Indispensable party vs. necessary party

G.R. No. 201781, December 10, 2014

ANNIE GERONIMO, SUSAN GERONIMO AND SILVERLAND ALLIANCE CHRISTIAN CHURCH*, PETITIONERS, VS. SPS. ESTELA C. CALDERON AND RODOLFO T. CALDERON, RESPONDENTS.

(Cf. The Lawyer's Post).

"x x x.

As to petitioners’ claim that they are merely necessary parties and that there must be a prior judgment directing and commanding the developer Silverland Realty & Development Corporation to enforce its contractual obligations, we are not convinced.

Respondents have sued not only the petitioners but also the developer corporation and the homeowners’ association. That Silverland Realty & Development Corporation and Silverland Village 1 Homeowners Association did not file their answer, did not divest the HLURB of jurisdiction over the case. We agree with respondents that petitioners are indispensable parties for they were the ones who built and operate the church inside the subdivision and without them no final determination can be had of the action. Petitioners are the ones who will be affected by the judgment. In fact, they are the ones who are prohibited from using the subject property as a church.

x x x."

Development permit

G.R. No. 201781, December 10, 2014

ANNIE GERONIMO, SUSAN GERONIMO AND SILVERLAND ALLIANCE CHRISTIAN CHURCH*, PETITIONERS, VS. SPS. ESTELA C. CALDERON AND RODOLFO T. CALDERON, RESPONDENTS.

(Cf. The Lawyer's Post).

"x x x.

Neither can the argument that herein respondents are not bound by the development permit as this is only between the government and the developer, be held valid. To accept such rationalization would be to say that buyers, after acquiring title to a subdivision property, are free to set aside all zoning and development plans the government has deemed appropriate for the area in consideration of the general welfare.

Respondents, in deciding to acquire property in a subdivision project, are deemed to have accepted and understood, that they are not merely trying to possess a property but are in fact joining a unique community with a distinctive lifestyle envisioned since its development.

While the construction and establishment of any church is not prohibited within a subdivision, the same should be located in an area designed or allowable in the approved development plan for the purpose.⁠12 

x x x."

The rules of evidence are not strictly applied in proceedings before administrative bodies.

G.R. No. 201781, December 10, 2014
ANNIE GERONIMO, SUSAN GERONIMO AND SILVERLAND ALLIANCE CHRISTIAN CHURCH*, PETITIONERS, VS. SPS. ESTELA C. CALDERON AND RODOLFO T. CALDERON, RESPONDENTS.
(Cf. The Lawyer's Post).


"x x x.

Here, as noted by the HLURB, the Development Permit indicates the use of the property as residential except for the designated open spaces. Petitioners do not deny that the building built beside the lot of Annie and Joel Geronimo is used as a church and that other religious activities are performed there. Clearly, this usage contravenes the land use policy particularly prescribed in the subdivision plan and in the Development Permit. Respondents, as subdivision lot owners, are entitled to assert that the use of the said property for religious activities be enjoined since it clearly violates the intended use of the subject lot.

Also, we find no fault on the part of the CA in affirming the HLURB’s act of taking judicial notice of the Development Permit issued for the project.To begin with, it is well-settled that the rules of evidence are not strictly applied in proceedings before administrative bodies.⁠10Although trial courts are enjoined to observe strict enforcement of the rules of evidence, in connection with evidence which may appear to be of doubtful relevancy, incompetency, or admissibility, we have held that:

[I]t is the safest policy to be liberal, not rejecting them on doubtful or technical grounds, but admitting them unless plainly irrelevant, immaterial or incompetent, for the reason that their rejection places them beyond the consideration of the court, if they are thereafter found relevant or competent; on the other hand, their admission, if they turn out later to be irrelevant or incompetent, can easily be remedied by completely discarding them or ignoring them.⁠11
The issue of taking judicial notice of the Development Permit was also properly discussed and justified by the Board of Commissioners of the HLURB, First Division, to wit:


With respect to the assailed documents which the Office relied upon to arrive at its conclusion, Rule X, Section 6 of the HLURB Rules of Procedure provides:
Section 6. Summary resolution. – With or without the position paper or draft decision, the Arbiter shall resume (sic) the cases on bases of the pleadings and pertinent records of the case and of the Board.
The Regional Office can therefore take judicial notice of all documents forming part of its official records. The rule is in accord with Section 22 of Chapter IV, Book VI of Executive Order No. 292, s. 1987, otherwise known as the Administrative Code.

x x x."

Administrative agency; exercise of adjudicative power; sound discretion.

G.R. No. 201781, December 10, 2014
ANNIE GERONIMO, SUSAN GERONIMO AND SILVERLAND ALLIANCE CHRISTIAN CHURCH*, PETITIONERS, VS. SPS. ESTELA C. CALDERON AND RODOLFO T. CALDERON, RESPONDENTS.
(Cf. The Lawyer's Post).


"x x x.

xxx. Well-entrenched is the rule that courts will not interfere in matters which are addressed to the sound discretion of the government agency entrusted with the regulation of activities coming under the special and technical training and knowledge of such agency.⁠13 

Administrative agencies are given a wide latitude in the evaluation of evidence and in the exercise of their adjudicative functions, latitude which includes the authority to take judicial notice of facts within their special competence.⁠14 

x x x."

Use of residential lot must conform with Subdivision Plan and Development Permit.

G.R. No. 201781, December 10, 2014

ANNIE GERONIMO, SUSAN GERONIMO AND SILVERLAND ALLIANCE CHRISTIAN CHURCH*, PETITIONERS, VS. SPS. ESTELA C. CALDERON AND RODOLFO T. CALDERON, RESPONDENTS. 

(Cf. The Lawyer's Post).

"x x x.

On the second issue, we uphold the ruling that petitioners cannot use #46 of Silverlane Street for religious purposes or as a location of a church.

Here, as noted by the HLURB, the Development Permit indicates the use of the property as residential except for the designated open spaces. Petitioners do not deny that the building built beside the lot of Annie and Joel Geronimo is used as a church and that other religious activities are performed there. Clearly, this usage contravenes the land use policy particularly prescribed in the subdivision plan and in the Development Permit. Respondents, as subdivision lot owners, are entitled to assert that the use of the said property for religious activities be enjoined since it clearly violates the intended use of the subject lot.

