ASG Law

Tag: Pepsi Number Fever

  • Security Codes and Promo Prizes: Why ‘349’ Crown Holders Lost in Court

    The Supreme Court affirmed that holders of ‘349’ crowns from Pepsi-Cola’s 1992 ‘Number Fever’ promo with incorrect security codes were not entitled to prizes. This decision underscores the importance of adhering strictly to the terms and conditions of promotional offers, as explicitly communicated by the company. For consumers, this means understanding and verifying all requirements before participating in any promotional activity to avoid disappointment and potential legal battles. Pepsi-Cola clearly stated that the alpha-numeric security code printed on each crown was the only means to verify the genuineness of the winning crown.

    The Pepsi ‘Number Fever’ Debacle: When a Security Code Determined Millions

    This case, Aurelio Cabigon, et al. vs. Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc., revolves around the infamous 1992 “Number Fever” promo by Pepsi-Cola. The petitioners, possessing ‘349’ crowns, filed complaints against Pepsi-Cola for failing to honor the prizes they believed they had won. They claimed that Pepsi-Cola was guilty of gross negligence or fraud by changing the winning combination and refusing to pay their prizes. This controversy sparked numerous similar cases, all questioning the validity of the ‘349’ crowns and the company’s responsibility to the consumers who held them.

    The central issue was whether the holders of the ‘349’ crowns were entitled to the prizes despite discrepancies in the security codes printed on the crowns. Pepsi-Cola argued that the correct security code was essential for validating a winning crown. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially ruled in favor of the crown holders, citing the pain and suffering caused by Pepsi-Cola’s actions. The RTC ordered Pepsi-Cola to pay moral and exemplary damages to each petitioner, but the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed this decision, emphasizing the importance of the security code in determining the winning crowns.

    The appellate court determined that the confusion stemmed from Pepsi-Cola’s decision to extend the promotional period. There were three types of crowns for both the original and extension period of the promo. The number 349 bearing security code L-2560-FQ was used during the original promo period in non-winning crowns. For the extended promo period, the number 349 was inadvertently chosen as a winning number but the security code for these crowns were security codes for the extended period, not the L-2560-FQ used in the original promo period. The problem arose because the original 349 with L-2560-FQ was still in circulation during the extended promo period and were crowns picked out by the petitioners in the present case.

    The Supreme Court, in denying the petition, anchored its decision on the principle of stare decisis et non quieta movere, which dictates that established points of law should be consistently followed in subsequent similar cases. The Court noted that it had previously ruled on similar cases involving the ‘349’ number fever promo, consistently emphasizing the indispensability of the correct security code for entitlement to the cash prize. In Pepsi Cola Products Philippines, Inc. v. Pagdanganan, G.R. No. 167866, the Supreme Court clearly stated the necessity of the correct security code:

    We have consistently held (in previous 349 number fever promo cases) that the correct security code was an indispensable requirement to be entitled to the cash prize concerned.

    The petitioners held ‘349’ crowns with security codes L-2560-FQ or L-3560-FQ, which were not the designated codes for the winning crowns during the extended promotional period. Thus, their claims were deemed invalid. The Court effectively reiterated the importance of adhering to the specific terms and conditions set forth by the company in its promotional offers. This decision highlights the binding nature of established legal precedents and their application to similar factual scenarios.

    Building on this principle, the Supreme Court reinforced the significance of clear communication and defined rules in promotional contests. The promo mechanics were considered, which stipulated that the security codes were the only means to verify the winning crowns. Since the petitioners’ crowns did not match the winning security codes for the extended promo period, their claims were dismissed. This case exemplifies the judiciary’s role in upholding contractual obligations and ensuring fairness in promotional activities.

