This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
ALMODOVAR GR 75256 Jan 26, 1989 Petitioner: John Philip Guevarra Respondent: Ignacio Almodovar Nature of the Case: Special Civil action for certiorari to review the order of the City Court of Legaspi Br I Almodovar, J. Ponente: Paras, J. Facts: 1) ( October 29, 1984) Petitioner then 11 years old was playing with bestfriend Toedoro Almine Jr. and three other children in their backyard 2) They were target-shooting bottlecaps placed 15 to 20 meters away with an air rifle borrowed from a neighbor 3) In the course of game, Teodoro was hit by a pellet on his left collar bone which caused his unfortunate death 4) Examining fiscal after investigation exculpated petitioner due to his age and because the unfortunate appeared to be an accident 5) Victim’s parents appealed to Ministry of Justice—ordered fiscal to file a case against petitioner for Homicide through reckless imprudence 6) October 25, 1985 petitioner moved to quash the said information on the following grounds: a) That the facts charged do not constitute an offense b) Information contains averments which if true would constitute a legal excuse or justification c) That the Court has no jurisdiction over the offense charged and the person of defendant 7) April 4, 1986- motion was denied with respect to the first and third grounds relied upon— decision on and part was deferred until evidence shall have been presented during trial 8) July 26, 1986- present petition for certiorari was filed Issues: 1) Whether an eleven year old boy could be charged with the crime of homicide thru reckless imprudence (corollary: difference between intent and discernment) 2) Whether the court had jurisdiction over the case notwithstanding the fact that it did not pass thru the barangay lupon PETITIONER: a) Position is that “discernment” connotes “intent”—if correct, then no minor between the ages of 9 to 15 may be convicted of a quasi-offense under Art 265 of the RPC SOLICITOR GENERAL a) Claims that discernment is different from intent b) INTENT: a design; a determination to do a certain thing, an aim, the purpose of the mind— comprises the third element of dolo as a means of committing a felony, freedom and intelligence being the other two Desired of one’s act c) DISCERNMENT: constitute an exception to the exemption from criminal liability of a minor under 15 years of age but over 9 who commits an act prohibited by law=mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong Moral significance that person ascribes to an act Therefore: He may negligently shoot his friend thus not intend to shoot him and at the same time recognize the undesirable result of his negligence DECISION OF THE SC: PREMISES CONSIDERED, this petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit and the TRO effective Sept 17, 1986 is LIFTED. Let this case be REMANDED to the lower court for trial on the merits. NO costs. REASONS: ARTICLE 12 of RPC= complete absence of intelligence, freedom of action and intent or on the absence of negligence on the part of the accused INTELLIGENCE: second element of dolo: without his power, necessary to determine the morality of human acts to distinguish a licit from an illicit act, no crime can exist and because… the infant (has) no intelligence the law exempts him from criminal liability
saw appellant kill wife and daughter.seven others but by appellant. he had felt pains in stomach and head. 9741 and 9742 Plaintiff-appellee: The United States Defendant-appellant: Evaristo Vaquilar Nature of the Case: Appeal from two judgments of the CFI of Nueva Ecij. 4) Appellant proven to have killed wife and daughter and to have wounded others with a bolo 5) several witnesses of defendant said that it appeared to them he was insane at and subsequent to the commission of the crimes 6) testified he was complaining of pains in the head and stomach prior to killing 7) testimonies: a) Martin Agustin. pursued her. cutting people at random. but which presumption may be rebutted if it could be proven that they were capable of appreciating the nature and criminality of an acct. while intent signifies activity 3) Second issue: jurisdiction: entitlement to a two-degree privileged mitigation due to his minority. looked like a madman. with costs against the appellant. McMahon. very sad at that time. Issue: Insanity Facts: 1) Evaristo Vaquilar charged in two separate information with parricide. and red and sight penetrating-looked to be crazy if not crazy would not kill wife and husband b) Diego Agustin: helped martin capture defendant. Ponente: Trent. J. crazy because he cut her d) Estanislao Canaria: prisoner confined in the same jail with appellant: head is not alright. crazy cutting in random c) Alejandra Vaquilar: siste: headache and stomach trouble. REASONS: - .But minors above nine years old but below 15 are not absolutely exempt They are presumed to be without criminal capacity. J. rushed into house.This is the reason why minors nine years of age and below are not capable of performing a criminal act . indemnify the heirs. that is they acted with discernment” CULPA: three elements are indispensable: intelligence. cut by appellant. what are you doing to me.one for killing wife and oher for killing of daughter 2) Sentenced to life imprisonment. you are beasts” e) Health officer: 5 mortal wounds for wife and child’s skull split through and through from one side to another Did not notice that defendant was suffering from any mental derangement or not DECISION: The judgments appealed from are affirmed.making noise.uncle. he must discern the rightness or wrongness of the effects of his negligent act • Indeed a minor over nine years of age but below 15 may be liable for a quasi-offence under Art 365 of the RPC 1) Not mean to equate intent with discernment 2) Discernment expresses the thought of passivity. saying anything. VAQUILAR NOs. cries aloud every night “ what kind of people are you. accessory penalties and payment of cost of case 3) Appealed. PD 1508 applies to his case because the penalty imposable is reduce d to not higher than aresto menor from an original aresto mayor maximum to prison correccional medium as prescribed by Art 365 of the RPC—this is not correct: the jurisdiction of court over a criminal case is determined by the penalty imposable under the law and not the penalty ultimately imposed 4) Erroneous conception has been corrected before UNITED STATES vs. appellant’s eyes were very big. freedom of action and negligence • For a person to be criminally liable.