Also, we find no fault on the part of the CA in affirming the HLURB’s act of taking judicial notice of the Development Permit issued for the project.To begin with, it is well-settled that the rules of evidence are not strictly applied in proceedings before administrative bodies.⁠10Although trial courts are enjoined to observe strict enforcement of the rules of evidence, in connection with evidence which may appear to be of doubtful relevancy, incompetency, or admissibility, we have held that:

[I]t is the safest policy to be liberal, not rejecting them on doubtful or technical grounds, but admitting them unless plainly irrelevant, immaterial or incompetent, for the reason that their rejection places them beyond the consideration of the court, if they are thereafter found relevant or competent; on the other hand, their admission, if they turn out later to be irrelevant or incompetent, can easily be remedied by completely discarding them or ignoring them.⁠11 

The issue of taking judicial notice of the Development Permit was also properly discussed and justified by the Board of Commissioners of the HLURB, First Division, to wit:

With respect to the assailed documents which the Office relied upon to arrive at its conclusion, Rule X, Section 6 of the HLURB Rules of Procedure provides:

Section 6. Summary resolution. – With or without the position paper or draft decision, the Arbiter shall resume (sic) the cases on bases of the pleadings and pertinent records of the case and of the Board.

The Regional Office can therefore take judicial notice of all documents forming part of its official records. The rule is in accord with Section 22 of Chapter IV, Book VI of Executive Order No. 292, s. 1987, otherwise known as the Administrative Code.

Neither can the argument that herein respondents are not bound by the development permit as this is only between the government and the developer, be held valid. To accept such rationalization would be to say that buyers, after acquiring title to a subdivision property, are free to set aside all zoning and development plans the government has deemed appropriate for the area in consideration of the general welfare.

Respondents, in deciding to acquire property in a subdivision project, are deemed to have accepted and understood, that they are not merely trying to possess a property but are in fact joining a unique community with a distinctive lifestyle envisioned since its development.

While the construction and establishment of any church is not prohibited within a subdivision, the same should be located in an area designed or allowable in the approved development plan for the purpose.⁠12 

x x x."

Jurisdiction of Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB)

G.R. No. 201781, December 10, 2014

ANNIE GERONIMO, SUSAN GERONIMO AND SILVERLAND ALLIANCE CHRISTIAN CHURCH*, PETITIONERS, VS. SPS. ESTELA C. CALDERON AND RODOLFO T. CALDERON, RESPONDENTS.  

(Cf. The Lawyer's Post).

"x x x.

We explained the HLURB’s exclusive jurisdiction in Christian General Assembly, Inc. v. Spouses Ignacio⁠3 in this wise:

Generally, the extent to which an administrative agency may exercise its powers depends largely, if not wholly, on the provisions of the statute creating or empowering such agency. Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1344, “EMPOWERING THE NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY TO ISSUE WRIT OF EXECUTION IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF ITS DECISION UNDER PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 957,” clarifies and spells out the quasi-judicial dimensions of the grant of jurisdiction to the HLURB in the following specific terms:

SEC. 1. In the exercise of its functions to regulate the real estate trade and business and in addition to its powers provided for in Presidential Decree No. 957, the National Housing Authority shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases of the following nature:

Unsound real estate business practices;

Claims involving refund and any other claims filed by subdivision lot or condominium unit buyer against the project owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman; and

Cases involving specific performance of contractual and statutory obligations filed by buyers of subdivision lots or condominium units against the owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman.

The extent to which the HLURB has been vested with quasi-judicial authority must also be determined by referring to the terms of P.D. No. 957, “THE SUBDIVISION AND CONDOMINIUM BUYERS’ PROTECTIVE DECREE.” 

Section 3 of this statute provides:

x x x National Housing Authority [now HLURB]. – The National Housing Authority shall have exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the real estate trade and business in accordance with the provisions of this Decree.

In Maria Luisa Park Association, Inc. (MPLAI) v. Almendras,⁠4 we also ruled that:

The provisions of P.D. No. 957 were intended to encompass all questions regarding subdivisions and condominiums. The intention was aimed at providing for an appropriate government agency, the HLURB, to which all parties aggrieved in the implementation of provisions and the enforcement of contractual rights with respect to said category of real estate may take recourse. The business of developing subdivisions and corporations being imbued with public interest and welfare, any question arising from the exercise of that prerogative should be brought to the HLURB which has the technical know-how on the matter. In the exercise of its powers, the HLURB must commonly interpret and apply contracts and determine the rights of private parties under such contracts. This ancillary power is no longer a uniquely judicial function, exercisable only by the regular courts. (Emphasis supplied)

And in Spouses Chua v. Ang,⁠5 we held that:

The law recognized, too, that subdivision and condominium development involves public interest and welfare and should be brought to a body, like the HLURB, that has technical expertise. In the exercise of its powers, the HLURB, on the other hand, is empowered to interpret and apply contracts, and determine the rights of private parties under these contracts. This ancillary power, generally judicial, is now no longer with the regular courts to the extent that the pertinent HLURB laws provide.

Viewed from this perspective, the HLURB’s jurisdiction over contractual rights and obligations of parties under subdivision and condominium contracts comes out very clearly. x x x

In the present case, respondents are buyers of a subdivision lot from subdivision owner and developer Silverland Realty & Development Corporation.Respondents’ action against Silverland Realty & Development Corporation was for violation of its own subdivision plan when it allowed the construction and operation of SACC.⁠6 Respondents sued to stop the church activities inside the subdivision which is in contravention of the residential use of the subdivision lots. Undoubtedly, the present suit for the enforcement of statutory and contractual obligations of the subdivision developer clearly falls within the ambit of the HLURB’s jurisdiction.Needless to stress, when an administrative agency or body is conferred quasi-judicial functions, all controversies relating to the subject matter pertaining to its specialization are deemed to be included within the jurisdiction of said administrative agency or body.⁠7 Split jurisdiction is not favoured.⁠8 

Thus, respondents properly filed their complaint before the HLURB. The HLURB has exclusive jurisdiction over complaints arising from contracts between the subdivision developer and the lot buyer, or those aimed at compelling the subdivision developer to comply with its contractual and statutory obligations to make the subdivision a better place to live in⁠9. 

x x x."

Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case

THIRD DIVISION, G.R. No. 201781, December 10, 2014, ANNIE GERONIMO, SUSAN GERONIMO AND SILVERLAND ALLIANCE CHRISTIAN CHURCH*, PETITIONERS, VS. SPS. ESTELA C. CALDERON AND RODOLFO T. CALDERON, RESPONDENTS. (The Lawyer's Post).