    This ruling serves as a cautionary tale for consumers participating in promotional activities. It underscores the necessity of carefully reading and understanding the terms and conditions, especially concerning validation requirements such as security codes or other identifying features. The Supreme Court’s decision solidifies the principle that promotional offers are governed by the terms and conditions set by the offering party and that compliance with these terms is essential for entitlement to any promised benefit. It also underscores the application of stare decisis to ensure consistency and predictability in legal rulings.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether holders of ‘349’ Pepsi crowns with incorrect security codes were entitled to the advertised prize. The Supreme Court ruled they were not, upholding the importance of security codes in determining valid winning crowns.
    What was the ‘Number Fever’ promo? The ‘Number Fever’ promo was a 1992 promotional campaign by Pepsi-Cola where consumers could win prizes based on numbers printed on the underside of bottle caps. A controversy arose when some ‘349’ crowns were initially deemed winning but later invalidated due to incorrect security codes.
    What is the principle of stare decisis? Stare decisis et non quieta movere is a legal principle that means “to stand by things decided and not to disturb settled points.” It requires courts to follow precedents set in previous similar cases to ensure consistency and predictability in legal rulings.
    Why were the petitioners’ claims dismissed? The petitioners’ claims were dismissed because their ‘349’ crowns had security codes that did not match the winning codes designated for the extended promotional period. The Supreme Court emphasized that the correct security code was an indispensable requirement.
    What did the Court of Appeals decide? The Court of Appeals reversed the Regional Trial Court’s decision, ruling that Pepsi-Cola was not liable to pay the crown holders. It emphasized the importance of the alpha-numeric security code as the only means to verify the genuineness of a winning crown.
    How did Pepsi-Cola explain the security code issue? Pepsi-Cola explained that the confusion arose because it extended the promo period. The ‘349’ number was used on non-winning crowns during the original period, while a different security code was used for winning ‘349’ crowns during the extended period.
    What were the security codes held by the petitioners? The petitioners held ‘349’ crowns bearing either security code L-2560-FQ or L-3560-FQ. These were not the security codes for the ‘349’ crowns issued during the extended period of the promo.
    What is the significance of the security code in promotional offers? The security code serves as a validation tool to verify the authenticity of a winning entry in a promotional offer. It ensures that only legitimate claims are honored, preventing fraud and maintaining the integrity of the promotion.

    In conclusion, the Cabigon vs. Pepsi-Cola case underscores the critical importance of adhering to the terms and conditions of promotional offers. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the necessity for consumers to understand and comply with validation requirements, such as security codes, to be eligible for prizes. This case also illustrates the application of legal precedents, ensuring consistency and predictability in similar disputes.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Cabigon, et al. vs. Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 168030, December 19, 2007

  • Stare Decisis: How Prior Rulings Impact Future Cases in the Philippines

    Understanding Stare Decisis: The Power of Precedent in Philippine Law

    TLDR: This case reinforces the principle of stare decisis in the Philippines, meaning courts must adhere to previously decided legal principles when faced with substantially similar facts. Even with different parties, prior rulings on the same issue can dictate the outcome of subsequent cases, ensuring consistency and predictability in the legal system.

    G.R. NO. 146007, June 15, 2006 (PEPSICO, INC., NOW KNOWN AS THE PEPSI COLA COMPANY, VS. JAIME LACANILAO) and G.R. NO. 146295 (PEPSI-COLA PRODUCTS PHILS., INC., VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND JAIME LACANILAO)

    INTRODUCTION

    Imagine investing your hopes and savings into a promotional contest, only to have your winning ticket rejected. This was the reality for many Filipinos during Pepsi’s infamous “Number Fever” promotion in the 1990s. The case of Pepsi-Cola Products Phils., Inc. v. Lacanilao highlights the critical role of precedent, known as stare decisis, in resolving legal disputes arising from this widespread promotional mishap.

    This case, along with several others stemming from the same Pepsi promotion, centered on whether individuals holding bottle caps with the number “349” but lacking the correct security code were entitled to the advertised prize. The Supreme Court, in this decision, ultimately leaned on previous rulings to ensure consistency and fairness in the application of the law.

    LEGAL CONTEXT

    The principle of stare decisis is a cornerstone of the Philippine legal system, derived from the Latin phrase “stare decisis et non quieta movere,” meaning “to stand by things decided and not to disturb settled points.” It essentially means that courts should follow precedents set by prior decisions when dealing with similar cases.

