You are on page 1of 11


People v Malapo (294 SCRA 586) Article 166 of the Family Code provides:
Legitimacy of a child may be impugned only on the following grounds:
FACTS: (1) That it was physically impossible for the husband to have sexual intercourse with his wife within
This is a case upon sworn complaint originally filed by the offended party hereto attached, hereby the first 120 days of the 300 days which immediately preceded the birth of the child because of:
accuses one Nixon Malapo of Salvacion, Iriga City of the crime of Rape. That sometime on the month (a) the physical incapacity of the husband to have sexual intercourse with his wife;
of September, 1991, the said accused, entered the house of one Nenita I. No, aunt of Complainant (b) the fact that the husband and wife were living separately in such a way that sexual
AMALIA TRINIDAD who was then and there alone, and by means of force and intimidation, did, then intercourse was not possible; or
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously succeeded in having carnal knowledge of said Amalia (c) serious illness of the husband, which absolutely prevented sexual intercourse;
Trinidad against her will and consent and as a result she has become pregnant and delivered a baby (2) That it is proved that for biological or other scientific reasons, the child could not have been that
at the Iriga City Puericulture Center. of the husband, except in the instance provided in the second paragraph of Article 164.
Amalia is seemingly an example of a pseudoretardate. She might have been deprived of intellectual
stimulations which explains her lag in cognitive development. She is still categorized within the In the case at bar, it can be inferred that conception occurred at or about the time that accused-
normal classification of children. appellant is alleged to have committed the crime, i.e., within 120 days from the commission of the
Amalia did not tell Nenita No, as to what happened to her at that time for she was threatened by offense in September 1991. Pursuant to Art. 166 of the Family Code, accused-appellant can
the accused-appellant that he’ll kill her if she ever told anyone. However on May 18, 1992, as she overcome the presumption that Amalias child was begotten as a result of her having been raped in
was about to give birth to her baby she told Bernardita Marquinez that she had been raped by the September 1991 only if he can show either that it was physically impossible for him to have sexual
accused-appellant. intercourse because of impotence or serious illness which absolutely prevents him from having
The RTC convicted the accused-appellant Nixon Malapo of rape and sentencing him to suffer the sexual intercourse or that Amalia had sexual intercourse with another man. However, accused-
penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the victim Amalia Trinidad the sum of P50,000.00 in moral appellant has not shown either of these.
In the case at bar, it can be inferred that conception occurred at or about the time that accused- The testimony of Amalia, as corroborated by Nenita No and Bernardita Marquinez, leaves no doubt
appellant is alleged to have committed the crime, i.e., within 120 days from the commission of the in our mind that accused-appellant is the father of the child. Therefore, in accordance with Art. 345
offense in September 1991. Pursuant to Art. 166 of the Family Code, accused-appellant can of the Revised Penal Code, accused-appellant should be ordered to pay support.
overcome the presumption that Amalias child was begotten as a result of her having been raped in
September 1991 only if he can show either that it was physically impossible for him to have sexual In any event, the impregnation of a woman is not an element of rape. Proof that the child was
intercourse because of impotence or serious illness which absolutely prevents him from having fathered by another man does not show that accused-appellant is not guilty, considering the
sexual intercourse or that Amalia had sexual intercourse with another man. However, accused- positive testimony of Amalia that accused-appellant had abused her.
appellant has not shown either of these.