"x x x.

On the first issue, we agree with the CA that the HLURB has jurisdiction over the present controversy. 

Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the complaint which comprise a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff’s cause of action. 

The nature of an action, as well as which court or body has jurisdiction over it, is determined based on the allegations contained in the complaint of the plaintiff, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. 

The averments in the complaint and the character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted. 

Once vested by the allegations in the complaint, jurisdiction also remains vested irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein.⁠1 

We have ruled that the jurisdiction of the HLURB to hear and decide cases is determined by the nature of the cause of action, the subject matter or property involved and the parties.⁠2 

x x x."

Compromise agreement; If one of the parties fails or refuses to abide by the compromise, the other party may either enforce the compromise or regard it as rescinded and insist upon his original demand.

SECOND DIVISION, G.R. No. 191336, January 25, 2012, CRISANTA ALCARAZ MIGUEL, PETITIONER, VS. JERRY D. MONTANEZ, RESPONDENT. 

 (The Lawyer's Post).

      "x x x.

Because the respondent failed to comply with the terms of theKasunduang Pag-aayos, said agreement is deemed rescinded pursuant to Article 2041 of the New Civil Code and the petitioner can insist on his original demand. Perforce, the complaint for collection of sum of money is the proper remedy.

 

The petitioner contends that the CA erred in ruling that she should have followed the procedure for enforcement of the amicable settlement as provided in the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law, instead of filing a collection case. The petitioner points out that the cause of action did not arise from the Kasunduang Pag-aayos but on the respondent’s breach of the original loan agreement.[1]

This Court agrees with the petitioner.

It is true that an amicable settlement reached at the barangay conciliation proceedings, like the Kasunduang Pag-aayos in this case, is binding between the contracting parties and, upon its perfection, is immediately executory insofar as it is not contrary to law, good morals, good   customs, public order and public policy.[2]This is in accord with the broad precept of Article 2037 of the Civil Code, viz:

A compromise has upon the parties the effect and authority of res judicata; but there shall be no execution except in compliance with a judicial compromise.

Being a by-product of mutual concessions and good faith of the parties, an amicable settlement has the force and effect of res judicata even if not judicially approved.[3] It transcends being a mere contract binding only upon the parties thereto, and is akin to a judgment that is subject to execution in accordance with the Rules.[4] Thus, under Section 417 of the Local Government Code,[5] such amicable settlement or arbitration award may be enforced by execution by the Barangay Lupon within six (6) months from the date of settlement, or by filing an action to enforce such settlement in the appropriate city or municipal court, if beyond the six-month period.

Under the first remedy, the proceedings are covered by the Local Government Code and the Katarungang Pambarangay Implementing Rules and Regulations. The Punong Barangay is called upon during the hearing to determine solely the fact of non-compliance of the terms of the settlement and to give the defaulting party another chance at voluntarily complying with his obligation under the settlement. Under the second remedy, the proceedings are governed by the Rules of Court, as amended. The cause of action is the amicable settlement itself, which, by operation of law, has the force and effect of a final judgment.[6]

It must be emphasized, however, that enforcement by execution of the amicable settlement, either under the first or the second remedy, is only applicable if the contracting parties have not repudiated such settlement within ten (10) days from the date thereof in accordance with Section 416 of the Local Government Code. If the amicable settlement is repudiated by one party, either expressly or impliedly, the other party has two options, namely, to enforce the compromise in accordance with the Local Government Code or Rules of Court as the case may be, or to consider it rescinded and insist upon his original demand. This is in accord with Article 2041 of the Civil Code, which qualifies the broad application of Article 2037, viz:

If one of the parties fails or refuses to abide by the compromise, the other party may either enforce the compromise or regard it as rescinded and insist upon his original demand.

In the case of Leonor v. Sycip,[7] the Supreme Court (SC) had the occasion to explain this provision of law. It ruled that Article 2041 does not require an action for rescission, and the aggrieved party, by the breach of compromise agreement, may just consider it already rescinded, to wit:

It is worthy of notice, in this connection, that, unlike Article 2039 of the same Code, which speaks of “a cause of annulment or rescission of the compromise” and provides that “the compromise may be annulled or rescinded” for the cause therein specified, thus suggesting an action for annulment or rescission, said Article 2041 confers upon the party concerned, not a “cause” for rescission, or the right to “demand” the rescission of a compromise, but the authority, not only to “regard it as   rescinded”, but, also, to “insist upon his original demand”. The language of this Article 2041, particularly when contrasted with that of Article 2039, denotes that no action for rescission is required in said Article 2041, and that the party aggrieved by the breach of a compromise agreement may, if he chooses, bring the suit contemplated or involved in his original demand, as if there had never been any compromise agreement, without bringing an action for rescission thereof. He need not seek a judicial declaration of rescission, for he may “regard” the compromise agreement already “rescinded”[8]. (emphasis supplied)

As so well stated in the case of Chavez v. Court of Appeals,[9] a party’s non-compliance with the amicable settlement paved the way for the application of Article 2041 under which the other party may either enforce the compromise, following the procedure laid out in the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law, or consider it as rescinded and insist upon his original demand. To quote:

In the case at bar, the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law provides for a two-tiered mode of enforcement of an amicable settlement, to wit: (a) by execution by the Punong Barangay which is quasi-judicial and summary in nature on mere motion of the party entitled thereto; and (b) an action in regular form, which remedy is judicial. However, the mode of enforcement does not rule out the right of rescission under Art. 2041 of the Civil Code. The availability of the right of rescission is apparent from the wording of Sec. 417 itself which provides that the amicable settlement “may” be enforced by execution by the lupon within six (6) months from its date or by action in the appropriate city or municipal court, if beyond that period. The use of the word “may” clearly makes the procedure provided in the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law directory or merely optional in nature.

