R.E. Manzano & Associates

09/09/2026

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1FE7c5xaV7/?mibextid=wwXIfr

The (SC) clarified that the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) has no jurisdiction over a dispute unless both parties involved are indigenous peoples (IP) from the same group.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC’s Third Division dismissed a petition to compel a judge to set aside its decision in an ejectment case against the spouses claiming to be members of the IP community. The spouses had claimed that under Republic Act No. 8371 or the 𝘐𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘗𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘙𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴 𝘈𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 1997 (IPRA), customary laws and practices should govern in resolving disputes involving them.

The case stemmed from an unlawful detainer case filed by Kristoffer R. Co Uy (Co Uy) against Elvin and Jocelyn Sending (the Sendings), seeking to have them vacate a property registered in his name.

The Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), Regional Trial Court, and the Court of Appeals (CA) all ruled in favor of Co Uy and ordered the Sendings to vacate the property.

After attaining finality, and during the enforcement of the decision, the Sendings questioned the jurisdiction of the MCTC. They claimed that they were members of the IP group 𝘓𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘥 𝘒𝘒𝘒-𝘈𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘏𝘪𝘨𝘢𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘯 𝘛𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘦. They asserted, for the first time, that customary laws, traditions, and practices should be used to resolve the property dispute, in accordance with IPRA. Under the IPRA, the NCIP has jurisdiction over disputes involving the rights of IPs.

The spouses brought the case to the SC after their motion to suspend the ex*****on of decision was denied by the MCTC. They argued that the Higaonon Tribe and the Dadantulan Tribal Court, not the MCTC, should have jurisdiction over their case.

The SC disagreed and clarified that under Section 66 of IPRA, the NCIP has jurisdiction over disputes involving IP rights only when all parties belong to the same indigenous group. If any party is not a member of the same IP community, jurisdiction belongs to the regular courts.

Here, Co Uy was not a member of any indigenous group. The SC explained that subjecting him to the customary laws of an IP community violates the fundamental principles of fair play and due process.

The SC also noted that the Sendings simply claimed they were IPs but failed to provide supporting evidence. They did not explain their customs, political structures, institutions, decision-making processes, or any other proof showing they were truly members of an IP community.

The SC stressed that a final judgment cannot be easily set aside, especially when the parties were given opportunity to present their side, and the decision was reached after careful review of the case.

The SC found that the petitioners invoked the NCIP’s authority simply to avoid the ex*****on of the final judgment against them. They raised their claim of being IP members only during the ex*****on stage, despite having participated in the barangay proceedings and the courts, casting doubt on the credibility of their claim.

The SC ordered the spouses to vacate the subject property within 30 days from receipt of the Decision.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=172796

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/271354-spouses-elvin-sending-datu-gibo-and-jocelyn-sending-bae-orange-vs-kristopper-rahda-co-uy-atty-jocelyn-pesquera-henry-p-canete-jr-and-hon-ameli-amor-r-estrada-presiding-judge-of-t/

Read the Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/271354-concurring-opinion-justice-alfredo-benjamin-s-caguioa/

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution

07/09/2026

06/09/2026

https://www.facebook.com/share/1BowXEPwy2/?mibextid=wwXIfr

Retired Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban's Column in Philippine Daily Inquirer (August 31, 2026) "Liberal jurisprudence on bigamy"

06/09/2026

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1DKyDWvJh1/?mibextid=wwXIfr

04/09/2026

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1Hfb8gcdYK/?mibextid=wwXIfr

The (SC) has ruled that evidence of credit card hacking cannot be seized under a search warrant that authorizes only the search for illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia unless they are discovered in plain view.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, the SC’s Third Division acquitted an accused of violating Republic Act No. (RA) 8484, or 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘋𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘙𝘦𝘨𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘈𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 1998. Section 9(e) of the law prohibits the possession of counterfeit access devices, including fake credit cards.

The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) received information that the accused was involved in illegal drug activities and computer hacking, particularly credit card fraud.

To verify the report, the NBI instructed the informant to buy methamphetamine hydrochloride (𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘣𝘶) from the accused. Laboratory test later confirmed that it was indeed 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘣𝘶.

The NBI obtained a search warrant for violation of RA 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, authorizing the search for 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘣𝘶 and other drug-related items.

During the search of the accused’s residence, NBI agents seized several items including computers, ATM cards, laptops, a money counter, a dry seal, and a card-scheming device.

They also recovered two American Express credit cards bearing the name “V S Tan.” An American Express manager later confirmed that the cards were fake because their numbers did not match the records of the original account holder.