2. People v Medina
Whether or not the victim was already pregnant when she was raped by the appellant FACTS:
At around 11 pm on May 20, 1991, a party was held in the house of Sebastian and Delia Aguila in
RULING: Barangay Caingin, Balite, Batangas, to celebrate the awarding of a championship trophy to the
A textbook on pediatrics states that Infants delivered before the thirty-seventh week of gestation basketball team of Larry Andal. Among those present during the celebration were Andres Dalisay,
with a birth weight of less than 2,500 grams (American) or 2,275 grams (Filipino) are considered Edgardo Silang, Larry Andal, Norberto Biscocho, Bayani Dorado, Salustiano Aguila and appellant
premature. An infant can therefore be considered a full-term baby if it weighs more than 2,275 Alberto Medina. After a while, Dalisay invited Andal to go home. The two left the house of the
grams even if it is born before the thirty-seventh week which is less than 9.3 months. Since Aguilas, with Dalisay walking ahead of Andal. While they were walking, Andal saw appellant, who
according to the medical certificate Amalias baby weighed 2.4 kilograms or 2,400 grams, it was a was waiting along the way, stab Dalisay with a "balisong" in the abdominal region. Dalisay held the
full-term baby even if it was born before the normal gestation period. hand of appellant. While they were grappling, Dalisay was able to extricate himself and started to
run away. Appellant chased him. When appellant caught up with Dalisay, appellant stabbed Dalisay
once more at the back. Dalisay fell to the ground. He tried to get up and run, but he again fell down. due to extreme anger (passion). ". . . [I]t is now well settled that mere mental depravity, or moral
Appellant stabbed him [once more] on the chest. Then [a]ppellant fled from the scene. insanity, so called, which results, not from any disease of mind, but from a perverted condition of
Appellant set up insanity as a defense in the killing of the victim saying that the latter was about to the moral system, where the person is mentally sane, does not exempt one from responsibility for
pull something from his pocket that is why he immediately took his balisong and stab the victim. He crimes committed under its influence."
added that while he was stabbing the victim, the latter looked like a devil with horns. Dr. Teresita Thus, before the defense of insanity may be accepted as an exempting circumstance, Philippine case
Adigue, a Doctor of Psychology and a holder of a Master's Degree in Clinical and Industrial law shows a common reliance on the test of cognition, which requires a complete deprivation of
Psychology and another Master's Degree in Guidance and Counselling, and an accredited intelligence — not only of the will — in committing the criminal act. In the present case, Dr. Adigue's
psychologist of the Philippine National Police testified that based on the evaluation of accused- testimony did not establish complete deprivation of appellant's reason. Consequently, appellant
appellant, the latter has been shown to be suffering from depression and was exhibiting homicidal cannot claim exemption from criminal liability under Art. 12, par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code.
tendencies, and that he did not know the difference between right and wrong. The trial court In the instant case, however, the defense miserably failed to establish the deprivation of the
rejected the appellant’s defense of insanity stating that the testimony of appellant's sister that she appellant's will when he stabbed his victim. Appellant testified that he thought the victim was going
had observed unusual behavior on the part of appellant did not constitute sufficient proof of his to pull out a weapon, thus he beat him to the draw and stabbed him with his balisong. This
insanity, "because not every aberration of the mind or mental deficiency constitute[s] insanity." statement shows that he did not suffer any deprivation of reason or discernment. While the victim
Additionally, the trial judge observed that, during the hearings, appellant was attentive, well- appeared to him as a "devil with horns," such perceptual distortion occurred only after he had dealt
behaved and responsive to the questions propounded to him in English even without translation. He the fatal blows on the victim. The Court cannot, therefore, appreciate this mitigating circumstance
appealed the decision of the trial court to the SC. in his favor.
3. People v Bonoan
Whether or not the appellant indeed suffered insanity. FACTS:
Celestino Bonoan is charged with the crime of murder for stabbing Carlos Guison with a knife, which
RULING: caused his death three days afterwards. An arraignment was then called, but the defense objected
No. Appellant insists that the trial court gravely erred in refusing to consider Dr. Adigue as an expert on the ground that the defendant was mentally deranged and was at the time confined at the
witness. He argues that Dr. Adigue, being an accredited psychologist of the Philippine National Psychopatic Hospital. After several months of summons for doctors, production of the defendant’s
Police since 1979 and a holder of a doctorate in psychology from the University of Calcutta, India, complete record of mental condition from the hospital and defendant’s admission to the hospital
and a master's degree in clinical and industrial psychology, deserves credence. for personal observation, assistant alienist Dr. Jose Fernandez finally reported to the court that
Appellant misses the point. More than her academic qualifications as a psychologist, what really Bonoan may be discharged for being a “recovered case”. After trial, the lower court found Bonoan
matters is the failure of Dr. Adigue's testimony to establish legal insanity on the part of the guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
appellant. Verily, such results do not prove the alleged insanity of the appellant. Art. 12, par. 1 of the The defense now appeals, claiming the lower court made errors in finding Bonoan suffered
Revised Penal Code, requires a complete deprivation of rationality in committing the act; i.e., that dementia only occasionally and intermittently, did not show any kind of abnormality, that the
the accused be deprived of reason, that there be no consciousness of responsibility for his acts, or defense did not establish the defendant’s insanity and finding accused guilty.
that there be complete absence of the power to discern. More relevantly, said report does not
support the claim that appellant could not distinguish right from wrong. Thus, the trial court ISSUE:
properly rejected appellant's defense of insanity. The presumption of law, per Art. 800 of the Civil Whether or not the accused was demented at the time of the commission of the crime.