Thus, although the “Kasunduan” executed by petitioner and respondent before the Office of the Barangay Captain had the force and effect of a final judgment of a court, petitioner’s non-compliance paved the way for the application of Art. 2041 under which respondent may either enforce the compromise, following the procedure laid out in the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law, or regard it as rescinded and insist upon his original demand. Respondent chose the latter option when he instituted Civil Case No. 5139-V-97 for recovery of unrealized profits and reimbursement of advance rentals, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. Respondent was not limited to claiming P150,000.00 because although he agreed to the amount in the “Kasunduan,” it is axiomatic that a compromise settlement is not an admission of liability but merely a recognition that there is a dispute and an impending litigation which the parties hope to prevent by making reciprocal concessions, adjusting their respective positions in the hope of gaining balanced by the danger of losing. Under the “Kasunduan,” respondent was only required to execute a waiver of all possible claims arising from the lease contract if petitioner fully complies with his obligations thereunder. It is undisputed that herein petitioner did not.[10] (emphasis supplied and citations omitted)

In the instant case, the respondent did not comply with the terms and conditions of the Kasunduang Pag-aayos. Such non-compliance may be construed as repudiation because it denotes that the respondent did not intend to be bound by the terms thereof, thereby negating the very purpose for which it was executed. Perforce, the petitioner has the option either to enforce the Kasunduang Pag-aayos, or to regard it as rescinded and insist upon his original demand, in accordance with the provision of Article 2041 of the Civil Code. Having instituted an action for collection of sum of money, the petitioner obviously chose to rescind the Kasunduang Pag-aayos.  As such, it is error on the part of the CA to rule that enforcement by execution of said agreement is the appropriate remedy under the circumstances.

Considering that the Kasunduang Pag-aayos is deemed  rescinded by the non-compliance of the respondent of the  terms thereof, remanding the case to the trial court for the  enforcement of said agreement is clearly unwarranted.

 

The petitioner avers that the CA erred in remanding the case to the   trial court for the enforcement of the Kasunduang Pag-aayos as it prolonged the process, “thereby putting off the case in an indefinite pendency.[11]” Thus, the petitioner insists that she should be allowed to ventilate her rights before this Court and not to repeat the same proceedings just to comply with the enforcement of the Kasunduang Pag-aayos, in order to finally enforce her right to payment.[12]

The CA took off on the wrong premise that enforcement of the Kasunduang Pag-aayos is the proper remedy, and therefore erred in its conclusion that the case should be remanded to the trial court. The fact that the petitioner opted to rescind the Kasunduang Pag-aayos means that she is insisting upon the undertaking of the respondent under the original loan contract. Thus, the CA should have decided the case on the merits, as an appeal before it, and not prolong the determination of the issues by remanding it to the trial court. Pertinently, evidence abounds that the respondent has failed to comply with his loan obligation. In fact, the Kasunduang Pag-aayos is the well nigh incontrovertible proof of the respondent’s indebtedness with the petitioner as it was executed precisely to give the respondent a second chance to make good on his undertaking. And since the respondent still reneged in paying his indebtedness, justice demands that he must be held answerable therefor.

      x x x."

Special complex crime of robbery with homicide

G.R. No. 212932 January 21, 2015

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs. ARNEL BALUTE y VILLANUEVA, Accused-Appellant.

"x x x.

In People v. Ibañez,15 the Court exhaustively explained that "[a] special complex crime of robbery with homicide takes place when a homicide is committed either by reason,or on the occasion, of the robbery. 

To sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide, the prosecution must prove the following elements: (1) the taking of personal property belonging to another; (2) with intent to gain; (3) with the use of violence or intimidation against a person; and (4) on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, the crime of homicide, as used in its generic sense, was committed. 

A conviction requires certitude that the robbery is the main purpose, and [the] objective of the malefactor and the killing is merely incidental to the robbery. 

The intent to rob must precede the taking of human life but the killing may occur before, during or after the robbery."16 

Homicide is said to have been committed by reason or on occasion of robbery if, for instance, it was committed: (a) to facilitate the robbery or the escape of the culprit; (b) to preserve the possession by the culprit of the loot; (c) to prevent discovery of the commission of the robbery; or (d) to eliminate witnesses in the commission of the crime.17.

x x x."

Factual findings of the trial court

G.R. No. 212932               January 21, 2015

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs. ARNEL BALUTE y VILLANUEVA, Accused-Appellant.

"x x x.

It must be stressed that in criminal cases, factual findings of the trial court are generally accorded great weight and respect on appeal, especially when such findings are supported by substantial evidence on record. 

It is only in exceptional circumstances, such as when the trial court overlooked material and relevant matters, that the Court will re-calibrate and evaluate the factual findings of the court below.14 

Guided by the foregoing principle, the Court finds no cogent reason to disturb the RTC’s factual findings, as affirmed by the CA.

x x x."

Syndicated Estafa; PD 1689; Art. 315, Rev. Penal Code

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, 

vs. PALMY TIBAYAN and RICO Z. PUERTO, Accused-Appellants. G.R. Nos. 209655-60, January 14, 2015

"x x x.

The Issue Before the Court

The primordial issue for the Court’s resolution is whether or not accused-appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Syndicated Estafa defined and penalized under Item 2 (a), Paragraph 4,

Article 315 of the RPC in relation to PD 1689.

The Court’s Ruling

The Court sustains the convictions of accused-appellants.

Item 2 (a), Paragraph 4, Article 315 of the RPC provides:

Art. 315. Swindling (estafa).– Any person who shall defraud another by any means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by:

x x x x

2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:

(a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business, or imaginary transactions; or by means of other similar deceits.

x x x x

The elements of Estafa by means of deceit under this provision are the following: (a) that there must be a false pretense or fraudulent representation as to his power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; (b) that such false pretense or fraudulent representation was made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (c) that the offended party relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means and was induced to part with his money or property; and (d) that, as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.41

In relation thereto, Section 1 of PD 1689 defines Syndicated Estafa as follows:

Section 1. Any person or persons who shall commit estafa or other forms of swindling as defined in Articles 315 and 316 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, shall be punished by life imprisonment to death if the swindling (estafa) is committed by a syndicate consisting of five or more persons formed with the intention of carrying out the unlawful or illegal act, transaction, enterprise or scheme, and the defraudation results in the misappropriation of moneys contributed by stockholders, or members of rural banks, cooperatives, "samahang nayon(s)," or farmers’ associations, or funds solicited by corporations/associations from the general public.

Thus, the elements of Syndicated Estafa are: (a) Estafa or other forms of swindling, as defined in Articles 315 and 316 of the RPC, is committed; (b) the Estafa or swindling is committed by a syndicate of five (5) or more persons; and (c) defraudation results in the misappropriation of moneys contributed by stockholders, or members of rural banks, cooperative, "samahang nayon(s)," or farmers’ associations, or of funds solicited by corporations/associations from the general public.42

In this case, a judicious review of the records reveals TGICI’s modus operandiof inducing the public to invest in it on the undertaking that their investment would be returned with a very high monthly interest rate ranging from three to five and a half percent (3%-5.5%).43 Under such lucrative promise, the investing public are enticed to infuse funds into TGICI. However, as the directors/incorporators of TGICI knew from the start that TGICI is operating withoutany paid-up capital and has no clear trade by which it can pay the assured profits to its investors,44 they cannot comply with their guarantee and had to simply abscond with their investors’ money. Thus, the CA correctly held that accused-appellants, along with the other accused who are still at large, used TGICI to engage ina Ponzi scheme, resulting in the defraudation of the TGICI investors.

