[ G.R. No. 247611.

January 13, 2021 ]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RAMON "BONG" REVILLA, JR., RICHARD A.
CAMBE, AND JANET LIM NAPOLES, ACCUSED, JANET LIM NAPOLES, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

In December 2018, the Sandiganbayan Special First Division convicted Janet Lim Napoles and Richard
Cambe of Plunder related to the misuse of Senator Ramon "Bong" Revilla Jr.'s PDAF. Both appealed their
conviction, with Napoles currently detained at the Correctional Institution for Women. Napoles filed a
motion claiming that her underlying condition of diabetes puts her at risk of contracting COVID-19 in
prison, and she is entitled to provisional release on humanitarian grounds. She cited previous court
rulings and circulars, including the Nelson Mandela Rules, to support her plea for release.

ISSUE

Whether the Constitution and the Rules of Court allow an accused to post bail pending the appeal of his,
or her conviction of a capital offense.

RULING

NO. the Court has denied Napoles' motion for bail pending the appeal of her conviction for Plunder, a
capital offense carrying the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The Court has determined that the evidence
of her guilt is strong, and her conviction has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. As such, the
presumption of innocence and the constitutional right to bail no longer apply, and bail must be denied.
The denial of bail after conviction is a matter of judicial discretion, which must be exercised with caution,
considering the ascertainment of the accused's guilt.
 G.R. No. 246679, March 02, 2021

GOVERNOR EDGARDO A. TALLADO, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,

NORBERTO B. VILLAMIN AND SENANDRO M. JALGALADO, Respondents.

FACTS

The petitioner was elected as Governor of Camarines Norte in three different elections. However, a case
of grave misconduct was filed against him in 2013 and he was suspended for one year. He appealed to
the Court of Appeals and the suspension was reduced to six months. After his reinstatement, another
case was filed against him for violating the first OMB decision. He was found guilty of grave misconduct
and was ordered to be dismissed from service. He appealed to the CA and the penalty was reduced to six
months suspension. The petitioner filed his Certificate of Candidacy for Governor of Camarines Norte in
the May 2019 elections, which prompted petitions for the denial of due course and/or cancellation of his
COC based on the three-term limit rule.

ISSUE

Whether or not a reduced penalty of suspension from dismissal for an elected official, imposed by the
Court of Appeals, violate the three-term limit rule as stated in the Constitution and interrupt their term
in office?

RULING

YES. Section 8, Article X of the Constitution imposes a three-term limit rule for elective local officials. The
official concerned must have been elected for three consecutive terms and fully served three
consecutive terms for the rule to apply. In Aldovino v. COMELEC, the interruption of a term exempting an
elective official from the three-term limit rule is one that involves the involuntary loss of title to office.
Loss of office by operation of law is an effective interruption of service within a term, while temporary
inability or disqualification to exercise the functions of an elective post is not an effective interruption of
a term.
 [ G.R. No. 247348. November 16, 2021 ]

CHRISTIAN CADAJAS Y CABIAS, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT

FACTS

Based on the facts presented, the petitioner is facing criminal charges for violation of Section 10(a) of
R.A. No. 7610 and child pornography under R.A. No. 10175. The petitioner admitted to sending
messages that were coercive and inappropriate towards AAA, who was only 14 years old at the time. The
mother of AAA also disapproved of their relationship due to AAA's young age. It is also stated that AAA
sent photos of her breast and vagina to the petitioner upon his request.

At around 5:30 in the morning of November 18, 2016, BBB was shocked when she read the conversation
between petitioner and AAA. She found that petitioner was coaxing her daughter to send him photos of
the latter's breast and vagina. AAA relented and sent petitioner the photos he was asking. When AAA
learned that her mother read their conversation, she rushed to a computer shop to delete her messages.
BBB, however, was able to force her to open petitioner's Facebook messenger account to get a copy of
their conversation

ISSUE

Whether the CA gravely erred in not finding that the evidence presented by the prosecution are
inadmissible for violating petitioner's right to privacy.

RULING

NO. Based on the facts presented, it appears that petitioner's expectation of privacy in his Facebook
Messenger account was limited by the fact that he voluntarily gave his password to AAA, thereby
authorizing her to access his account. The availability of accessing the photos by AAA limits the scope of
petitioner's right to privacy, especially when these became essential in pursuing AAA's claims to protect
her rights. Furthermore, since petitioner failed to raise his objection to the admissibility of the photos
during the proceedings in the RTC, he is deemed to have waived such objection. Therefore, the photos
taken from his Facebook Messenger account are admissible in evidence.
 G.R. No. 239995. June 15, 2022

ROSA C. GONZALBO-MACATANGAY, PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE CIVIL SERVICE

COMMISSION, RESPONDENT

FACTS

The petitioner was previously employed as the Secretary in the Passport Division of the Department of
Foreign Affairs (DFA). A complaint was filed against her alleging that she committed bigamy. She was
convicted for the crime together with Modesto, whom she married while he was still legally married to
another woman. The petitioner defended herself by stating that Modesto was the one who initiated the
marriage and she did not know of his previous marriage. She eventually found out about it and their
marriage was declared void by a civil court.

ISSUE

The issue boils down to whether the imposition of the penalty of dismissal is proper.

RULING

In this case, the CSC considered the following aggravating circumstances: (1) petitioner's failure to deny
the allegations in the complaint-affidavit; and (2) petitioner's failure to show any mitigating circumstance
to exculpate herself from the charge against her.[48] The Court finds no reason to disturb the CSC's
appreciation of the circumstances.