Foy) and feeling produced by motives of anger. unsound mind. ESTATE OF RODOLFO JALANDONI vs. Vicente Gatmaytan Jr. and Sampaguita as lessees. 1959 3) Second: November 14.—new 5 year term from Nov. 9) In the absence of proof that the defendant had lost his reason or became demented a few months prior to or during the perpetration of the crime. and that the offense was direct consequence of insanity. 12) One who in possession of a sound mind. lunatic. commits a criminal act under the impulse of passion or revenge.this being exceptional is a defense and like other defenses must be made by the party claiming the benefit of it 11) Sufficient proof must be shown to overcome in the first place the presumption of sanity and then any other proof that may be offered. 1986 Petitioner: ESTATE OF RODOLFO JALANDONI. Mabini and 503 Sta. J. Mercedes gatmaitan. 1. CA Nos. 1959—Rodolfo jalandoni and a group of persons-Leonarda Jurado. because a large share of homicides committed are occasioned just by such motives as these. Manila 2) First transaction: written contract entered into on November 2. rodolfo’s mental condition at the time of the transactions subject of the three actions Facts: 1) Involves two lots and a building (1368 A. or moral insanity.1) Vast difference between an insane person and one who has worked himself up into a frenzy of anger that he fails to use reason or good judgment in what he does 2) Fact that person acts crazy is not conclusive that he is insane 3) Popular meaning of crazy is not similar with the legal terms. 1963: lease contract over the same premises: Rodolfo Jalandoni as lessor. 1964 provided that . Care must be taken to distinguish between mere moral insanity or mental depravity and irresistible impulse resulting from disease of mind. cannot nevertheless be shielded from the consequences of the act by the plea of insanity. Eva Gonzales. Issue: whether or not the transactions made are void because Rodolfo jalandoni at the time these transctions were made was so mentally ill as to be incapable of understanding the nature and consequences thereof or giving consent thereto. Bernardo Jalandoni Respondent: CA. hatred or revenge is not insanity 7) The law holds the doer of the act. idiot 4) The reflection and remorse which would follow the commission of such deeds as those committed by the appellant might be sufficient to cause the person to cry out 5) Decision distinguished between passion and insanity—whatever indulgence the law may extend to persons under provocation. but from a perverted condition of the moral system. does not exempt one from responsibility for crimes committed under its influence. It may be shown from the part of the accused that the criminal intent did not exist at the time the act as committed. Insanity will only excuse the commission of a criminal act when it is made affirmatively to appear that the person committing it was insane. it is presumed that he was in normal condition of mind. so called. where the person is mentally sane. Francisco Palanca and Lourdes MOntaner Nature of the case: petition to review the resolution of CA Ponente: Narvsa. which results not from any disease of mind. 8) Cyclopedia of Law procedure: mental depravity. and Aurea Reyes—form a corporation (SAMPAGUITA CRAFTS CENTER INC) – lease of the ground floor and mezzanine of the Jalandoni’s building for a term of 5 years from Nov 1. It is improper to conclude that he acted unconsciously. represented by judicial administrator. there is a presumption that the accused is sane which certainly in the first instance affords proof of facts—the presumption however may be overthrown. it does not treat them as freed from criminal responsibility 6) The heat of passion (in People v. under such conditions. Monica. which may temporarily dethrone reason and for the moment control the will. unless his insanity and absence of will are proven 10) As the usual condition of men is that of sanity. in order to relive him from responsibility on the ground of exceptional mental condition. responsible for the crime. non compos mentis. L-50374-76 September 24.
which caused the mental derangement of Rodolfo this gradually and progressively worsened with passage of time despite medical treatment until in 1961 his family was constrained to initiate proceedings to place him under guardianship 2) DR. Claimed that on dec 3. by deed of absolute sale dated Dec 2. 60978: decision reversed. 1977)—the mental incompetence of RJ had been duly established. Dr. DECISION OF CFI: Decmber 10.reversed. 1963-sale effected through broker. RJ: contract valid and binding: affirms writ of execution-money was collected by montaner 3) CV CASE NO. 1965: guardian prayed that the sale of the property to Palanca be declared legally inexistent on account or Rodolfo jalandoni’s insanity. contrary to the finding of the lower court CV CASE NO. Lourdes MOntaner—Rodolfo bound himself to give her commission of 5% and any overprice over P140. 1963 until said property is fully restored to the appellant estate deduct the P160. 1964) until fully paid with costs against appellee . RJ. declaring the deed of sale null and void ordering said appellee to pay the Estate of RJ the rentals he received from the property from Dec 3. Manuel Pardo.000. 60978: contract between RJ selling land and property to Francisco Palanca valid and binding. 3280 Pennsylvania manila.declared that RJ had psychological imbalance). suffering an injury.000 paid by Palance to RJ .—docketed CV CASE NO. 56896) MOntaner was sued with Francisco Palanca by Bernardino jalandoni who filed action on May 20. 