Atty. Phil Juris

T he Supreme Court has affirmed that circumstantial evidence, when forming an unbroken chain of events, is sufficient to sustain a conviction beyond reasonable doubt , even in the absence of direct evidence. In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez, the Second Division upheld the conviction of the accused for violations of Republic Act No. 9995, or the Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009. Factual Background The case stemmed from four separate charges involving the clandestine recording of female victims while bathing inside their residence. The victims—three sisters and their cousin—discovered that their uncle, who frequented their home to supervise renovations, had secretly placed a mobile phone inside a soap box in the bathroom. The device was positioned in a manner that allowed it to capture images of persons bathing. One of the victims, upon entering the bathroom, noticed a light emanating from the soap container. Upon inspection, she found a mobile phone act...

  The Supreme Court has ruled that the installation of surveillance cameras that capture activities within a neighboring private property violates the constitutional and civil right to privacy, even if the area is not used as a residence. In a Decision penned by Associate Justice MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO, the Court’s Second Division granted the petition of Spouses Bill and Victoria Hing and reinstated the injunction ordering the removal of surveillance cameras installed by the respondents. Background of the Case The controversy arose between neighboring property owners in Mandaue City, Cebu. Spouses Hing owned a parcel of land where construction was ongoing. Adjacent to their property was a commercial establishment operated by a corporation associated with respondents Alexander and Allan Choachuy. After failing to secure an injunction in a prior case, the respondents caused the installation of video surveillance cameras mounted on their building, including a revolving camera that ca...

 

  SUGGESTED ANSWER COMMERCIAL AND TAXATION LAWS  2025 BAR EXAMINATIONS (Q1 to Q2) Suggested answer to Question No. 1: https://web.facebook.com/share/p/1HA2uWRUUt/ Q No. 2: https://web.facebook.com/share/p/1HUJ5JxoAt/ Q No. 3: https://web.facebook.com/share/p/14Vnygxxrsk/ Q No. 4: https://web.facebook.com/share/p/17UxGsyYED/ Q No. 5: https://web.facebook.com/share/p/1JmcV5FYS3/ Q No. 6: https://web.facebook.com/share/p/1BZYQRSFm5/ Q No. 7: https://web.facebook.com/share/p/17VcMRZZgg/ Q No. 8: https://web.facebook.com/share/p/1AWPUEMLGd/ Q No. 9: https://web.facebook.com/share/p/15UMDSp8tJu/ Q No. 10: https://web.facebook.com/share/p/1AP6hytZJa/ Q No. 11: https://web.facebook.com/share/p/1TgkcQ7jwf/ Q No. 12: https://web.facebook.com/share/p/1DEWqvpHXe/ Q No. 13: https://web.facebook.com/share/p/1RFrNyby2V/ Q No. 14: https://web.facebook.com/share/p/1BjPZB5TiR/ Q No. 15: https://web.facebook.com/share/p/1A4hamFnyC/ Q No. 16: https://web.facebook.com/share/p/1CMs5EtBmJ/ Q No. 17:...

ATTY. RUWEE O TUPUE    earned his Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from Catanduanes State University in 2015 . He later pursued Professional Education major in Social Sciences at Catanduanes College, and passed the Licensure Examination for Teachers in 2016 . During his student years, he was actively engaged in debate and public speaking, notably emerging as Regional Debate Team Champion (Bicol Region) at the Bicol Regional Political Students’ Parliament in 2015. His sustained interest in Philippine politics, philosophy, and history continues to shape his perspective on law, governance, and public service. He obtained his Juris Doctor degree from the University of Santo Tomas–Legazpi in 2021, passed the 2022 Philippine Bar Examinations, and was admitted to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines in 2023 . Prior to his current role, Atty. Tupue gained practical experience as an associate in a law firm, handling labor disputes, commercial cases, and various civil matters. H...

A motion to suspend criminal proceedings on the ground of a prejudicial question is a procedural safeguard designed to prevent conflicting decisions between civil and criminal courts. This mechanism ensures that a criminal case does not move forward when its resolution is inextricably linked to a civil issue that must first be settled. The rationale is rooted in judicial economy and fairness: it would be unjust and inefficient for a criminal court to render a decision that could later be contradicted by a civil court’s findings on a closely related matter. However, the Supreme Court has made it clear that not every civil case related to a criminal case warrants the suspension of criminal proceedings. The Court emphasized that only those civil cases that meet the strict elements of a prejudicial question, as defined by the rules, can justify such suspension. What, then, are the elements of a prejudicial question? Under Section 7, Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, a pr...

SC Dismisses Disbarment Case Against Lawyers, Sets Guidelines on Proving Screenshots as Evidence in Court | BY ATTY. PHIL JURIS  | June 27, 2025 In Serrano v. Cruz-Angeles (A.C. No. 10985, July 29, 2024), the Supreme Court dismissed an administrative complaint for disbarment filed against Atty. Rose Beatrix Cruz-Angeles and Atty. George Ahmed Paglinawan after the complainant failed to establish the authenticity and authorship of Facebook posts allegedly made by the respondents. While the complaint was dismissed, the decision is notable for reaffirming and clarifying the rules governing the admissibility of screenshots and digital printouts as evidence in court proceedings. At the heart of the decision is a critical reminder: screenshots and digital documents are not self-authenticating . Their admissibility hinges on compliance with the Rules on Electronic Evidence (A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC) , particularly Rule 5 on authentication. Authentication Requirements Under the Rules on Electr...