Petitioner argues that the penalty of dismissal from service is too harsh considering that her crime is
personal and that there was no showing of damage or injury to the government. She also claims that the
penalty is not in accordance with the principle of proportionality, and that there are other mitigating
circumstances that should have been considered.

The Court, however, is not persuaded. The nature of the offense of Conviction of a Crime Involving Moral
Turpitude is such that it strikes at the very heart of the civil service. An official or employee who has
been convicted of such a crime is deemed to have forfeited the right to hold public office or
employment. The fact that petitioner's conviction was for a personal offense and that there was no
showing of damage or injury to the government does not change this. As held in Salalima v. Guingona,
Jr.:
Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude is a ground for disqualification from public office because
it is deemed to be an act which indicates moral depravity. It violates the norm of public accountability
and diminishes the people's faith in the judiciary and the government. It is inimical to the public service
because a public officer is required at all times to be a model of uprightness, fairness, and honesty.[49]

As for the penalty of dismissal from service, the Court finds that it is in accordance with the principle of
proportionality. The penalty of dismissal is the prescribed penalty under the URACCS for the offense of
Conviction of a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude. The CSC correctly considered the aggravating
circumstances present in this case, and there is no showing that the penalty is so severe as to be unjust
or oppressive.

Finally, the Court finds no merit in petitioner's claim that there are other mitigating circumstances that
should have been considered. The CSC considered all the circumstances attendant to the offense, and
petitioner has failed to show any other mitigating circumstance that was not considered by the CSC.

In view of the foregoing, the Court affirms the CA ruling upholding the CSC Decision dismissing petitioner
from service.
 MOVIE AND TELEVSION REVIEW AND CLASSIFICATION BOARD (MTRCB) VS. ABC DEVELOPMENT CORP
(TV5)

GR NO. 212670 JULY 06, 2022

FACTS

"T3 Kapatid Sagot Kita" is a TV program that airs on weekdays on TV5 and is hosted by the Tulfo brothers,
Raffy, Erwin, and Ben Tulfo. On May 7, 2012, the hosts made comments regarding the mauling incident
involving their eldest brother, Ramon. The MTRCB found that their remarks violated ethical standards in
the broadcasting industry, specifically Section 3 (c) of Presidential Decree No. 1986. The Tulfo brothers
submitted letter-responses to TV5's show cause memorandum, expressing their apologies and regret for
their actions. TV5 initially considered terminating their engagements but ultimately reduced the sanction
to a three-episode suspension, taking into account the hosts' emotions, admissions, and subsequent
apologies.

ISSUE
whether or not the MTRCB's determination of the subject utterances is within the purview of
Section 3 (c) of Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1986.

RULING
NO. In ruling on whether the MTRCB's determination of the Tulfo brothers'
utterances falls within the purview of Section 3 (c) of PD 1986, the court disagrees
and rules in the negative. The Court of Appeals (CA) concluded that the words uttered
by the Tulfo brothers, when taken as a whole, were more of a threatened vengeance
against Santiago, who allegedly assaulted their brother Ramon. The CA defined the
words "vulgar," "indecent," "threatening and contrary to law and/or good customs,"
and "defamatory" and determined that the utterances did not individually fall into
those categories. The court agrees with the CA's assessment and holds that the
utterances were not fighting words or unprotected speech. While they may have had a
threatening tone, they did not pose a clear and present danger to the State or endanger
national security.
 ANTONIO U. SIO VS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
GR NO. 224935 MARCH 2, 2022

FACTS
Police Senior Inspector Raguindin applied for a search warrant based on information
from a confidential informant, alleging that Sio possessed shabu and used certain
vehicles for illegal drug trafficking. The search warrant was executed, resulting in the
seizure of suspected shabu and firearms, as well as two vehicles.

Sio, the person subjected to the search, filed an Omnibus Motion before the trial court,
raising various issues regarding the search warrant application and its execution.
These issues included discrepancies in the vehicle details, the incorrect address on the
warrant, the absence of Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency operatives during the
search, and the alleged illegal seizure of additional vehicles and planting of drugs.

Sio argued that due to these irregularities, all evidence obtained from the search
should be deemed inadmissible in the criminal cases against him. He claimed that
there was no probable cause to charge him with violations of Sections 11 and 12 of
Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.

Sio subsequently filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court,
seeking to challenge the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE
whether or not the implementation of the search warrant was unreasonable, rendering the
evidence seized inadmissible

RULING
YES. the Supreme Court granted the petition of Antonio U. Sio. It ruled that the evidence
obtained from the unreasonable search and seizure is inadmissible. As a result, there is no
probable cause to support the filing of Informations against Sio.

The Court considered several pieces of evidence and admissions by the police officers,
including the application for the search warrant, certification from the Land
Transportation Office regarding the non-existence of a vehicle with the stated plate
number, and the admissions of Police Senior Inspector Raguindin during the trial.

The search warrant was implemented at a different location than the one indicated in the
warrant, and two vehicles with different plate numbers from those specified in the
warrant were seized. This discrepancy and the seizure of items beyond the scope of the
warrant violated the requirement of particularity in search warrants.
As a result, the Court deemed the search and seizure unreasonable and contrary to the
Constitution and Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. Consequently, the evidence
seized, except for the shabu and drug paraphernalia, is ordered to be returned to Sio,
while the shabu and drug paraphernalia are forfeited in favor of the State.

This ruling emphasizes the importance of adherence to the constitutional requirements for
search warrants and the exclusionary rule, which excludes illegally obtained evidence
from being used against the accused in court.