55947: pre-trial into a settlement agreement between Jurado and Palanca —judgment could no longer be challenged—absence of liability of Jalandoni . where they were residing.CV CASE NO. Romeo Gustilo (specialist in neuro surgery). 1971: overruling the plea of insanity and disposing of the cases as follows: 1) CV CASE NO 55947: Leonarda Jurado vs. Francisco Planaca – agreement is valid and legal and should not be disturbed—dismisses claims against the estate of RJ 2) CV CASE NO 56896_ Lourdes MOntaner vs. Jalandoni was and ever since has been of “unsound mind” and without legal capacity to enter into contract. declaring null and void the Authority and Option to sell—ordering Montaner to return the amount P30. 1964 (docketed: CV CASE NO. 1963 and prior thereto. 1964 Lessees file suit in the CFI of MANila against Francisco Palanca and Rodolfo Jalandoni to compel recognition of leasehold rights and adjudge Jalandoni liable to them for damages— filed January 13. Rodolfo jalandoni was hit in the right temple by a bullet. Lourdes Lapuz ( private practictioner of psychiatry) declared him to be a schizophrenic and expressed doubts on his mental competency in 1963 MONTANER and PALANCA EVIDENCES: 1) Soundness of his mind 2) Dr.000 with legal interests from time received (august 21. Buyer: Palanca wrote 2 letters to the lessees: Jurado Group and SAMPAGUITA increasing the rental rates and terminating lease effective April 1.COMPLAINT DISMISSED CA: reversed the judgment of the trial court (june 7. sale. 60978 Plea of insanity also set up by guardian in the 2 cases earlier filed The three cases were consolidated—jointly tried on agreement of the parties Rodolfo jalandoni died CLAIMS OF BERNARDINO JALANDONI 1) Time of shelling of 1944 of the area at NO. alienation or change in management of the building—undertook to register the lease in the Registry of Property Conveyance of Rodolfo Jalandoni to Francisco palanca of the land and building subject of the leases.American trained psychiatrist: gave evidence – concluded that it was entirely possible for RJ to have sufficient mental capacity to understand the nature and effects of his acts.4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) neither first or second lease would be affected by any transfer.CV CASE NO> 55947: MOntaner vs. 55947) Another suit: Lourdes Montaner who sought to collect her stipulated commission with damages (CV CASE NO.
1991 decision of the RTC of La Trinidad Benguet which declared the marriage of respondent Roridel Olaviano Molina to Reynaldo Molina void ab initio on the ground of “psychological capacity” under Article 36 of the Family Code 2) Case filed August 16. 1997 Petitioner: Republic of The Philippines Respondents: CA.RESOLUTION promulgated on September 12. 108763 February 13.Palanca filed motion for reconsideration—special division denied motion (3:2) Second motion for reconsideration for oral argument (for Justice Herrera and Climaco) to hear the case —granted second motion for reconsideration DECISION: decision of court promulgated on June 7. 1963—reason to believe that on such a date RJ possessed the mental capacity to transact ordinary business 2) Before 1963. COURT OF APPEALS GR No. 1990 (nullity of marriage) . CASTRO DISSENTING • Main issue relates to mental condition of RJ a party in the 3 cases • LC did not render him to be incapable of entering into contracts • Main issue is whether or not RJ was insane in the execution of the transactions involved—no controversy about the legal effects resulting from actuality of his insanity REPUBLIC vs. proof of psychological incapacity Facts: 1) Petition for review on certiorari under the Rule 45 challenging the January 25. 1961—issued on September 19. 1977 is hereby RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE and another decision rendered AFFIRMING in toto the decision of the court a quo promulgated in December 10. REASONS: 1) More than 9 mos before declared incompetent (September 19. pardo said that even schizophrenics are not demented—at the time the transaction was made RJ had sufficient mental capacity to understand the nature and effect of the transaction he was engaged in at that time (one check has been crossed—proves thinking faculties and mental capacity) 3) It is a fact that after authorized sale (with MOntaner) RJ voluntarily accepted the amount and used it for his personal benefit (P160. 1971 in CV CASES Nos.RJ already diagnosed as schizophrenic—dr. 1978: Special Division of 5 Justices of the CA: Reversed the decision of june 7.000)—mortgage debt. 1977 July 25. Issue: Psychological incapacity as ground to declare a marriage null and void. J. 56896 and 60978. 1977. 55947. J. opened a new account at prudential Bank • • • CONCURRING OPINION HERRERA. 1964)—RJ through MOntaner had sold the house and lot in question to defendant appellee on Dec 2. 000 which he thought was still due DE. Guardianship petition filed before the Juvenile and Domestic relations Courts of Manila as early as September 28. 1993 decision of CA affirming in toto the May 14. Roridel Olaviano Molina Nature of the Case: Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the CA Ponente: Panganiban. 1964—no steps taken by relatives to protect the interests of RJ Rodolfo was allowed to continue managing his own properties and third parties were left free to deal directly with him Heirs of RJ recognize the validity of the sale of the property—they only demanded from Palanca the balance of 40.