Both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals convicted the accused based on the evidence seized in the implementation of the search warrant.

The SC reversed the conviction and explained that, as a general rule, authorities may seize only items specifically described in a search warrant. One exception is the plain view doctrine, which allows officers to seize evidence they discover while lawfully present in a place.

For the 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸 𝘥𝘰𝘤𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘦 to apply, the officers must have a lawful reason to be in the place where the evidence is found; the discovery must be inadvertent or unintentional; and it must be immediately clear that the item may be connected to a crime.

The SC found that only the first requirement was met.

The search warrant covered only illegal drugs and related paraphernalia. It did not authorize the seizure of credit cards or other access devices.

Their discovery of the credit cards was also not made in plain view. The credit cards were inside a non-transparent bag. Their contents could not be seen until the bag was opened. Even then, the cards did not appear fake on their face. Their alleged connection to a crime became apparent only because of the NBI’s prior information and their subsequent verification by American Express.

Although the NBI agents were lawfully inside the accused’s residence, their discovery of the credit cards was not accidental. The agents already had information linking the accused to alleged credit card fraud and hacking but did not obtain a search warrant covering those offenses.

The SC thus ruled that the credit cards were unlawfully seized and could not be used as evidence against the accused. Without them, the prosecution failed to prove his guilt under RA 8484.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=172645

Read the full text of the Decision athttps://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/273931.pdf

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution

04/09/2026

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/14gwfd4WYhg/?mibextid=wwXIfr

HOW TO PLAN AND PREPARE FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION.
By Atty. Florante A. Zagada.

It is not easy to conduct cross-examination of witnesses. Thus, it is important for a trial lawyer to plan and prepare for it. But how?

1. You have to study the evidence of the case; in particular, study the evidence as to which each witness is likely to testify on direct examination.

2. Identify the facts to which the witness might testify that are consistent with your own witnesses and exhibits.

3. Identify possible testimony inconsistent with your opponent’s other witnesses and exhibits.

4. Determine whether and under what circumstances the witness made written or oral statements (e.g., in deposition, sworn affidavits through interviews by police officers or private investigators, or instatements to other persons who can be called to testify at trial) to which you can point if the witness testifies differently on the stand.

5. Investigate the witness’ background and relationship to the parties in the case.

6. Review the witness’ potential testimony in light of your own theory of the case.Select the most important details and plan your cross-examination around those.

7. Do not plan to cross-examine the witness on unimportant collateral matters unless you have no other am******on against the witness and feel that the judge will expect at least some cross-examination.

8. Determine what the witness knows or purports to know about the events in question. Do statements indicate that the witness has an incomplete recollection of the event? Do the facts indicate a lack of detailed knowledge, or defects in perception?

9. Determine whether you will challenge the witness’ competency to testify.

10. Visit the scene of the events in question. Examine the purported action from the places where the witnesses claim to have been during the events. Where appropriate, evaluate the witness’ visual perspective of the events at issue,measure distances, examine lighting, and draw detailed diagrams. Study potential exhibits. These will include (to the extent you have access to them) those to which your opponent may refer during direct examination and those for which the witness may lay a foundation.

11. Determine whether the witness might lay a foundation for your own exhibits.Carefully study each deposition, any prior statements (suchas those contained in police reports), and the notes from many interviews you may have conducted with the witness.

12. Highlight the statements you might use to impeach the witness and mark them for easy reference. Note the circumstances under which each statement was given,especially whether it was given under oath.

13. Investigate the witness’ background for evidence of bias,motive, or interest.

14. As you did for direct examination,focus on aspects of the witness’ experiences and circumstances for evidence of ability to perceive, remember,understand, and communicate the facts to which thewitness may be asked to testify. Review the evidence in light of your theory of the case.

15. Anticipate the direct examination. Given modern discovery procedures, you should be able to outline the substance ofthe direct examination in some detail.

16. Establish a goal for the cross-examination. Select the two or three most important issues on which the witness may advance your case. Limit the scope of cross-examination to the important issues. Sometimes this may mean addressing as few as two or threepoints. This strategy preserves the clarity of the points you wantto make and enhances the impact of your cross-examination.

17. Determine what type of impression the witness is likely to make. (That is, what type of witness will he or she be?)And what impact will the witness make?

18. If the witness is a gentle, elderly person, for example, you will want to phrase your questions to avoid the appearance of attack,and you may have to forego certain lines of questioning altogether in order to avoid antagonizing the judge.