Code, always lies in favor of sanity, and, in the absence of proof to the contrary, every person is
presumed to be of sound mind. RULING:
The defense of insanity or imbecility must be clearly proved, for there is a presumption that acts Yes. The Court finds the accused demented at the time he perpetrated the crime, which
penalized by law are voluntarily. Hence, in the absence of positive evidence that the accused had consequently exempts him from criminal liability, and orders for his confinement in San Lazaro
previously lost his reason or was demented moments prior to or during the perpetration of the Hospital or other hospital for the insane.
crime, the courts will always presume that he was in a normal state of mind. However, care must be In the case at bar, however, the SC is not concerned with connecting two or more attacks of insanity
taken to distinguish between lack of reason (insanity) and failure to use reason or good judgment to show the continuance thereof during the intervening period or periods but with the continuity of
a particular and isolated attack prior to the commission of the crime charged, and ending with a 5. People v Formigones
positive diagnosis of insanity immediately following the commission of the act complained of.
The following considerations have weighed heavily upon the minds of the majority of this court in FACTS:
arriving at a conclusion different from that reached by the court below: From November to December 1946, defendant Abelardo Formigones together with his wife Julia
1. Uncontradicted evidence that accused was confined in the insane department of San Lazaro Agricola, and his five children lived in the house of his half-brother, Zacarias Formigones to find
Hospital and diagnosed with dementia praecox long before the commission of the offense employment as harvesters. One afternoon, the accused, without any previous quarrel or
and recurrence of ailments were not entirely lacking of scientific foundation provocation whatsoever, took his bolo from the wall of the house and stabbed his wife at the back,
2. Persons with dementia praecox are disqualified from legal responsibility because they have the blade penetrating the right lung which latter caused her death. When she fall ont he ground the
no control of their acts; dementia praecox symptoms similar to manic depression psychosis defendant carried her up the house, laid her on the floor of the living room and then lay down
3. Accused had an insomnia attack, a symptom leading to dementia praecox, four days prior to beside her. He was convicted of parricide and was sentenced to prison. The defendant entered a
act according to Dr. Francisco plea of not guilty. His counsel presented testimonies of two guards of the provincial jail where
4. Accused was sent the Psychopatic hospital on the same day of crime and arrest, indicating defendant was confined. They said that he behaved like an insane person, that sometimes he would
the police’s doubt of his mental normalcy remove his clothes in front of others, would not take a bath, and remained silent and indifferent to
5. Defendant suffered from manic depressive psychosis according to Dr. Joson his surroundings. His counsel claimed that he is an imbecile therefore exempt from criminal liability.
Dr. Francisco Gomez told that Abelardo was suffering only from feeblemindedness and not
4. People v Bascos imbecility and that he could distinguish right from wrong. An imbecile so as to be exempt from
criminal liability, he must be deprived completely of reason or discernment and freedom of the will
FACTS: at the time of committing the crime.

The accused Donato Bascos was charged in information filed in the Court of First Instance of ISSUE: Whether or not the defendant who is suffering from feeblemindedness is exempt from
Pangasinan with the murder of Victoriano Romero. On arraignment, he entered a plea of not guilty. liability.
The proof for the prosecution established that the accused was the one who had killed Victoriano
Romero, while the latter was sleeping. The defense was that of insanity. RULING:
Following the conclusion of the trial, the presiding judge rendered judgment finding the accused No. The appellant has all the sympathies of the Court. He seems to be one of those unfortunate
guilty of the crime of homicide. beings, simple, and even feebleminded, whose faculties have not been fully developed. His action in
picking up the body of his wife after she fell down to the ground, dead, taking her upstairs, laying
ISSUE: Whether or not the accused should be judge according to article 8 or article 100 of the her on the floor, and lying beside her for hours, shows his feeling of remorse at having killed his
revised final code. loved one though he thought that she has betrayed him. Although he did not exactly surrender to
the authorities, still he made no effort to flee and compel the police to hunt him down and arrest
RULING: him. In his written statement he readily admitted that he killed his wife, and at the trial he made no
In the Philippines, among the persons who are exempted from criminal liability by our Penal Code, is effort to deny or repudiate said written statement, thus saving the government all the trouble and
the following: An imbecile or lunatic, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval. When the expense of catching him, and insuring his conviction.