1985: marriage of Roridel and Reynaldo. b) juridical antecedence and c) incurability 3) In the present case: There is no clear showing that the psychological defect spoken of is an incapacity—but merely a “difficulty” if not outright “refusal” or “neglect” in the performance of some marital obligations Mere showing of irreconcible differences and conflicting personalities in no wise constitutes psychological incapacity . 1991: declaring marriage null and void CA: denied appeal of petitioner and affirmed in toto the RTC’ decision SOLICITOR GENERAL: insists that the CA made an erroneous and incorrect interpretation of the phrase “psychological incapacity”. this condition must exist at the time the marriage is celebrated 2) It should be characterized by: a) gravity. Teresita Hidalgo-Sison (psychiatrist of BGH) TRIAL COURT’S DECISION: May 14.PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY: is not simply neglect by the parties to the marriage of their responsibilities and duties but a defect in their psychological nature which renders them incapable of performing such marital responsibilities and duties SC RULING: Petition is meritorious REASONS: 1) Justice Vitug: psychological incapacity refers to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. He said that appealed decision tended to establish in effect the most liberal divorce procedure in the world” Solicitor’s appeal was denied—RTC relying on the fact that marriage between parties broke up because of their opposing and conflicting personalities. SG argued that “opposing and conflicting personalities is not equivalent to psychological capacity” . solidarity and inviolability of marriage - .favor of the validity and continuation of the marriage— permanence. neither juridical antecedence nor incurability 4) Court invited two amici curiae (Most rev Oscar Cruz and Justice Ricardo Puno: their guidance: a) The burden of proof to show the nullity of marriage belongs to the plaintiff. san Agustin Church 4) Son: Andre Molina 5) After a year of marriage: Showed signs of immaturity Preferred to stay with peers and friends squandering his money Depended on parents for aid and assistance Never honest with wife about finances 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) February 1986: relieved from work October 1986: intense quarrel March 1987: Roridel resigned from job in Manila and went to live with parents in Baguio City Few weeks later: Reynaldo left Roridel and their child and abandoned them Reynaldo psychologically incapable of complying with essential marital obligations REYNALDO’s CLAIMS 1) Filed August 28. Ruth Lalas a social worker and Dr.3) April 14.any doubt should be resolved in -. 1989: contended that misunderstandings were due to: a) Roridels’s strange behavior of insisting on maintaining her friends even after marriage b) Her refusal to perform some of her marital duties such as cooking meals c) Roridel’s failure to run the household and handle their finances THE FOLLOWING WERE STIPULATED: 1) Petitioner is not asking for support for her child and her 2) Respondent is not asking for damages 3) Parties are separated in fact for three years 4) Common child of the parties is in custody of the petitioner’s wife WIFE’s WITNESSES: Friends: Rosemarie Ventura and Maria Leonora Padilla.It is essential to show that the parties are incapable of meeting their marital responsibilities and not mere failure No gravity in the problem.
c) The incapacity must be proven existing during the time of the celebration of the marriage d) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable— incapacity must be relevant to assumption of marriage obligations not necessarily those not related to marriage like exercise of profession e) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage. J • Each case must be judged.merely voidable. Art 55. The marriage of Roridel Olaviano and Reynaldo Molina subsists and remains valid. • Should give much value to Canon Law jurisprudence as an aid to the interpretation and construction of the statutory enactment • Marriage void ab initio. 221 and 225 (parents and their children) g) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines while not controlling or decisive. neglect or difficulty much less ill will f) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Arts 68-71 of family code (to husband and wife) and ARTs 220. For if it were due to insanity or defects in the mental faculties short of insanity. The assailed decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. 2) alleged in the complaint. it refers to obligations attendant to marriage • Psychological incapacity is insanity of a lesser degree • Remedy was to allow the afflicted spouse to remarry • Bases for determining void marriages: a) Lack of one or more of the essential requisites of marriage as contract b) Reasons of public policy c) Special cases and special situations (includes psychological incapacity) • Canon Law.valid and void marriage only • In the case “conflicting and opposing personalities of the spouses were not considered equivalent to psychological incapacity • Senseless and protracted refusal is equivalent to psychological incapacity (Chi Ming Tsoi vs CA) • Concurs that this marriage remains subsisting and valid CONCURRING OPINION VITUG. SEPARATE STATEMENT: PADILLA.legal separation • The term psychological incapacity to be ground for the nullity of the marriage under Art 36 of the FC must pass the following tests: a) Incapacity must be psychological or mental not physical in nature . Art 45. could not have given valid assumption thereof.illness must be shown as downright incapacity or inability and not a refusal. should be given great respect by our courts—Art 36 taken from the Canon 1095 of the New Code of Canon Law (1983). was mentally or psychically ill to such an extent that the person could not have known the obligations he was assuming or knowing them.b) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be 1) medically or clinically identified. there is the resultant defect of vice of consent. J. thus rendering the marriage annullable (Art 45 family Code) • Psychological incapacity does not refer to mental faculties and has nothing to do with consent.what is decreed to be canonically void be also civilly void h) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor general to appear as counsel for the state DECISION OF SC: petition is GRANTED. J. predilections or generalizations but according to its own facts—the facts in this case does not support conclusion of psychological incapacity SEPARATE OPINION ROMERO. not on the basis of a priori assumptions. • Not mere refusal and neglect or difficulty • Neither should the incapacity be the result of mental illness. 3) sufficiently proven by experts and 4) clearly explained in the decision—the evidence must convince the court that the parties or one of them.
