received because the intent is not a
major heard. And any fine imposed will be paid by the government. Take notice that Estafa
is about punishing deception, swindling, or fraudulent activities, whereas Mala prohibita is
about check rebounding.

According to the Supreme Court, the following components constitute a bouncing check
infringement under B.P. 22:

Section 1 of B.P. lists the elements of the offense. Bldg. 22 are:(1) drafting and issuing any
check for account or for value;(2) knowledge by the maker, drawer, or issuer that
he did not have adequate cash in or credit with the drawee bank at the time of issue to pay the
check in full upon presentation; and (3) such check is later dishonored by the drawee bank due
to a lack of funds or credit, or would have been dishonored for the same reason if the drawer
had not, without any justifiable justification, instructed the bank to stop payment.

Thus, for a breach of B.P. 22, three things must be proven. To begin, one must demonstrate
and verify that a check was drawn and issued to apply on account or for value. Second, the
person who issued, made, or drew the check was aware at the time of issue that there was
insufficient money in the bank to cover the check upon its presentation. Third, the check is
later dishonored by the bank due to a lack of funds or would have been dishonored if the bank
had submitted a stop payment order by the check's drawer, maker, or issuer. The first and last
elements are easy to prove because the mere existence of a bounced check is sufficient
evidence. It is the second element that most cases on B.P. 22 hinge on, as it is difficult to
prove that the one who issued the bouncing check knew there were insufficient funds in the
bank for payment.

As a result, B.P. Section 2 22 states the following: SEC. 2. Evidence of knowledge of

insufficient funds — When presented within ninety (90) days of the date of the check, the
making, drawing, and issuance of a check payment of which is refused by the drawee bank
due to insufficient funds in or credit with the such bank shall be prima facie evidence of
knowledge of such insufficiency of funds or credit, unless such maker or drawer pays the
holder thereof the amount due thereon, or makes arrangements for payment in full by the d
(Underscoring provided.)

Section 2 presumes that a check that is refused payment by the bank is evidence of
knowledge of a lack of funds or credit. However, a notice of dishonor must be served on the
person who issued the check. In other words, Section 2 requires that the dishonor be
communicated to the check's issuer in writing. The dishonor notice should then notify the
issuer that he has five days to make good on the amount of the check.

It should be mentioned that "the notice of check dishonor to the maker must be in writing." A
simple oral notification to the drawer or maker of the dishonor of his check is insufficient" (Bax
vs. People, G.R. No. 149858, 5 September 2007). The existence of the second element of a
B.P. can then be deduced from this. 22nd infraction. As a result, once all of the components
of B.P. When there are 22 or bouncing checks, such as those described above, the issuer of
the check can now be prosecuted before the Office of the Prosecutor under the
Anti-Bouncing Checks Law. Once again, the message is clear: be cautious while issuing
checks. Check that your checking account has enough money to pay the check amounts.
Otherwise, you may be faced with a bouncing check issue.