ANTI DRUNK OR DRUGGED DRIVING LAW (REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10586)

DRIVING WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL OR DRUGS IS NOW A CRIME. 

Republic Act No. 10586 was recently signed into law. This law makes it unlawful for any person to drive a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, dangerous drugs and/or other similar substances. (So, somebody  who is drunk or drugged and rides his bicycle through the streets is not liable under this law. This seems to be true even if he be the cause of a vehicular accident!)

It appears that the law does not require any specific level of alcohol intoxication one has to be under in order that he can be held liable for driving while in the influence of liquor. 

Under this law, law enforcement officers are authorized to conduct “field sobriety test” (Field sobriety tests refer to standardized tests to initially assess and determine intoxication, such as the horizontal gaze nystagmus, the walk-and-turn, the one-leg stand, and other similar tests as determined jointly by the DOH, the NAPOLCOM and the DOTC) when he has probable cause to believe that the driver is under the influence of alcohol, dangerous drugs and/or other similar substances by apparent indications and manifestations, including overspeeding, weaving, lane straddling, sudden stops, swerving, poor coordination or the evident smell of alcohol in a person’s breath or signs of use of dangerous drugs and other similar substances.  If the driver fails in the sobriety tests, it shall be the duty of the law enforcement officer to implement the mandatory determination of the driver’s blood alcohol concentration level through the use of a breath analyzer or similar measuring instrument. If the law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that a person is driving under the influence of dangerous drugs and/or other similar substances, it shall be the duty of the law enforcement officer to bring the driver to the nearest police station to be subjected to a drug screening test and, if necessary, a drug confirmatory test as mandated under Republic Act No. 9165.

Refusal to subject oneself to undergo the mandatory field sobriety test and drug test is likewise punishable by confiscation and automatic revocation of his or her driver’s license, in addition to other penalties.

Another remarkable provision of the law is the direct and principal liability of the owner or operator of the vehicle together with offending driver. However, this solidary liability of the vehicle owner or operator is limited only on the penalty of fine and damages. The penalty of imprisonment can be imposed only against the offending driver. The only defense the vehicle owner or operator can set up his exercise of extraordinary diligence in the selection and supervision of his or her drivers in general and the offending driver in particular. The law merely provides that this solidary liability shall principally (not exclusively) apply to the owners and/or operators of public utility vehicles and commercial vehicles such as delivery vans, cargo trucks, container trucks, school and company buses, hotel transports, cars or vans for rent, taxi cabs, and the like. Thus, textually, the law does not exclude from this solidary liability, the owners of private vehicles.

The penalties for violation of the law are as follows:

SEC. 12. Penalties. – A driver found to have been driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, dangerous drugs and/or other similar substances, as provided for under Section 5 of this Act, shall be penalized as follows:

(a) If the violation of Section 5 did not result in physical injuries or homicide, the penalty of three (3) months imprisonment, and a fine ranging from Twenty thousand pesos (Php20,000.00) to Eighty thousand pesos (Php80,000.00) shall be imposed;

(b) If the violation of Section 5 resulted in physical injuries, the penalty provided in Article 263 of the Revised Penal Code or the penalty provided in the next preceding subparagraph, whichever is higher, and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (Php100,000.00) to Two hundred thousand pesos (Php200,000.00) shall be imposed;

(c) If the violation of Section 5 resulted in homicide, the penalty provided in Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos (Php300,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (Php500,000.00) shall be imposed; and

(d) The nonprofessional driver’s license of any person found to have violated Section 5 of this Act shall also be confiscated and suspended for a period of twelve (12) months for the first conviction and perpetually revoked for the second conviction. The professional driver’s license of any person found to have violated Section 5 of this Act shall also be confiscated and perpetually revoked for the first conviction. The perpetual revocation of a driver’s license shall disqualify the person from being granted any kind of driver’s license thereafter.

The prosecution for any violation of this Act shall be without prejudice to criminal prosecution for violation of the Revised Penal Code, Republic Act No. 9165 and other special laws and existing local ordinances, whenever applicable.

Let us all drive sanely and responsibly! (Even if you drive a bicycle or something else.)

READTHE FULL TEXT OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10586

NEW FIREARMS LAW (REPUBLIC ACT 10591)

Republic Act No. 10591, an “Act Providing for a Comprehensive Law on Firearms and Ammunition and Providing Penalties for Violations thereof” was signed into law on May 29, 2013. 

Among the salient features of the new firearms law is its repeal of the sweeping “no other crime” clause under the Sec.1 of P.D. 1866 as amended by R.A. 8294. A person is not liable for violation of the old firearms law, (say, illegal possession of firearm) if he also committed another crime (like violation of COMELEC gun ban or even a lighter offense of Alarms and Scandals under the Revised Penal Code). Prior conviction in the “other crime” committed will obliterate one’s otherwise separate liability under the firearms law. In the old law, what is punished is the “other crime”  regardless if the use or possession of firearms is inherent or necessary in the commission of that “other crime”.