Section 1. without subsidiary imprisonment in case of solvency CASE was apepealed with contentions: a) Sandiganbayan failed to consider the factual and legal defenses of petitioner b) Prosecution evidence is grossly insufficient to sustain verdict of conviction c) Sndiganbayn failed to yield obedience to the constitutional mandate of proof beyond reasonable doubt .• b) Psychological incapacity must relate to the inability. 1992 Petitioner: Hernando C. not mere refusal to understand.appointment approved by OIC Jorge Mindanao and three days after returned to the office of the petitioner 9) Petitioner neither assumed the position to which he was appointed nor collected the salary corresponding to it 10) September 28. J.petitioner was charged with falsification of documents before the Sandiganbayan defined in Art 171 par 4 of the RPC 11) Petitioner pleaded not guilty PETITIONER’S CLAIMS: pre trial feb 9. XV (marriage as an inviolable social institution. 1988. assume and discharge the basic marital obligations of living together. Layno (march 16.finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of falsification of public document (art 171 RPC) 2) Petitioner was incumbent municipal mayor of LIanga. 1980—Fernando Layno took his oath of office with petitioner as administering officer 7) Documents forwarded to davao regional Office of CSC and received by the said office on 17 May 1980 8) May 20. 1980. Accordingly. Art II ( The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution). 1990. it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total development) of the Constitution show how the state regard marriage and the family LAYNO vs. par 4 of the RPC . 1980) 3) He had authority to appoint employees in the municipal government of Lianga 4) He appointed Fernando Y. 1980). 1989 a) He was duly elected mayor b) He has authority to appoint employees in the municipal government c) He appointed Fernando layno as meat inspector d) Appointee is a legitimate son e) He revoked the appointment upon being advised that it was against the law on nepotism SANDIGANBAYAN’s DECISION: finding the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of falsification of public document defined and penalized in Art 171. Layno Respondents: The People of the Philippines and Sandiganbayan Nature of the Case: petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Sandiganbayan Ponente: Padilla. 35—twice. Section 12. PEOPLE GR NO. is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State) . his legitimate son. 93842 September 7. Surigao del Sur (elected March 16. first as appointing authority and as personnel officer (included the fact that he affirmed the appointee is not in any way related to him upto the third civil degree) 6) March 16. meat inspector in the office of the municipal treasurer of Lianga 5) He signed document—CS Form NO. observing love and respect and fidelity and rendering mutual help and support c) Psychology condition must exist at the time the marriage is contracted although its overt manifestations may occur only thereafter and d) The mental disorder must be grave or serious and incurable Section 2 Art.Indeterminate imprisonment ranging from TWO YEARS FOUR MONTHS AND ONE DAY of prison correctional as minimum to EIGHT YEARS AND ONE DAY of prison mayor as maximum and a fine of two thousand five hundred pesos (P 2500) Philippine currency. Article XV ( The State recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation. Issue: Facts: 1) Petition for review on certiorari of the decision of SAndiganbayan in Criminal Case 12955 dated June 15.
97336 February 19.pretty lass of good moral character and reputation respected in their community 4) Petitioner: Iranian citizen. 1989 decision of Br 38 (Lingayen) of the RTC of Pangasinan 2) October 27. residing at Lozano apartments. Gonzales Nature of the Case: appeal by certiorari to review and set aside the decision of the CA Issue: whether or not damages may be recovered for a breach of promise to marry on the basis of Art 21 of the Civil Code of the Philippines Ponente: Davide. 1993 Petitioner: Gashem Shookat Baksh Respondents: CA and Marilou T.instructed by vice mayor to testify. Guilig Dagupan city. thus rules against nepotism should be observed 7) On the issue of lack of intent in committing a crime proven by revoking of appointment: contending to act in good faith when he appointed his son: petitioner’s claim of good faith in unavailing as it is consistent with his very defendant he did not sign nor issue the certification in question. can relieve the accused of his penal liability. CA GR no. 1987. Johnny rabino (August 3.d) Lone witness Armondo Pandi Jr is incompetent to testify—he never saw him signing the document e) Said witness is biased and prejudiced. no acts showing repentance and abandonment of purpose even if true. J. the petitioner was the appointing authority. Jr. Crime of falsification of public document having already been committed.filed before trial court complaint for damages against the petitioner for the alleged violation of their agreement to get married 3) Marilou Gonzales: 22 y/o. facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false 9) The Sandiganbayan did not commit any reversible error in finding the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of falsification of public documents by a public officer under Art 171 par 4 of the RPC GASHEM SHOOKAT BAKSH vs. Fernandez Avenue. single. 8) Issue on constitutional mandate that guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt: court finds the element of falsification of public document under Art 171 par 4 of the RPC are present in the case at bar (offender makes in a document untruthful statements in the narration of facts. Facts: 1) CA affirmed in toto the Oct 16. it is inherent in the law against nepotism—in the case at bar. exchange student taking a medical course at the Lyceum Northwestern Colleges in DAgupan City (employee of Mabuhay Luncheonette. he had the legal obligation to disclose in the certification his true relationship with the appointee 6) PD NO 87 was to insure and promote the constitutional mandate that appointment in the CS me made only according to merit and fitness. petition denied and the challenged decision of the Sandiganbayan is AFFIRMED. he has legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him. a political opponent DECISION: appeal devoid of merit. REASONS: 1) Handwriting could be tested and proven to belong to petitioner 2) Witness is competent as municipal secretary and designated personnel officer 3) Sandiganbayan compared signature on the certification with the signatures of the petitioner on documents filed with the court and proven that the signature was genuine 4) On credibility of witness: the tribunal having had the opportunity to observe the demeanor and conduct of witness while testifying an therefore is in better position to properly gauge their credibility 5) Petitioner said he is not obliged to disclose the truth about his relationship with appointee: devoid of merit: even though not stated implicitly in Section 49 of PD NO 87. 1986) . Fil.—criminal intent is not only obvious but presumed from the untruthful narration of act. Dagupan City since July 1986) high school graduate 5) Introduced to petitioner by manager of the Luncheonette.
