By Iris Angela S. Lat | Layout by: Lou Margaret Nebit
Lawyers and law students have a corollary duty to keep abreast of the law. While our newsfeeds are bombarded with the pressure from technological advancements, which may test or cloud our judgment of fake news, political tittle-tattle, and manipulated media through artificial intelligence, we are nevertheless duty-bound to adhere to and not bend the law. Adherence to the law is by being updated on the legal developments in our country.
We have gathered different jurisprudence promulgated this year, which every law student must know:
“Bingo sa Barangay” – Valid or Invalid?
In Republic of the Philippines and The City of Baguio v. The Association of Barangay Councils, represented by its President, Rufino M. Panagan (G.R. No. 207118, April 22, 2025) , the Court held that barangays can conduct fund-raising activities through bingo games without securing permits from the national government or any local government office or agency, such as the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) pursuant to the local autonomy of the barangays enshrined in our Constitution.
Infidelity, Lies and Debts as manifestations of Psychological Incapacity
Jeffery was a U.S. Navy Retiree who filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage against his Filipina wife, Rowena on the grounds of Psychological Incapacity. Jeffery alleged in his petition that his wife sustained debts worth four (4) million pesos, lied about money-related activities, and mishandled their finances. The court ruled in favor of Jeffery on the basis of totality of evidence — the Psychiatric Evaluation Report showed that Rowena had a Borderline Personality Disorder and Antisocial Personality Disorder evidenced by her impulsivity on gambling, copies of collection cases, DNA test results, and pictures of Rowena hugging and holding hands with another man (Green v. Green, G.R. No. 255706, February 17, 2025).
Failure of the apprehending officers to bring the necessary witness led to the acquittal of the accused
In People of the Philippines v. Acdang y Balangen (G.R. No. 26334, February 4, 2025), the accused-appellant was caught in flagrante delicto cultivating marijuana plants. He was charged with cultivation of plants classified as dangerous drugs under R.A. 9165. However, a review of the records showed that there was no witness present upon the photography and inventory of the seized drug. Hence, the accused-appellant was acquitted.
The Supreme Court reiterated the guidelines with respect to the first link in the chain of custody, i.e., the seizure and marking of the illegal drug recovered, as provided in Nisperos v. People (G.R. No. 250927, November 29, 2022), and further acquitted the accused for failure of the police officers to bring the necessary witness during the inventory and photography of the seized marijuana. The Court ruled that the deviation from the Nisperos guidelines remains unjustified.
Limitation on the Power of Eminent Domain
In Department of Education v. Caleda (G.R. No. 272507, April 21, 2025), while a public institution with a power of eminent domain cannot be ejected from a property devoted to public use even without the title, it may however be ordered to vacate if it is shown that the owner did not consent to the occupation and such owner has a better right of possession, likewise citing previous jurisprudence on this matter (In DepEd v. Caleda, previous reference has been made with regard to the power of eminent domain: National Transmission Corporation v. Bermuda, Republic v. Mendoza, Manila Railroad Company v. Paredes, Eversley Childs Sanitarium v. Spouses Barbarona, in such order).