19. Other witnesses, such as criminal co-conspirators turned state’s evidence, may call for a more aggressive and even ruthless approach.

20. It is neither necessary nor always wise to follow the order ofthe direct examination, for the witness will too easily anticipate and counter your questions, and the cross may reinforce the direct by following the organizational framework chosen by your opponent.

A chronological approach to the cross-examination, for example, only permits the witness to retell his or her story. Adapt the order of questioning to your theory of the case and to the weaknesses in the witness’ testimony.

21. A primary goal of cross-examination is to draw out facts that favor your position. Regard cross-examination as another opportunity to advance your theory of the case. As noted above, most witnesses can offer some facts which support your case, including testimony that corroborates your evidence, lays a foundation for an exhibit, or even supplies an element of your claim or defense.Some witnesses will in fact be neutral and cooperative. Reemphasize points favorable to you that were brought out on direct.

22. Cross-examination can be structured to create dramatic impact, and, as elsewhere, the principle of recency is a potent tool. Therefore, whenever possible, organize the cross-examination to build to a climactic end.

23. Lastly, determine whether you intend to cross-examine the witness at all.

BOOK REFERENCE:

Trial Handbook for California Lawyers by
Jonathan Purver, Douglas Young and
James Davis III, 2nd Edition, 1987.

04/09/2026

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/19NNTe5bdm/?mibextid=wwXIfr

TEN COMMANDMENTS OF COURTROOM SUCCESS OF A LAWYER.
By Atty. Florante A. Zagada.

All trial lawyers are different in their styles and skills in the courtroom. There are however certain attributes consistently found in virtually all successful trial lawyers.

Successful lawyers have the following common attributes:

I. They intensely prepare, fully investigate, and thoroughly know the facts and law of your case.

2. They maintain absolute control of their case.

3. They adhere to the highest standards of integrity, credibility,and professional ethics.

4. They accept a fair and reasonable settlement and avoid trial if possible.

5. They are primed to try every case to court if they cannot settle.

6. They exhibit civility, respect, and deference to the court, to their opponents, and their opponent’s witnesses.

7. They may be surprised by mendacity, but never be deceived by mendacity.

8. They never lose their sense of humor.

9. They never allow the emotional stress of litigation to adversely affect their personal relationships with family, friends, or colleagues.

10. They put defeat in perspective; they may be disappointed by defeat,but never fear it.

Are you one of them? Then you are a successful lawyer. God bless you.

04/09/2026

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1EkM2XMeUa/?mibextid=wwXIfr

CROSS-EXAMINATION CHECKLIST.
By Atty. Florante A. Zagada.

Are you anxious about what to ask in your cross-examination? I’ll share something with you which you can use to examine the adverse witness.

Many books have been written about cross-examination. But effective cross-examination may be more art than science because it relies heavily on human intuition, tactical adaptability, and performance rather than rigid formulas or fixed equation.

But for the trial lawyer who has prepared carefully, who has taken pains to evaluate the witnesses, who remains true to his or her own personality,and who keeps in mind a few basic principles, cross-examination should not be the source of anxiety that it all too often is.

For a successful cross-examination, consider the following:

1. Do not ask a question unless you know the answer.

2. Use leading questions.

3. Never review or repeat the witness’s direct examination except as foundation to attack credibility, bias and interest or material inconsistency

4. Use plain words.

5. Listen carefully to the witness’s answers. If there is favorable admission therein to your theory, pound him there.

6. Do not argue with the witness, opposing counsel, or the court.

7. Make only one point at a time.

8. Never combine two impeachments in one question.

9. Cover only important points. Acoid asking on peripheral matters. It merely clouds the impt issues of the case.

10. Never, never ask a witness “why” or to “please explain your answer.”

11. Never allow the witness to lecture the judge or lawyer.

12. Do not remind the witness that he or she is under oath. The perjurer doesn’t care and the truthful witness doesn’t have to be told.

12. Before you start your cross-examination, remove all your opponent’s exhibits from the sight of the judge.

13. Never show you have been hurt by a witness’s answer. Rather than act wounded, act as if the answer is what you expected.

14. Keep the witness under control at all times.

15. Keep yourself under control at all times.

16. Vary your approaches or voices as you question the witness. For a mild approach, use words like “did you,” “are you,” “were you,” etc. For a moderate approach, try “aren’t you,” “weren’t you,”“didn’t you,” etc. And for an aggressive approach, use “isn’t it afact that,” “isn’t it true that,” etc.

End-