gave her medicine at 4 o clock that made her sleep the whole day and night until the following day. Bugallo. 1989 Not a man of good moral character with little respect and regard for Filipinas Common law wife in Bacolod city—proves this—he lived with that woman but did not marry her • Defeated: filed an instant petition (march 26. Petitioner was ordered to pay damages and attorney’s fees (p20.000 moral damages. 1991: decision of CA: affirming in toto the trial court’s rulings of Oct 16. 1989 Applying Art 21 of the Civil Code: favoring marilou Gonzales. got pregnant but given medicine to abort the foetus) 11) Petitioner repudiated their marriage agreement and asked her not to live with him anymore—married to someone else in Bacolod 12) Private respondent: prayed for judgment ordering petitioner to pay her damages in the amount of not less that P45. besmirched reputation etc) TRIAL COURT DECISION: October 16. 1987: lived together in Lozano apartment 9) She was a virgin before living with him 10) A week before filing of complaint—petitioner’s attitude changed. (Civil Case No. did not promise marriage to the woman. Petitioner appealed to the trial court (CA GR CV 24256) Trial court erred: a) not dismissing the case for lack of factual and legal basis. P3. 1991)—issue whether Art 21 of the CC apply? Art 21.Stressed that court is insisting on invoking Fil customs and traditions when in fact he was a foreigner not bound by such customs—he followed Muslim Code can take 4 wives—wrong ruling that he was not of good moral character Common law wife issue: not legal married in the Iranian embassy (solemnized) Private respondent consented with an illicit arrangement Even if assumed to promise marriage such acts would not be actionable—mere breach of promise is not actionable DECISION OF SC: Instant petition is DENIED. b) ordering him to pay moral damages and other fees • February 18. good customs etc. and he never maltreated her . he did not maltreat her but only told her to stop coming to his place because she deceived him stealing his money and passport 3) No confrontation took place between him and the barangay captain 4) He prayed for an award of P5000 for miscellaneous expenses and moral damages of P25.000 (due to anxiety.000 attorney’s fees and P2000 litigation expense) all other claims denied Reasons: 1) They were lovers 2) Not a woman of loose morals or questionable virtue 3) Petitioner promised to marry private respondent (deceit and false pretenses) 4) Persuasive promise to marry her—deflowered by him 5) Because of promise—parents of respondent did some preparations for the marriage 6) Petitioner did not fulfill promise 7) Such acts of petitioner who is a foreigner and abused Phil hospitality have offended our sense of morality. according to him did not apply since he did not anything that violated our good morals and customs.000 and reimbursement of actual expenses P600 attorney’s fees and costs and granting her such other relief and remedies as may be juts and equitable. • • .6) Before August 20. Pangasinan to secure their approval for marriage 8) Sometime in Aug 20. NO reversible error found in the challenged decision with costs against petitioner. maltreated and threatened to kill her—s he sustained injuries (tied hands and feet. 16503) PETITIONER’S COUNTERCLAIM 1) Admitted personal circumstances and only and denied the rest of the allegations 2) Claimed he never proposed marriage neither sought the approval of parents of the woman. 1987: latter courted and proposed t marry her—woman accepted his love on condition they will get married after the end of school semester (October) 7) Petitioner visited parents of woman in Banaga.
—petitioner clearly Filipino’s concept of morality and defiled traditional respect Filipinos have for their women (Art 19 of CC—justice. wed by Judge Alfredo Perez of the City trial Court of Lapu Lapu city 4) Lived together without interruption until 1991 when Tenebro informed Ancajas that he had been previously married to a certain Hilda Villareyes on November 10.whoever by act or omission causes damage to another. she is merely in delicto 9) However. inferior educational background etc. CA GR NO. equal in guil or in legal fault. court condones the deplorable behavior her the respondent’s parents—protect and give honor of their daughters and infuse upon them high values of morality and dignity TENEBRO vs.REASONS: 1) Existing rule: breach of promise to marry per se is not an actionable wrong 2) Used ARTicle 23 of CC “ Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals. 1993: petitioner contracted another marriage—Nida villegas before Judge German Lee Jr. 150758 February 18. there being fault or negligence is obliged to pay for the damage done. due honesty to everyone) 7) No foreigner must be allowed to make a mockery of our laws. Quasi-delict. good customs or public policy 4) In short the woman gave up her virginity not because of lust but because of moral seduction— petitioner could not beheld liable to criminal seduction under Art 337 or 338 of the RPC because private respondent is above 18 years of age 5) Art 21 may be applied in a breach of promise to marry where the woman is a victim of moral seduction 6) Issue on fault of the woman who has interests for a guy( becoming a doctor)—statements reveal the true character and motive of the petitioner—he harbors a condescending regard for the private respondent on account of her ignorable birth. could justify awards for damages—it is essential however. RTC Cebu City br 15 . J Facts: 1) REASONS: 1) Nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity does not retroact to the date of the celebration of the marriage (Phil penal laws are concerned) 2) Individual who contracts a second or subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid marriage is criminally liable for bigamy notwithstanding the declaration of the second marriage as void ab initio on the ground of psychological incapacity 3) April 10. that such injury should have been committed in a manner contrary to morals. 2004 Petitioner: veronica Tenebro Respondent: CA Nature of the Case: petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the CA Issue: effect of the judicial declaration of the nullity of a second or subsequent marriage. 1986 5) Petitioner left the conjugal wedding with Ancajas and cohabited with Villareyes 6) January 25. on the ground of psychological incapacity on an individual’s criminal liability for bigamy Ponente: Ynares-Santiago. good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage” a. Such fault or negligence. 1990: petitioner Veronico Tenebro contracted marriage with private complainant Leticia Ancajas. customs and traditions 8) Respondent is not in pari delicto with the petitioner: means “in equal fault” in a similar offense or crime. if there is no pre-existing contractual relations between the parties (Art 2176 of the Civil Code) 3) When a man’s promise to marry a woman is the proximate cause of the acceptance of his love by the woman and becomes the proximate cause for giving herself unto him in sexual congress without the real intention of fulfilling that promise but only a subtle scheme to obtain her consent to the sexual act.