    This doctrine is crucial for maintaining stability and predictability in the law. Without it, legal outcomes could vary wildly depending on the judge or court hearing the case, leading to uncertainty and potential injustice. The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized the importance of adhering to established precedents.

    As articulated in Ty v. Banco Filipino Savings & Mortgage Bank, G.R. No. 144705, November 15, 2005, “When a court has laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain set of facts, it will adhere to that principle and apply it to all future cases in which the facts are substantially the same… It comes from the basic principle of justice that like cases ought to be decided alike.”

    CASE BREAKDOWN

    The “Number Fever” promotion promised substantial cash prizes to holders of winning Pepsi bottle caps. However, a mix-up led to the announcement of “349” as a winning number, even though many of these caps lacked the corresponding security code that Pepsi maintained was essential for validation. This sparked widespread outrage and numerous lawsuits.

    Jaime Lacanilao, like many others, possessed bottle caps with the number “349” but was denied the prize due to the incorrect security code. He filed a complaint, and the trial court initially ruled in his favor. However, the Court of Appeals modified the decision, and the case eventually reached the Supreme Court.

    Here’s a breakdown of the case’s procedural journey:

    • Trial Court: Initially ruled in favor of Lacanilao, awarding him the prize money and damages.
    • Court of Appeals: Affirmed the trial court’s decision regarding the prize money but reversed the award of moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and costs of litigation.
    • Supreme Court: Relied on the principle of stare decisis, referencing previous cases (Rodrigo v. PCPPI, Mendoza v. PCPPI, and De Mesa v. Pepsi Cola Products Phils., Inc.) stemming from the same “Number Fever” incident. The Court ultimately reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision, ruling in favor of Pepsi.

    The Supreme Court emphasized that the facts and issues in Lacanilao’s case were substantially the same as those in the previously decided cases. The Court quoted:

    “The instant case falls squarely within the same set of facts as the Rodrigo, Mendoza, and De Mesa cases, which all ruled that the security code number was an indispensable element of a winning crown and that petitioners were not negligent in the conduct of their promotional campaign.”

    Furthermore, the Court noted that Lacanilao himself had later withdrawn his claims against Pepsi, further supporting the decision to reverse the lower court’s ruling.

    PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

    This case serves as a powerful reminder of the importance of precedent in the Philippine legal system. It demonstrates that even if individual circumstances vary slightly, courts are bound to follow established legal principles when the core facts and issues remain consistent. This has significant implications for businesses and individuals involved in contractual agreements or promotional activities.

    For businesses, it underscores the need for clear and unambiguous terms and conditions in promotional campaigns to avoid potential legal disputes. For individuals, it highlights the importance of understanding the legal implications of contracts and promotional mechanics before participating.

    Key Lessons

    • Understand the Rules: Carefully review the terms and conditions of any promotional contest or agreement before participating.
    • Document Everything: Keep records of all relevant documents, such as promotional materials and any correspondence with the company.
    • Seek Legal Advice: If you believe your rights have been violated, consult with a lawyer to assess your options.

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

    Q: What is stare decisis?

    A: Stare decisis is a legal doctrine that obligates courts to follow precedents established in prior decisions when dealing with similar cases. It promotes consistency and predictability in the legal system.

    Q: Why is stare decisis important?

    A: It ensures that similar cases are treated alike, preventing arbitrary or inconsistent rulings. This fosters stability and fairness in the application of the law.

    Q: Does stare decisis mean that courts can never change their minds?

    A: No. While stare decisis is a strong principle, courts can overturn prior precedents if they are deemed to be erroneous or no longer applicable due to changing circumstances. However, this is a rare occurrence.

    Q: How does this case affect future promotional contests in the Philippines?

    A: It emphasizes the need for businesses to clearly define the terms and conditions of their promotions, especially regarding what constitutes a winning entry. Ambiguity can lead to costly legal battles.