To be sure, a Ponzi scheme is a typeof investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors. Its organizers often solicit new investors by promising to invest funds in opportunities claimed to generate high returns with little or no risk. In many Ponzi schemes, the perpetrators focus on attracting new money to make promised payments to earlier-stage investors to create the false appearance that investors are profiting from a legitimate business.45 It is not an investment strategy but a gullibility scheme, which works only as long as there is an ever increasing number of new investors joining the scheme.46 It is difficult to sustain the scheme over a long period of time because the operator needs an ever larger pool of later investors to continue paying the promised profits toearly investors. The idea behind this type of swindle is that the "con-man" collects his money from his second or third round of investors and then absconds before anyone else shows up to collect. Necessarily, Ponzi schemes only last weeks, or months at the most.47

In this light, it is clear that all the elements of Syndicated Esta/a, committed through a Ponzi scheme, are present in this case, considering that: (a) the incorporators/directors of TGICI comprising more than five (5) people, including herein accused-appellants, made false pretenses and representations to the investing public - in this case, the private complainants - regarding a supposed lucrative investment opportunity with TGICI in order to solicit money from them; (b) the said false pretenses and representations were made prior to or simultaneous with the commission of fraud; (c) relying on the same, private complainants invested their hard earned money into TGICI; and (d) the incorporators/directors of TGICI ended up running away with the private complainants' investments, obviously to the latter's prejudice.

Corollary thereto, the CA correctly upgraded accused-appellants' conviction from simple Estafa to Syndicated Estafa.1âwphi1 In a criminal case, an appeal throws the whole case wide open for review. Issues whether raised or not by the parties may be resolved by the appellate court.48 Hence, accused appellants' appeal conferred upon the appellate court full jurisdiction and rendered it competent to examine the records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law.49

x x x."

NY Times: Forced Arbitration is a Privatization of Justice System | Todd Steigman | LinkedIn

See - NY Times: Forced Arbitration is a Privatization of Justice System | Todd Steigman | LinkedIn





"x x x.

In a special report, the NY Times explains how forced arbitration has resulted in a privatization of the justice system where "rules tend to favor businesses, and judges and juries have been replaced by arbitrators who commonly consider the companies their clients." 

 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/02/business/dealbook/in-arbitration-a-privatization-of-the-justice-system.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0  

As the article explains, companies have inserted arbitration clauses in contracts in order to deprive tens of millions of individuals, employees, and consumers their day in court.  Arbitrators decide what evidence the parties can offer, and how much a company is required to disclose.  Unlike court proceedings, decisions by an arbitrator are almost impossible to appeal.  As the Times explains, the arbitrators - - who are paid substantial fees - - have a built-in incentive to decide matters favorably for companies who are more likely to be repeat customers.  More than three dozen arbitrators interviewed by the Times confirmed that they "felt beholden to companies. Beneath every decision, the arbitrators said, was the threat of losing business."  

The current system of forced arbitration favors large companies to the detriment of individuals, employees, and consumers who are often not even aware that they are signing away their rights to a day in court, and it is is need of reform.   Companies have taken advantage of forced arbitration provisions to deprive employees of their right to have claims decided in court, including whistleblower claims, retaliation claims, discrimination claims, wrongful discharge claims, unpaid wage and overtime claims, as well as others.  Proposals like the Arbitration Fairness Act of 2015 are needed to level the playing field.  

https://s3.amazonaws.com/membercentralcdn/sitedocuments/nela/nela/0179/733179.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=0D2JQDSRJ497X9B2QRR2&Expires=1446425750&Signature=MNrLOonHXuLb7VNwgoxo8bzDbsk%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3D%22NELAPressReleaseIntroductionofAFA201504292015Final%2Epdf%22%3B%20filename%2A%3DUTF-8%27%27NELAPressReleaseIntroductionofAFA201504292015Final%252Epdf  

x x x."

Private Prisons and the Criminal Justice System: Past, Present and Future

See - Private Prisons and the Criminal Justice System: Past, Present and Future





"x x x.

Private Prisons and the Criminal Justice System:  Past, Present and Future
Juliet M. Hurley, MBA, MSF, MAC
University of Phoenix
CJA313
Christopher Eberle
December 9, 2006

Private Prisons and the Criminal Justice System

Privately run prisons are not a novelty but have existed before the 20th century. In the beginning of the 20th century, though, private prisons were banned (Corrections, n.d.).  Privatization of prisons had a wave of popularity in the second half of the 19th century.  During this hay-day, greedy legislatures were awarding entrepreneurs contracts to manage and operate several prisons.  In the mid-1980s, privatizing prisons had another wave of emphasis.  Factors such as increasing costs of running a prison, free market ideologies, and the increase of prison population, the option of awarding contract to private firms became a viable option.  Managing a prison is not the only service that private firms have contributed to privatizing prisons.  Contractors building the prisons are currently outsourced as well as security and managing day-to-day operations (Garcia, J., et. all, 2006).  The largest factor in the private prison boom was lack of funding.  Voters started saying “no” to new bond issuance to create more prisons.  This forced states to turn to private investments to fund prisons.  By 2000 10% of prison were privatized, mainly run by Cornell Corrections, Inc., Wackenhut, and CCA. (Corrections, n.d.).  

Currently the topic of privatizing prisons is controversial.  Some argue for privatizing prisons stating that the quality of life for prisoners will increase; other state that the quality of life will decrease thinking that companies will cut costs and provide lower quality items, such as food and clothing.  Another argument for private prisons is that it can create stiffer criminal laws.  Politicians are persuaded by companies that provide prison services, such as Wackenhut.  Wackenhut and other firms that provide private prison service have contributed money to those politicians who are for the death penalty.  However, proponents argue that the influence of private firms could distort the purpose of having laws to prevent and punish crime into that of making a profit to keep crime (Garcia, J., et all, 2006).  Between 1960 and 1970, stiffer laws that created harsher penalties and made new acts crimes caused a boom in prisoner growth.  The new influx of prisoners created overcrowding, and the politicians who promised to build more prisons could not because the funds were not available (Corrections, n.d.).  One of the largest problems is overcrowding.  According to the John Howard Society of Alberta (2006, introduction), “26.4% of inmates stated that they were currently sharing a cell with another inmate. Furthermore, 12% of those inmates sharing a single cell felt threatened by their cell-mate.”