1994) –petitioner presented documents (certification issued by NSO Oct 7. assailed decision of CA convicting tenebro of the crime of bigamy and sentencing him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four years and two months of prison correccional as minimum and 8 years and one day of prison mayor as maximum REASONS. Sentencing him to 4 years and 2 months prison correccional as minimum to 8 years and day of prision mayor as maximum CA: Affirmed decision of the trial court and petition for reconsideration was denied Hence this instant petition: assigned errors: 1) When it affirmed decision of RTC despite non existence of the first marriage and insufficiency of evidence 2) Finding him guilty despite clear proof that marriage between the accused and private complainant had been declared null and void ab initio and without legal force and effect DECISION OF SC: 3rd and 4th requisites for crime of bigamy are present—affirm the judgment of the CA. both documentary and oral to prove the existence of the first marriage (marriage contract Manila City solemnized November 10. Julieto Torres. 1990—the crime of bigamy had already been consummated 7) The declaration of the nullity of a second marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity is NOT an indicator that petitioner’s marriage to Ancajas lacks the essential requisites for validity —requisites are essential and formal requisites—in this case requisites of marriage were satisfied by petitioner and ANcajas . 1986 before Rev. handwritten letter of Villareyes to Ancajas dated July 12. 1995 and City Civil Registry of Manila Feb 3. Petition for review is DENIED. the absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to the CC c) That he contracts a second or subsequent marriage and d) That the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity • Denies existence of marriage and argues the declaration of the nullity of the second marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity (lacks essential requisites of validity—retroacts to the date on which the second marriage was celebrated) • Hence argues that four elements of the crime of bigamy are absent and prays for acquittal But Court said I fails on two accounts: 1) Prosecution presented sufficient evidence. 1) Art 349 elements of bigamy: a) Offender has been legally married b) First marriage has not been legally dissolved or in case his or her spouse is absent.7) Ancajas heard of third marriage—confirmed with Villareyes—Villareyes confirmed through letter that she was married with petitioner 8) Ancajas filed a complaint for bigamy against petitioner (Criminal Case: 013095-L) PETITIONER’s CLAIMS 1) He cohabited with villareyes from 1984-1988 sired two children but denied valid marriage ceremony to solemnize marriage (said he only signed contract for his allotment as a seaman 2) Verified by brother if a marriage exist (Civil Register Manila)—no record of said marriage DECISION OF TRIAL COURT: November 10. 1997—have no records of the said marriage) 2) Public documents applicable to all—marriage contract—Sec 7 Rule 130 of the Rules of Court— original public document is admissible evidence 3) Documents presented by Tenebro only said office have no record of such marriage—absence of a record is different from documentary evidence as to absence of a marriage ceremony— documents (certifications) given after marriage with second wife) 4) On the issue of nullity due to psychological incapacity: retroacts?= so since marriage with Ancajas was void ab initio bigamy was therefore not committed==== aS second or subsequent marriage contracted during the subsistence of first marriage. 1997—finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of bigamy under art 349 of the RPC. petitioner’s marriage with Ancajas would be null and void from the very beginning completely regardless of the petitioner’s psychological incapacity or capacity—but this does not however presents an argument for the avoidance of criminal liability 5) Art 349 of the RPC criminalizes any person who shall contract a second or subsequent marriage before the former marriage has been dissolved legally or before the absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead by means of a judgment rendered in proper proceedings 6) As soon as the 2nd marriage was contracted April 10.
such marriage in in contemplation of criminal law never existed and for that reason. Sr. 119190 January 16.March 15. Intramuros manila—marriage contact-evidence 5) Wedding reception South Villa Makati—house of defendant’s mother 6) No making love on the first nyt after marriage—same with second. being a mental state may not be so readily evident c) It remains valid and binding until declared judicially as void DISSENTING OPINION CARPIO. psychological incapacity however. defendant married her a Filipino citizen to acquire and maintain residency status CLAIM OF DEFENDANT: if marriage will be annulled by reason of psychological incapacity. it will be fault of the wife He did not want marriage to be annulled due to: . CALLEJO. constitute a valid defense in a criminal action for bigamy? • Yes. and no judicial decree is required to establish their nullity • The complete nullity of a previously contracted marriage being void ab initio and legally inexistent can outrightly be a defense in an indictment for bigamy • Strong reservation on the ruling that bigamy is still committed though marriage is ab initio null and void (if marriage is contracted before th judicial declaration of its nullity) • Canon law-reconcile grounds for nullity of marriage • Reasons why except those due to psychological incapacity: a) Breaches neither the essential nor the formal requisites of marriage b) Other grounds are capable of relatively easy demonstration. Jr. not even saw husband’s private parts 9) Submitted themselves to medical examination—CGH. her husband’s results were kept confidential—given medication but confidential—asked to return but never did 11) Impotent husband. third and fourth nights 7) Baguio city—first week as husband and wife—with mother. 1988 plaintiff married defendant at Manila cathedral. J. uncle. one of the essential elements of bigamy has disappeared CHI MING TSOI vs CA GR no. • Would the absolute nullity of either first or second marriage prior to its judicial declaration as being void. his mother and nephew of defendant—n sexual intercourse within the 4-day stay 8) May 22. J.January 20. 1995) 4) May 22. J. 1994) 3) Denied motion for reconsideration (February 14. Except for a void marriage on account of psychological incapacity—void marriages are inexistent from the very beginning.8) Third marriage contracted while two past marriages are still subsisting—deliberate disregard for sanctity of marriage SEPARATE OPINION VITUG. 1988. 1989 10) She was healthy. 1989—but during this period no attempt of sexual intercourse between them. 1997 Petitioner: Chi Ming tsoi Respondents: CA Issue: Nature of the Case: petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the CA POnente: Torres. • Vote to grant pro hac vice the petition • Since second marriage is null and void ab initio. closet homosexual. still a virgin. J Facts: 1) RTC QC Br 89 which decreed the annulment of the marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity 2) Petitioner appealed the decision of the trial court to CA (42758) which affirmed the RTC decision (Nov 29.