imbecile or lunatic has committed an act which the law defines as a grave felony, the court shall In order that an exempting circumstance may be taken into account, it is necessary that there be a
order his confinement in one of the asylums established for persons thus afflicted, which he shall complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act, that is, that the accused be deprived of
not be permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of the same court. (Art. 8-1.) reason; that there be no responsibility for his own acts; that he acts without the least discernment;
Article 100 of the Penal Code applies when the convict shall become insane or an imbecile after final that there be a complete absence of the power to discern, or that there be a total deprivation of
sentence has been freedom of the will. As to the strange behavior of the accused during his confinement, assuming
We are convinced that the accused was a lunatic when he committed the grave felony described in that it was not feigned to stimulate insanity, it may be attributed either to his being feebleminded or
the record and that consequently he is exempt from criminal liability, and should be confined in an eccentric, or to a morbid mental condition produced by remorse at having killed his wife. He could
insane asylum. distinguish right from wrong.
6. People v Mancao & Aguilar momentarily deprive him of his mental faculties and lead him to unconsciously attempt to take his
own life and the lives of others, nevertheless, it has not been shown that he was under the influence
FACTS: of an epileptic fit before, during, and immediately after the aggression.
This was an appeal by Crispino Mancao and Ciriaco Aguilar from a judgment of the
Court of First Instance of Cebu in convicting them of the crime of homicide, alleging that the 7. People v Taneo
lower court erred in not holding that the accused Ciriaco Aguilar is mentally deficient and is,
therefore, not criminally liable. The ISSUE ensued when Crispino Mancao, accompanied by FACTS:
three men and several women, inquired to Graciano Sedimo, Roberto Villela’s tenant, Potenciano Taneo and his wife lived in his parent's house in Dolores, Ormoc. On January 16, 1932, a
and ordered the persons with him to begin harvesting the corns. Roberto Villela then fiesta was being celebrated in the said barrio and guests were entertained in the house, among
asked the harvesters who ordered them to harvest the corn. Crispino Mancao, replied that he was them were Fred Tanner and Luis Malinao. Early that afternoon, Potenciano went to sleep and while
the one who ordered them to do so and started towards Roberto Villela. The latter then asked the sleeping, he suddenly got up, left the room bolo in hand and, upon meeting his wife who tried to
former if he had an order from the court to harvest the products. Crispino Mancao struck him with a stop him, wounded her in the abdomen. He also attacked Fred and Luis and tried to attack his
bamboo stick and said: "This is the order." Thus, Roberto Villela dodged the blow and snatched the father, after which, he wounded himself. Potenciano's wife, who was 7 months pregnant at that
cane. Having been deprived of his bamboo stick, Crispino Mancao took hold of his bolo time, died five days later as a result of the wound.
and attempted to strike Roberto Villela which the latter warded off with a stick he had in his The trial court found Potenciano guilty of parricide and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. It
hand. appears from the evidence that the day before the commission of the crime, the defendant had a
Upon being attacked, Roberto Villela rushed at Crispino Mancao and a hand to hand fightensued. A quarrel over a glass of "tuba" with Collantes and Abadilla, who invited him to come down and fight.
man dressed in khaki immediately appeared after Mancao had shouted for help and When he was about to go down, he was stopped by his wife and his mother. On the day of the
struck RobertoVillela a blow on the thigh as a result of which he fell to his knees. Crispino Mancao commission of the crime, it was noted that the defendant was sad and weak, had a severe
then took hold of RobertoVillela by the hands and while thus held, the accused Ciriaco Aguilar struck stomachache that's why he went to bed in the early afternoon. The defendant stated that when he
him with his sickle in the back as aa result of which Roberto Villela fell to the ground unconscious. fell asleep, he dreamed that Collantes was trying to stab him with a bolo while Abadila held his feet.