    Q: What should I do if I believe I was unfairly denied a prize in a promotional contest?

    A: Gather all relevant documentation, including promotional materials and any communication with the company. Consult with a lawyer to assess your legal options and determine the best course of action.

    Q: Is it ever possible to win a case against a large corporation, even if there are previous rulings against similar claims?

    A: Yes, it is possible, but challenging. If you can demonstrate significantly different facts or present new legal arguments that were not considered in previous cases, you may have a chance of success. Consulting with an experienced attorney is essential to evaluate the strength of your case.

    ASG Law specializes in contract law and commercial litigation. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • The Ripple Effect: How Prior Court Rulings Bind Future Cases Involving Similar Facts

    The Supreme Court’s ruling in De Mesa v. Pepsi Cola underscores the importance of the principle of stare decisis in the Philippine legal system. The Court held that when a legal question has been examined and decided, it should be deemed settled and closed to further argument in subsequent cases with substantially similar facts, legal rights, and issues. This decision highlights the need for consistency and stability in the application of laws, ensuring that similar cases are treated alike and that prior judgments are respected, ultimately promoting fairness and predictability within the justice system.

    Number Fever Fades: When Similar Facts Lead to the Same Legal Fate

    The case stemmed from the infamous “Number Fever” promotion conducted by Pepsi Cola Products Philippines, Inc. (PCPPI) in 1992. The promotion involved bottle caps with numbers, where certain numbers were designated as winning combinations. However, a mix-up in the announcement of the winning number “349” led to numerous complaints from consumers who possessed bottle caps bearing that number, claiming they were entitled to prizes.

    Several lawsuits were filed against PCPPI, seeking specific performance and damages. Among these were the cases of Mendoza v. Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc., et al., and Rodrigo v. Pepsi Cola Products (Phils.), Inc. and Pepsico, Inc. These cases, which shared similar facts and legal issues, eventually reached the Supreme Court. The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decisions, which had ruled against the plaintiffs. In essence, the rulings stated that PCPPI was not liable to pay prizes to holders of “349” bottle caps lacking the specific security code designated for winning caps.

    Petitioners in the present case, De Mesa v. Pepsi Cola, also sought to claim prizes based on their “349” bottle caps. However, their cases were dismissed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) based on the principle of stare decisis, citing the Supreme Court’s rulings in the Mendoza and Rodrigo cases. The RTC reasoned that since the facts, applicable laws, causes of action, issues, and evidence were identical to the previously decided cases, the principle of stare decisis barred any attempt to relitigate the same issue.

    The petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that res judicata did not apply because there was no identity of parties. They further contended that stare decisis should not be a rigid rule, asserting that the Court of Appeals erred in the Mendoza and Rodrigo cases by focusing on the security code as the sole determinant of winning crowns. However, the Supreme Court was not persuaded. The Court emphasized that the principle of stare decisis et non quieta movere, enshrined in Article 8 of the Civil Code, mandates adherence to judicial precedents.

    ART. 8. Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of the Philippines.

    The Court stated that this principle requires courts to follow a rule already established in a final decision of the Supreme Court, which then becomes a judicial precedent to be followed in subsequent cases. The Court emphasized that the legal rights and relations of the parties, the facts, the applicable laws, the causes of action, the issues, and the evidence in De Mesa were exactly the same as those in the Mendoza and Rodrigo cases.

    Thus, the Supreme Court affirmed the RTC’s decision to dismiss the petitioners’ complaints, stating that the issue had been settled and the Court’s final decisions in the Mendoza and Rodrigo cases must be respected. The Court’s adherence to the principle of stare decisis underscored the importance of consistency and stability in legal rulings.