Privatization of prisons is new, and there is not enough data to confirm if they are more successful than government run facilities (Garcia, J., et all, 2006).  I predict that the trend will be more privatizing of prisons, citing cost savings and efficiencies.  Private firms that have run prisons will get reputations, and if good then it can be more persuasive to promote its service to different counties and states.  I think studies should be conducted to determine the effects of privatizing prisons so that the safety of the public is ensured.  In Canada, a study was conducted in which two prisons were created for the purpose of comparing public vs. privately run prisons.  Despite the fact that the private firm saved the Liberal government over $23 million and there was a chance of an additional $11 million in savings, the Canadian government decided that it prefers publicly run facilities (Goggins, K., 2006).  If the American government were to also conduct a study, I would recommend a comprehensive study that analyzes more than the operations of private versus public prisons.  The decision by the Canadian government was based upon its concern with prisoner treatment, not public safety (Goggins, K., 2006).  Therefore, I do not agree with the results.  A study needs to combine the study of the surrounding area’s crime to make a solid determination of the effects of private prison management.  What if in Canada where the study was conducted the local crime rate increased 35%?  Technology such as GIS could be used to determine the effects on public safety.  Law enforcement could also share its GIS information or make it searchable by other law enforcement so that crime trends extending beyond local limits can be analyzed.

To address the fear of loss of quality, safeguards could be put in place.  For example, the government could set specific guidelines as to what has to be provided to prisoners.  Quality checks by independent firms could verify if the managing private firm is keeping in line with standards.  Another step that could be taken to ensure quality is to mandate that every 5 years the prison has to find a new firm to manage the prison.  That would allow economic market forces to create competition to keep quality high in the prisons.

Some ideas to help with the overcrowding issue and profit incentive include changing the structure of prisons and finding ways to reduce crime.  To help prevent private firms from focusing on keeping crime vibrant so that it can continue to be a viable business could have a contingency clause in its contract.  For example, the private firm in addition to managing the prison has to develop a plan to rehabilitate felons.  Statistics such as frequency of second and third offenses of the same or similar crime could be used to determine if the rehabilitation plan was successful or failed.  The private firm would also have to develop plans to educate the community to help deter crime.  Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technology could be used to survey trends to determine if crime increases or decreases after an education session was implemented.  
In reference to structure, a Canadian prison in 1992 was renovated based on empirical studies.  The medium security facility installed carpet and acoustic tiles to help lessen the irritating noises of radios, TVs, talking, and walking down the halls.  Cushioned chairs and wall decorations were also used to deafen the noise, but the bonus was to encourage positive social interaction between the prisoners.  

Another change included letting prisoners lock and unlock his/her private rooms in order to give the prisoner perceived increase control over his/her life (JHSA, 1996).

ReferencesCorrections.  (n.d.).  Prison Privatization.  Retrieved December 9, 2006 from:
http://www.correctionsproject.com/corrections/pris_priv.htm
Garcia, J., Hurley, J. and Simpson, J. (2006, November 11).  Private Prisons:  Privatizing 
Corrections.  Unpublished.
Goggins, K.  (2006, May 3).  It’s a new world out there.  Retrieved December 9, 2006 from:  
HYPERLINK "http://www.capp.50megs.com/recentnews315.html" http://www.capp.50megs.com/recentnews315.html
John Howard Society of Alberta (JHSA).  (2006).  Prison Overcrowding.  Retrieved December 
9, 2006 from http://www.johnhoward.ab.ca/PUB/C42.htm
x x x."

FACT SHEET: Enhancing the Fairness and Effectiveness of the Criminal Justice System

See - FACT SHEET: Enhancing the Fairness and Effectiveness of the Criminal Justice System

"x x x.

THE WHITE HOUSE; Office of the Press Secretary

FACT SHEET: Enhancing the Fairness and Effectiveness of the Criminal Justice System

Today the President will lay out the case for meaningful juvenile and criminal justice reform that makes our system, fairer, smarter and more cost-effective while keeping the American people safe and secure.  Across the political spectrum, there is a growing consensus to make reforms to the juvenile and criminal justice systems to ensure that criminal laws are enforced more fairly and efficiently.  Unwarranted disparities and unduly harsh sentences undermine trust in the rule of law and offend the basic principles of fairness and justice.  In an era of limited resources and diverse threats, there is a public safety imperative to devote the resources of the criminal justice system to the practices that are most successful at deterring crime and protecting the public. 

This Administration has taken a series of actions to enhance fairness and efficiency at all phases of the criminal justice system and to better address the vicious cycle of poverty, criminality and incarceration that traps too many Americans and weakens too many communities.  Now, it is time for Congress to act.  Meaningful sentencing reform, steps to reduce repeat offenders and reform of the juvenile justice system are crucial to improving public safety, reducing runaway incarceration costs and making our criminal justice system more fair.

A Smarter and Fairer Approach to Charging and Sentencing: A Smarter and Fairer Approach to Charging and Sentencing: The Department of Justice has instituted a series of reforms to make the federal criminal justice system more fair, more efficient and to place a greater focus on the most serious cases and dangerous offenders.  These reforms have helped contribute to the first yearly reduction in the federal inmate population since 1980 and are occurring at a time when nationwide crime rates are lower than in decades.

• In April 2014, the President established a clemency initiative to encourage individuals sentenced under outdated laws and policies to petition for commutation. The President has now granted 89 commutations to individuals serving time in federal prison. Had they been sentenced under current laws and policies, many of these individuals would have already served their time and paid their debt to society. Because many were convicted under an outdated sentencing regime, they served years — in some cases more than a decade — longer than would individuals convicted today of the same crime. At his direction, significant reforms have followed, such as the promulgation of new criteria for potential commutation candidates. In addition, the Department of Justice has raised awareness about how to petition for commutation to ensure that every federal inmate who believes they are deserving of this invaluable second chance has the opportunity to ask for it. The President has now granted more commutations than the previous four presidents combined and has granted more than any president since Lyndon Johnson.

