The right to speedy disposition of cases is provided for in Section 16, Article III, of the 1987 Constitution. In determining whether the right to speedy disposition of cases has been violated, the following guidelines in this Supreme Court decision must be considered.

Republic Act No. 9262 or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 also applies even if the perpetrator is a woman, so long as the victim is a woman.

The police officers were obliged to give the appellant notice, show to her their authority, and demand that they be allowed entry. They may only break open any outer or inner door or window of a house to execute the search warrant if, after such notice and demand, such officers are refused entry to the place of directed search. This is known as the "knock and announce" principle which is embodied in Anglo-American Law. The method of entry of an officer into a dwelling and the presence or absence of such notice are as important considerations in assessing whether subsequent entry to search and/or arrest is constitutionally reasonable.

As to the third element of a violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Practices Act, the Court finds that the same is also absent. Case law identifies the two ways by which said section may be committed, namely: (a) causing undue injury to any party, including the government; or (b) giving any private party any unwarranted benefit, advantage, or preference.

In the present case, the Sandiganbayan convicted petitioners under the second mode. It held that they gave unwarranted benefit, advantage, or preference to Hydrock when they awarded the contract without public bidding. In fact, the company started working on the project even before the notice of award and notice to proceed were issued.

The Court stressed in Adana,however, that to be found guilty under the second mode, it must be shown that the accused gave unjustified favor or unwarranted benefit to another in the exercise of his or her official functions. Adana elucidates:

In order to secure a conviction of an accused under Section 32 of Republic Act No. 7166, the prosecution must prove that: (a) the person is bearing, carrying, or transporting firearms or other deadly weapons; (b) such possession occurs during the election period; and (c) the weapon is carried in a public place. It is essential that possession of the deadly weapon in a public place be established beyond reasonable doubt

#lawoffice #iloilo #gunban #election2025

In this 2024 decision, the Supreme Court recognized another classification of employment which is the fixed-term. A fixed-term employment is an arrangement wherein an employee is hired for projects with pre-determined completion or in a work where a fixed term is essential and a natural appurtenance of the work. The work performed here may also be necessary or desirable to the usual trade of the employer.

Conspiracy may be proven by evidence of a chain of circumstances. It may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime which indubitably points to and is indicative of a joint purpose, concert of action, and community of interest.

An employer cannot legally be compelled to continue with the employment of a person admittedly guilty of gross negligence in the performance of his duties. This holds true specially if the employee's continued tenure is patently inimical to the employer's interest.