    FAQs

    What is the principle of stare decisis? It is a legal doctrine that obliges courts to follow precedents set by previous decisions, especially those from higher courts, when dealing with similar cases. This ensures consistency and predictability in the application of the law.
    Why did the Supreme Court deny the petition in this case? The Supreme Court denied the petition because the facts, issues, and applicable laws were substantially the same as in previous cases (Mendoza and Rodrigo) that the Court had already decided. Applying stare decisis, the Court found no reason to deviate from its prior rulings.
    What was the “Number Fever” promotion? It was a promotional campaign by Pepsi Cola where bottle caps contained numbers, and certain numbers were announced as winning combinations. A miscommunication regarding the winning number led to numerous legal claims.
    What was the main issue in the related Mendoza and Rodrigo cases? The core issue was whether Pepsi Cola was liable to pay prizes to holders of bottle caps with the number “349,” despite lacking the correct security code. The courts ruled that the security code was essential for validation.
    What does Article 8 of the Civil Code have to do with this case? Article 8 states that judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution form part of the legal system of the Philippines. This provision is the basis for the doctrine of stare decisis, as it recognizes judicial precedents as sources of law.
    What is the meaning of res judicata, and why didn’t it apply here? Res judicata is a doctrine that prevents the same parties from relitigating a case that has already been decided. It didn’t strictly apply because there was no complete identity of parties, but stare decisis still guided the court’s decision.
    What happens when a case is “archived”? Archiving a case means it is temporarily removed from the active court calendar. In this instance, it was awaiting the resolution of similar cases that could potentially affect its outcome.
    Did the petitioners argue there was a breach of contract? Yes, the petitioners argued that Pepsi Cola breached its contract by not honoring their winning bottle caps. However, the courts consistently ruled that the company’s terms and conditions, particularly regarding the security code, were not met.

    The decision in De Mesa v. Pepsi Cola serves as a reminder of the importance of respecting judicial precedents and maintaining consistency in the application of laws. By adhering to the principle of stare decisis, courts ensure fairness, predictability, and stability within the legal system, providing guidance to both individuals and businesses in navigating their legal rights and obligations.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: De Mesa vs. Pepsi Cola, G.R. No. 153063-70, August 19, 2005

  • Probable Cause and Issuance of Arrest Warrants: A Deep Dive

    Judge’s Duty to Independently Determine Probable Cause Before Issuing Arrest Warrants

    PAUL G. ROBERTS, JR. VS. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 113930, March 05, 1996

    Imagine being arrested based on flimsy evidence, simply because a judge rubber-stamped a prosecutor’s recommendation. This scenario highlights the critical importance of a judge’s independent assessment of probable cause before issuing an arrest warrant. The 1996 Supreme Court case of Paul G. Roberts, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals underscores this constitutional safeguard, reminding us that a judge must personally evaluate the evidence to ensure that an arrest warrant is justified.

    This case arose from the infamous Pepsi Number Fever promotion in the 1990s, where thousands of individuals believed they had won substantial prizes. When Pepsi refused to honor the winning crowns, numerous complaints were filed, leading to criminal charges against the company’s executives. The central legal question was whether the judge properly determined probable cause before issuing arrest warrants against these executives.

    Understanding Probable Cause and the Constitution

    Probable cause is the legal standard required for the issuance of an arrest warrant. It means that there must be sufficient facts and circumstances to lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been committed and that the person to be arrested committed it. This standard is enshrined in the Philippine Constitution to protect individuals from arbitrary arrests.

    Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution explicitly states: “…no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce…”

    This provision places a significant responsibility on judges. They cannot simply rely on the prosecutor’s findings; they must conduct their own evaluation. This ensures that the decision to deprive someone of their liberty is made with due consideration and is based on solid evidence. For example, if a prosecutor presents only a witness’s affidavit without any supporting evidence, a judge must scrutinize the affidavit to determine its credibility and whether it establishes probable cause.

    The Pepsi Number Fever Case: A Detailed Breakdown

    The Pepsi Number Fever promotion promised prizes to holders of bottle caps with winning numbers. When the number “349” was announced as a winner, an unexpectedly large number of winning caps surfaced, leading Pepsi to refuse payment. This sparked outrage and a flurry of legal actions.