let copy be furnished the local civil registrar of QC and of Manila CA: affirmed TC’s decision DECISION OF SUPREME COURT: petition to be bereft of merit. Sergio Atleza Jr said he has no signs of impotency and capable of erection DECISION OF TRIAL COURT: declared Void marriage . 1989—blames wife Two reasons given by him: 1) she is afraid that she will return jewelry ofher mother (forced) . assailed decision of the CA dated Nov 29.a) He loves her so much b) He has no defect on his part and he is physically and psychologically capable c) The relationship is till young and differences can still be reconciled\ d) Defect can be cured with medical technology .Admitted that no sexual intercourse from May 22. REASONS: 1) Private respondent has the burden of proving the allegations in her complaint—no independent evidence to prove the alleged non-coitus between husband and wife—only basis is admission of petitioner 2) Need to prevent collusion between parties—CC provides that no judgment annulling marriage shall be promulgated upon a stipulation of facts or by confession of judgments 3) But since petitioner did not want marriage to be annulled –then no collusion between parties 4) Issue that failure to have sexual intercourse meant psychological incapacity of both—other reasons may exist—the court said the fact that no coitus happened between them—no need to determine who did not want to have sex with whom 5) Wanted to have sex but refuses—maybe because of pain?== no attempt to discover what the problem with his wife could be 6) One of the essential marital obligations under the FC is to procreate children based on the universal principle that procreation of children through sexual cooperation is the basic end of marriage”—if one although physically capable but simply refuses to perform his or her essential marital obligations and the refusal is senseless and constant—even canon Law attribute the cause to psychological incapacity 7) Court find the gravity of the failed relationship in which the parties found themselves trapped in its mire of unfulfilled vows and unconsummated marital obligations can do no less but sustain the studied judgment of respondent appellate court . 1988 to March 15. 2) that her husband will consummate the marriage He insists on the validity of the marriage 12) Submitted himself to examination—Dr. 1994 AFFIRMED in all respects and the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
or by any relative guardian or person having legal charge of the insane. 80 SEC 6. unless such party after coming to reason. NCC When the defect of the contract consists in the incapacity of one of the parties. by the sane spouse who had no knowledge of the other’s insanity. NCC Contracts entered into during lucid intervals are valid. freely cohabitated with the other as husband and wife ART 47 (2) The action for annulment of marriage must be filed by the following persons and within the periods indicated herein: 2. the shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Art. such minor shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Article 80 of this code ART 13 RPC: Mitigating Circumstances: 3) That the offender is under 18 years of age or over 70 years. and deaf mutes who do not know how to write (1263a) ART. It is the foundation of the family and an inviolable social institution whose nature. Contracts agreed to in a state of drunkenness or during hypnotic spell are voidable ART. For causes mentioned in number 2 of Art 45. par 2 and 3 RPC Art 12: Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. the incapacitated person is not obliged to make any restitution except in so far as he has been benefited by the thing or price received by him ART 45 (2) A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes. in which case. That either party was of unsound mind. unless he has acted with discernment. consequences and incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation. FC Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and woman entered into accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life. or by the insane spouse during a lucid interval or after regaining insanity ART 1. RA 9344 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _ ART 1327. In the case of the minor.PROVISIONS ART 12. CC The following cannot give consent to a contract: 1) Unemancipated minors 2) Insane or demented persons. at any time fore the death of either party. 1328.the following are exempt from criminal liability: 2) A person under nine years of age 3) A person over 9 years of age and under fifteen. existing at the time of the marriage: 2. 1399. except that marriage settlements may fix the property relations during the marriage within the limits provided by this Code (52a) .
. otherwise. FC The judgment Of annulment or of absolute nullity of the marriage. FC The formal requisites of marriage are: 1) Authority of the solemnizing officer 2) A valid marriage license except in the cases provided for in Chapter 2 of this title and 3) A marriage ceremony which takes place with the appearance of the contracting parties before the solemnizing officer and their personal declaration that they take each other as husband and wife in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age ART 4. An irregularity in the formal requisites shall not affect the validity of the marriage but the arty or parties responsible for the irregularity shall be civilly. NCC? ART 52.ART 52. FC The absence of any of the essential or formal requisites of marriage shall render the marriage void ab initio except as stated in Art 35 (2). A defect in any of the essential requisites shall render the marriage voidable as provided in Art 45. the partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses and the delivery of the children’s presumptive legumes shall be recorded in the appropriate civil registry and registries of property. criminally and administratively liable. the same shall not affect the third persons ART 2 FC NO marriage shall be valid unless these essential requirements are present: 1) Legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be male and a female and 2) Consent freely given in the presence of the solemnizing officer (53 a) ART 3.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.