That's why he got up and it seemed to him that his enemies were inviting him to come down; he
ISSUE: Whether or not Ciriaco Aguilar is mentally deficient and is, therefore, not criminally liable. armed himself with a bolo and left the room. At the door, he met his wife who seemed to say to him
that she was wounded. Then, he fancied seeing his wife really wounded and in desperation
wounded himself. As his enemies seemed to multiply around him, he attacked everybody that came
RULING: his way.
No. A careful and detailed examination of the oral and documentary evidence presented by both
parties, and the consideration given the antecedents of the case and the circumstances surrounding ISSUE:
the commission of the criminal act, convince us that the accused Crispino Mancao was the instigator Whether or not defendant acted while in a dream.
and aggressor, Roberto Villela having done nothing but to defendant himself, first disarming the
former of his stick with which he was assaulted, and later of his bolo which he used after having RULING:
been assaulted, and later of his bolo which he used after having been deprived of his stick. Roberto Yes. The defendant acted while in a dream & his acts, therefore, weren’t voluntary in the sense of
Villela might have had the advantage in the fight had not one of Crispino Mancao's laborers, dressed entailing criminal liability.
in khaki, come to his rescue, upon his cry for help, and struck Roberto Villela on the thigh; then,
another man wearing an undershirt who stuck Roberto Villela several times on the left knee; and, The apparent lack of motive for committing a criminal act does not necessarily mean that there are
lastly, the accused Ciriaco Aguilar who struck Roberto Villela several blows on the back with his none, but that simply they are not known to us. Although an extreme moral perversion may lead a
sickle, one of which nearly severed his spine in the lumbar region which later caused his death. man to commit a crime without a real motive but just for the sake of committing it. In the case at
hand, the court found not only lack of motives for the defendant to voluntarily commit the acts
The defense of lack of free will of the accused Ciriaco Aguilar, who is an epileptic, cannot be complained of, but also motives for not committing the acts. Dr. Serafica, an expert witness in the
sustained. While Ciriaco Aguilar, as an epileptic, was susceptible to nervous attacks that may
case, stated that considering the circumstances of the case, the defendant acted while in a dream, and put himself on top of her, and thereafter have carnal knowledge with the undersigned
under the influence of a hallucination and not in his right mind. complainant against her will and without her consent.
When arraigned, accused-appellant entered a plea of not guilty, whereupon trial of the case on the
Nobody saw how the wound was inflicted. The defendant did not testify that he wounded his wife. merits proceeded. The prosecution presented three witnesses, namely, the complainant, Dr.
He only seemed to have heard her say that she was wounded. What the evidence shows is that the Herminigilda Salangad, the complainant’s attending psychiatrist, and Dr. Emmanuel Reyes, the
deceased, who was in the sala, intercepted the defendant at the door of the room as he was coming medico-legal officer who examined the complainant. Complainant was brought later during the day
out. The defendant did not dream that he was assaulting his wife but he was defending himself from before Dr. Emmanuel Reyes for medico-legal examination. She told him what happened. Dr. Reyes
his enemies. And so, believing that his wife was really wounded, in desperation, he stabbed himself. reduced her narration of the incident into writing and then gave her a physical examination.
Accused-appellant testified in his behalf. He stated that he had been a nurse-aide of the Holy Spirit
8. People v Gimena Clinic since September 18, 1995.
He denied the allegations against him. He testified that, on the date and time referred to by the
FACTS: complainant, he was asleep in the nurse-aide quarters located about ten meters from the room
where complainant was staying.
On the night of May 9, 1933, Felipe Ferolino, brother in law of the deceased, commented a frank or On cross-examination, accused-appellant admitted that he knew it was prohibited to give cigarettes
sarcastic remark to the defendant. Ferolino moved backward and the appellant, taking that attitude to patients. He further admitted that, as a nurse-aide, he could enter the patients’ room anytime to
as an acceptance of his challenge, gave him a blow on the head with the cane he carried and later check their condition and see to it that the lights were turned off when they were not needed. He
stabbed him on the hip and on the back. The deceased, Casimiro Mahinay, , completely unarmed, further stated that he was not investigated by the police when he was invited to their headquarters.
approached the two for the purpose of separating them or helping Ferolino, his brother-in-law, the The trial court rendered its decision finding the accused Eric Baid y Ominta GUILTY beyond
appellant gave him a blow with his cane on the right eyebrow and later mortally wounded him on reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.