    Here’s a breakdown of the case’s journey through the courts:

    • Initial Complaints: Thousands of crown holders filed complaints with the Quezon City Prosecutor’s Office, alleging estafa (fraud) and violations of consumer protection laws against Pepsi executives.
    • Prosecutor’s Resolution: The investigating prosecutor recommended filing an information (charge) for estafa under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code.
    • Filing of Information: An information for estafa was filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City.
    • Motion to Suspend Proceedings: The Pepsi executives filed a motion to suspend proceedings, arguing that they had filed a Petition for Review with the Department of Justice (DOJ).
    • RTC Order: The RTC Judge denied the motion to suspend and ordered the issuance of arrest warrants.
    • Appeal to the Court of Appeals: The executives appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing that the judge had not properly determined probable cause.
    • CA Decision: The Court of Appeals initially dismissed the appeal.
    • Supreme Court Review: The case reached the Supreme Court, which ultimately ruled in favor of the Pepsi executives.

    The Supreme Court emphasized the judge’s duty to independently assess probable cause. The Court noted that the judge had only the information, amended information, and Joint Resolution as bases for his order, and that he did not have the records or evidence supporting the prosecutor’s finding of probable cause. The Court held, “Compliance with a constitutional requirement for the protection of individual liberty cannot be left to presupposition, conjecture, or even convincing logic.”

    The Court quoted People vs. Inting: “The determination of probable cause is a function of the Judge. It is not for the Provincial Fiscal or Prosecutor nor the Election Supervisor to ascertain. Only the Judge and the Judge alone makes this determination.”

    Practical Implications of the Roberts vs. CA Ruling

    This case serves as a potent reminder to judges about their crucial role in protecting individual liberties. It clarifies the extent to which a judge must personally evaluate the evidence before issuing an arrest warrant.

    For businesses and individuals, this ruling reinforces the importance of due process and the right to be free from arbitrary arrest. It also highlights the need to challenge any arrest warrant issued without a proper determination of probable cause.

    Key Lessons:

    • Judges Must Evaluate: Judges cannot simply rely on the prosecutor’s certification; they must evaluate the supporting documents.
    • Independent Assessment: The determination of probable cause is the judge’s responsibility, not the prosecutor’s.
    • Protection Against Arbitrary Arrest: This ruling protects individuals from arrests based on insufficient evidence.

    Hypothetical Example: Suppose a business owner is accused of fraud based on a customer complaint. The prosecutor files charges and requests an arrest warrant. Under the Roberts ruling, the judge must review the customer’s complaint, any supporting documents, and the business owner’s response before issuing a warrant. If the judge only relies on the prosecutor’s recommendation without evaluating the evidence, the arrest warrant could be deemed invalid.

    Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

    Q: What is probable cause?

    A: Probable cause is a reasonable ground to suspect that a crime has been committed and that the person to be arrested committed it. It’s more than a mere suspicion but less than absolute certainty.

    Q: What happens if an arrest warrant is issued without probable cause?

    A: An arrest warrant issued without probable cause is invalid. The arrest may be deemed illegal, and any evidence obtained as a result of the arrest may be inadmissible in court.

    Q: Can I challenge an arrest warrant?

    A: Yes, you can challenge an arrest warrant by filing a motion to quash (cancel) the warrant. You can argue that there was no probable cause for its issuance.

    Q: What evidence should a judge consider when determining probable cause?

    A: A judge should consider affidavits, witness statements, and any other relevant documents that support the claim that a crime has been committed and that the person to be arrested committed it.

    Q: What is the role of the prosecutor in issuing an arrest warrant?

    A: The prosecutor presents evidence to the judge and recommends the issuance of an arrest warrant. However, the final decision rests with the judge, who must independently determine probable cause.

    Q: Does this ruling apply to all types of criminal cases?

    A: Yes, the principle of requiring a judge to independently determine probable cause applies to all criminal cases.

    Q: What should I do if I believe my rights have been violated due to an illegal arrest?

    A: You should immediately consult with a lawyer who can assess your case and advise you on the best course of action.

    ASG Law specializes in criminal defense and protecting the rights of individuals facing criminal charges. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.