Under the new law, the rules are different. The penalty for violation of the new firearms law, particularly the use of loose firearms (Loose firearm refers to an unregistered firearm, an obliterated or altered firearm, firearm which has been lost or stolen, illegally manufactured firearms, registered firearms in the possession of an individual other than the licensee and those with revoked licenses in accordance with the rules and regulations) is not imposed only when the use of loose firearms is “inherent” in the commission of the “other crime.” In such case, the use or possession of loose firearms is merely considered as an aggravating circumstance. Otherwise, the use or possession of loose firearms and violation of other penal law shall be treated as distinct crimes and will thus be punished separately. The new law expressly provides that “if the crime is committed without using the loose firearm, the violation of this Act [RA No. 10591] shall be considered as a distinct and separate offense.”

The new law further provides that if the crime committed with the use of a loose firearm is penalized by the law with a maximum penalty which is lower than that prescribed for illegal possession of firearm, the penalty for illegal possession of firearm shall be imposed IN LIEU OF the penalty for the “other crime” charged. If the crime committed with the use of a loose firearm is penalized by the law with a maximum penalty which is equal to that imposed under the preceding section for illegal possession of firearms, the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed IN ADDITION to the penalty for the crime punishable under the Revised Penal Code or other special laws of which he/she is found guilty. (Please refer to Section 29 of RA 10591)

Other salient provisions of the new are Sections 4, 7, 10, 21, 26

Read full text of RA 10591

Ignorance of the law excuses no one!

FIRST DRAFT: REVISED RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

The Supreme Court constituted the Core Committee for the National Conference for the Revision of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The move to revise the present Rules is aimed at improving our judicial process by making it more cost and time efficient both for the Courts and the litigants, and hopefully do away with procedural glitches which unduly lengthen the prompt disposition of cases.

As stated in the website of the SC, the overall controlling objective of the Core Committee is to draft and propose a revised Rules of Civil Procedure that gives true justice in all kinds of civil actions before the courts. And justice is done only if the revised rules substantially ensure the following:

1.       The parties in every case are placed on equal footing;

2.       The costs of litigation are reduced;

3.       The courts’ time and resources are wisely distributed among cases in proportion to

a.       the amounts involved;

b.      the complexity of the issues raised; and

c.       and the public interests in their resolution;

4.       All cases are speedily heard and decided; and

5.       The impartiality of the courts is enhanced and safeguarded.

The Core Committee has published the First Draft of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure for public comment. Once approved by the Supreme Court En Banc, the new rules will be called the Philippine Code of Procedure.

Download the First Draft Here!

CONSPIRACY APPLIES TO VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN

Violation of RA 9262 can be committed by persons other than one who is related to the woman by marriage, former marriage, or with whom the woman has or had sexual or dating relationship. This is possible through conspiracy under the Revised Penal Code.

This was underscored in GO-TAN vs. SPS. TAN, G.R. No. 168852, September 30, 2008 where it was held that “while the said provision provides that the offender be related or connected to the victim by marriage, former marriage, or a sexual or dating relationship, it does not preclude the application of the principle of conspiracy under the RPC. “ It was further noted that Section 47 of R.A. No. 9262 even expressly provides for the suppletory application of the Revised Penal Code. Thus, the Court concludes that the principle of conspiracy under Article 8 of the RPC can be, without a doubt, applied suppletorily to R.A. No. 9262 precisely because of the express provision of Section 47 that the RPC shall be supplementary to said law. 

         

Read the full text of the decision here: 

GO-TAN vs. SPS. TAN,G.R. No. 168852, September 30, 2008          

RIGHT TO VOTE

"The right to vote has reference to a constitutional guarantee of the utmost significance. It is a right without which the principle of sovereignty residing in the people becomes nugatory. In the traditional terminology, it is a political right enabling every citizen to participate in the process of government to assure that it derives its power from the consent of the governed. What was so eloquently expressed by Justice Laurel comes to mind: 'As long as popular government is an end to be achieved and safeguarded, suffrage, whatever may be the modality and form devised, must continue to be the means by which the great reservoir of power must be emptied into the receptacular agencies wrought by the people through their Constitution in the interest of good government and the common weal. Republicanism, in so far as it implies the adoption of a representative type of government, necessarily points to the enfranchised citizen as a particle of popular sovereignty and as the ultimate source of the established authority."' (PUÑGUTAN v. ABUBAKAR, G.R. No. L-33541, January 20, 1972)