Previous Reforms:

• In 2010, the President signed the Fair Sentencing Act, bipartisan legislation that eased the disparity in the amounts of powder cocaine and crack cocaine required to trigger certain penalties in the federal system, including rigid mandatory minimum sentences.

• In 2010, then-Attorney General Eric Holder reversed the Department of Justice’s previous charging policy – known as the “Ashcroft memo” – that required prosecutors to always charge crimes with the severest possible sentence, and instead instructed that cases should be charged based on the individual circumstances of the offense. 
• In August 2013, the Department of Justice launched the “Smart on Crime”initiative, revising its charging policies to avoid triggering excessive mandatory minimums for low-level, nonviolent drug offenders. Since the launch of the initiative, data has shown that prosecutors are being more selective and focusing on more serious cases with a positive impact on prosecutions.

• The Department of Justice encourages judicial districts to adopt “diversion” and drug court programs that prioritize treatment instead of incarceration in order to ease our overburdened prison system and reduce recidivism.

Enhancing the Credibility and Accountability of the Justice System:The Department of Justice has instituted a series of measures to preserve the credibility and accountability of the criminal justice system so that it continues to maintain the trust of the communities it protects.

• In 2010, the Department of Justice issued unprecedented rules to provide criminal defendants with broad, comprehensive pre-trial evidence - more than the law requires.                    
• As part of the Access to Justice Initiative launched in 2010, the Department has been engaging with a wide variety of new partners – including state, local, tribal, and federal officials, nonprofit organizations, researchers, and experts from across the private sector – to expand research and funding support for the delivery of indigent defense services and to protect the Sixth Amendment guarantee to effective assistance of counsel.
• In May 2014, the Department announced that its federal agents would be required to videotape interrogations of detained individuals in order to ensure suspects’ civil rights are respected during all interviews.
• In September 2014, a new Department-wide policy was put in place that directed federal prosecutors to no longer require, as a part of plea agreements, that defendants waive their right to appeal based on ineffective assistance of counsel.
• In December 2014, the Department issued updated profiling guidance that, among other things, expanded the prohibition to religion, national origin, sexual orientation and gender identity and was applicable to state and local law enforcement agencies working on federal task forces.

Focus on Effective Prisoner Reentry and the Cycle of Incarceration: Each year, more than 600,000 individuals are released from state and federal prisons. The long-term impact of a criminal record will keep many people from obtaining employment, accessing housing, higher education, loans, and credit – even if they’ve paid their debt to society, turned their lives around, are qualified, and are unlikely to reoffend. To address this issue, then-Attorney General Holder launched the Federal Interagency Reentry Council in 2011. The Reentry Council works to align and advance reentry efforts across the federal government with an overarching aim to not only reduce recidivism and high correctional costs, but also to improve public health, child welfare, employment, education, housing and other key reintegration outcomes. 

Last month, Congress introduced the bi-partisan Second Chance Reauthorization Act which includes language that would codify the Reentry Council and institutionalize this work over the long term. Since 2009, more than 600 Second Chance Act grant awards have been made to state, local, and tribal governments and nonprofit organizations across 49 states to help incarcerated adults and youth rejoin their communities and become productive, law abiding citizens. 

Key Reentry Council Milestones:

Reducing Policy Barriers to Employment and Education 

• In 2012, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued historic anti-discrimination guidance recommending that employers avoid blanket bans on job applicants with a criminal history because of the potential disparate impact on people of color.  The guidance states a criminal record should only bar someone from employment when the conviction is closely related to the job, after considering (1) the nature of the job, (2) the nature and seriousness of the offense, and (3) the length of time since it occurred. 

• The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) built on the EEOC policy with (a) guidance geared to the public workforce system, and (b) a directive for federal contractors about their obligations regarding the use of criminal records as an employment screen.  DOL also launched the Linking to Employment Activities Pre-release (LEAP) program, a pilot initiative that provides specialized services to prepare incarcerated individuals for employment and increase their opportunities for successful reentry upon release. 
• The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) sent a letter to public housing authorities in 2011 encouraging them to allow people with criminal records to rejoin their families in public housing programs, when appropriate. 
• The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) developed a best practices guide regarding contractor applicants who support Federal agencies. 
• The Small Business Administration (SBA) proposed to amend their eligibility rules for MicroLoans, so that people on probation and parole are not automatically excluded. 
• The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has taken cases and published documents for job seekers about their rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act when it comes to background checks.
• In 2015, the U.S. Department of Education issued a letter to campus financial aid professionals to clarify that otherwise eligible youth who are confined in juvenile justice facilities are eligible to receive Federal Pell Grants.

Addressing Collateral Consequences of a Conviction

• NIJ (prior to the Council’s formation) funded a project with the American Bar Association which identified 46,000 statutes and regulations that impose collateral consequences on those with a conviction, creating barriers to employment, housing, benefits, and voting.  In 2011, then-AG Holder wrote to every state Attorney General, asking them to assess their state’s statutes and policies to determine if any should be eliminated. 
• In 2013, DOJ directed leadership across the Department to take collateral consequences into account when proposing any new regulation or guidance. 

Increasing Reentry Service Access to Incarcerated Veterans

• The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) revised its administrative polices that limited VA prison outreach to the six months prior to release.  Reentry assessment and planning can now begin day one, thus enhancing the odds of successful reentry. The VA also expanded eligibility for its health care services to those who are in halfway house settings and built a web-based system that allows prison, jail, and court staff to quickly and accurately identify Veterans among their populations.  

Support for State and Local Law Enforcement: The Administration is committed to ensuring that state and local law enforcement receive the funding, training and support they need from the federal government to serve their community and to promote officer safety and wellness.

• From 2009 through 2014, the Department of Justice’s Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office has funded the addition of nearly 10,000 community policing officers across the country.
• In fiscal year 2014, the Department of Justice provided $276 million of critical Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) funding to state, local and tribal governments.  The JAG Program is the primary provider of federal criminal justice funding to state and local jurisdictions and supports a range of program areas including law enforcement, prosecution and court programs, prevention and education programs, corrections and community corrections, drug treatment and enforcement, crime victim and witness initiatives, and planning, evaluation and technology improvement programs.
• The Department of Justice announced earlier this year a $263 million initiative to expand funding and training to law enforcement agencies to advance community policing initiatives.  The proposal includes a $75 million investment over three years that could help purchase 50,000 body-worn cameras.  In May 2015, the Office of Justice Programs announced a $20 million solicitation to help law enforcement agencies purchase body-worn cameras, and its Bureau of Justice Assistance released an online toolkit to help communities implement body-worn camera programs.
• In December 2014, the President created a Task Force on 21st Century Policing to strengthen trust between law enforcement officers and the communities they serve and protect while enhancing public safety. The Administration is working with federal agencies, law enforcement organizations, civil rights organizations and state and local government to promote the adoption of the Task Force’s recent recommendations by the approximately 18,000 state and local law enforcement agencies around the country.
• In March 2015, the Administration launched the Police Data Initiative to encourage law enforcement agencies around the country to publicly release data that they had not previously released concerning stops and searches, uses of force, officer involved shootings, citations, complaints and other police actions.  Already, two dozen agencies have agreed to release new data and participate in a peer-learning network to share successful innovations. For example, Seattle, WA hosted a workshop for law enforcement agencies to dive deeply into technology and data issues around body worn cameras. Dallas, TX opened twelve years of detailed officer-involved-shooting data with crucial context about why the Chief of Police is releasing the data, how such incidents are investigated, and what the police department is doing to reduce deadly force incidents. And, New Orleans, LA is pre-releasing police data sets to a group of young coders from under-represented communities who are providing feedback on the data and prototyping tools that will improve citizen access to this data. The Police Data Initiative is also helping Departments across the country better leverage data and technology, such as early warning systems and enhanced body camera analytics, to identify problems, increase internal accountability, and decrease inappropriate uses of force.

Working with State and Local Law Enforcement to Build Community Trust:  The Administration has worked with state and local law enforcement agencies to build trust while enhancing public safety.

• The Violence Reduction Network (VRN) is a meaningful approach to violence reduction that brings together city police departments with Justice Department law enforcement and grant-making components to reduce violence in some of the country’s most violent cities. DOJ works in partnership with police chiefs, researchers and other local partners on effective approaches to accomplishing their violence reduction strategies. VRN is currently partnering with Camden, NJ; Chicago, IL; Detroit, MI; Oakland/Richmond, CA and Wilmington, DE and will expand to other cities this year.
• DOJ’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services’ Collaborative Reform Initiative for Technical Assistance improves trust between police agencies and the communities they serve by providing a means to organizational transformation around specific issues.  Agencies selected to participate must demonstrate a commitment to address the recommendations and undertake significant reform efforts.  Collaborative Reform efforts have already been completed in Las Vegas, NV, which served as the pilot site for the program, and work continues in locations such as Philadelphia, PA; Spokane, WA; St. Louis County, MO; Fayetteville, NC; Salinas, CA and Calexico, CA.
• The National Initiative for Building Trust and Justice was launched in September 2014 as a multi-faceted approach to help strengthen the relationship between law enforcement and the communities they serve by promoting procedural justice, reducing implicit bias and supporting racial reconciliation.  The National Initiative is working intensively in Birmingham (AL), Fort Worth (TX), Gary (IN), Minneapolis (MN), Pittsburgh (PA) and Stockton (CA), and is providing technical assistance to localities that are not official demonstration sites. 
• In January 2015, the President created the Law Enforcement Equipment Working Group to identify actions that can improve Federal support for the acquisition of controlled equipment by law enforcement agencies (LEAs).  In May 2015, the President received and accepted the recommendations from the Working Group which among other things: created a prohibited equipment list LEAs will no longer be able to acquire from the federal government; provided a consistent Government-wide controlled equipment list; standardized Federal procedures governing provision of controlled equipment and ensured that LEAs have proper policies and training in place regarding the appropriate use of controlled equipment.  The recommendations will be implemented by the beginning of Fiscal Year 2016.

Commitment to Juvenile Justice Reform: The Administration continues to pursue efforts to improve the juvenile justice system and prioritize juvenile reentry, including supporting efforts to reduce recidivism and enhance post-juvenile systems education, job-training, parenting skills, counseling and health care. 

• In 2009, President Obama directed the Justice Department to launch the National Forum on Youth Violence Prevention which brings together a network of communities and federal agencies to reduce youth violence and gang activity, share information, build local capacity and improve public safety.
• In January 2014, the Departments of Education and Justice released guidance to schools aimed at increasing school discipline policies that support improved behavior in students while minimizing the school to prison pipeline.
• In June 2014, the Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention announced a suite of Smart on Juvenile Justicegrants focused on implementing juvenile justice reforms to maximize cost savings and strategically reinvest the savings while supporting statewide system change.
• In December 2014, the Departments of Education and Justice released guidance aimed at providing high-quality educational programming in juvenile justice secure care settings. 

My Brother’s Keeper Initiative: Reducing violence and providing a second chance is a core goal of the President’s My Brother’s Keeper initiative, and it has been a significant focus of the policy and community-based work taking place. Efforts to act in this area have included a wide array of policy guidance, grant programs, national forums and task forces to raise awareness and seek solutions to violence and incarceration. Also, as part of the My Brother’s Keeper Community Challenge a place-based initiative where more than 200 communities have committed to implementing cradle-to-college and career strategies to tackle opportunity gaps, more than forty communities have committed to developing strategies to ensure all youth remain safe from violent crime. Some examples include:

• In Washington, DC, the local partners leading the My Brother’s Keeper Community Challenge process on behalf of the City, has created a partnership with the D.C. police department to provide trainings for officers before they leave the academy, focused on how to engage with young people in the community.
• Indianapolis, IN has committed to provide training for all criminal justice partners: police, prosecutors, public defenders, judges, probation, parole and community corrections on racial bias and disparities in order to improve cultural competence of the system. They have also joined the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI), a bipartisan movement for juvenile justice reinvestment—the reallocation of government resources away from mass incarceration and toward investment in youth, families, and communities.
• In Philadelphia, PA the First Judicial District, the Philadelphia School District, the Police Department and the Department of Human Services seek to deliver a 50 percent reduction in the number of children arrested, and to eliminate the racial disparity in these arrests and other school-based disciplinary actions. Their plan, the School Diversion Program, allows students who have committed first time low-level delinquent acts on school premises to enter intensive prevention services rather than face arrest.
• In Boston, MA Mayor Martin J. Walsh with the support of The Boston Foundation announced the launch of a strategic and comprehensive city-wide public safety plan. They pledged $3.1 million in funding for this effort over three years, which allowed for the integration of the StreetSafe program into a citywide expansion of on-the-ground outreach to youth at risk of violent crime, in coordination with the Boston Police Department (BPD) and the Mayor’s Public Safety Initiative.
• x x x."