the left side of the abdomen with his knife. The defendant said that it was an act of self-defense Accused-appellant contends that the trial court erred in convicting him of rape. Dr. Herminigilda
because the deceased held him by the neck, chioking him in such a way that he could hardly Salangad, the complainant’s attending psychiatrist and consultant at the Medical Center in
breathe. The CFI later convicted him of homicide. Muntinlupa, the Perpetual Help Medical Center, the Philippine National Police, and the Holy Spirit
Clinic, was presented as an expert witness. According to her, complainant was, at the time of the
ISSUE: WON the defendant may validly invoke self-defense as an exempting circumstance. incident, suffering from an undifferentiated type of schizophrenia, described as having the
characteristic symptoms of schizophrenia but does not fit the profile for paranoid, disorganized, or
RULING: catatonic schizophrenia. Dr. Salangad stated that complainant seemed to shift from one type of
schizophrenia to another.
No. The defendant’s claim of self-defense is unfounded. He was the one who provoked the fight It is contended that as complainant is a schizophrenic, her testimony should not have been given
between him and Felipe Ferolino and likewise he was the aggressor. Under the circumstances credence by the trial court. It is argued that: (1) there were serious inconsistencies between her
surrounding the commencement and development of the fight, there was not at least necessity of sworn statement and her testimony in court; (2) the prosecution failed to present witnesses to
his having used the knife in wounding Casimiro Mahinay inasmuch as he was already armed with a corroborate her testimony; (3) complainant failed to identify accused-appellant; (4) the results of
cane, much less taking into consideration that the deceased was entirely unarmed. The justifying the medico-legal examination were negative for spermatozoa; (5) the healed lacerations showed
circumstance of self-defense, once the act against which it is invoked is proven, should be that complainant had sexual intercourse seven days before the alleged incident; and (6) the
satisfactorily established, and without proof, it should necessarily be rejected. probability was that her allegations of rape were merely a product of her fantasy.

9. People v Baid ISSUE: Whether or not the complainant, who is suffering from schizophrenia, can be qualified as a
FACTS: That on or about the 22nd day of December 1996, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said
accused by means of force and intimidation, to wit: by then and there [willfully], unlawfully and RULING:
feloniously undressing one NIEVA GARCIA y SABAN, a mental patient suffering [from] schizophrenia
Yes. Notwithstanding her mental illness, complainant showed that she was qualified to be a witness, RULING:
i.e., she could perceive and was capable of making known her perceptions to others The accused is acquitted because her action is of without criminal intent by reason of the disease
Her testimony indicates that she could understand questions particularly relating to the incident and she suffered that affects her nervous system causing complications including acute mania.
could give responsive answers to them. Though she may have exhibited emotions inconsistent with 11. Jimenez v Republic
that of a rape victim (“inappropriate affect”) during her testimony, such as by smiling when
answering questions, her behavior was such as could be expected from a person suffering from FACTS:
schizophrenia. Otherwise, complainant was candid, straightforward, and coherent. Joel and Remedios are husband and wife. Joel later filed for annulment on grounds that Remedios is
It has long been settled that a person should not be disqualified on the basis of mental handicap impotent because her genitals were too small for copulation and such was already existing at the
alone. time of the marriage. Remedios was summoned to answer the complaint of Joel but she refused to
Whatever may be the inconsistencies in her testimony, they are minor and inconsequential. They do so. It was found that there was no collusion between the parties notwithstanding the non-
show that complainant’s testimony was unrehearsed, and rather than diminish the probative value cooperation of Remedios in the case. Remedios was ordered to have herself be submitted to an
of her testimony, they reinforce it. In the case at bar, the rape of complainant occurred in a room expert to determine if her genitals are indeed too small for copulation. Remedios again refused to
where other patients were sleeping. This circumstance, it is argued, is antithetical to the possibility do as ordered. The trial was heard solely on Joel’s complaint. The marriage was later annulled.
of the commission of rape. As this Court has repeatedly said, lust is no respecter of time and place
and the crime of rape can be consummated even when the malefactor and the victim are not alone. ISSUE: Whether or not Remedios’ impotency has been established.
The plausibility of an allegation of rape does not depend on the number of witnesses presented
during the trial, so much so that, if the testimonies so far presented clearly and credibly established RULING:
the commission of the crime, corroborative evidence would only be a mere surplusage.27 In this In the case at bar, the annulment of the marriage in question was decreed upon the sole testimony
case, the trial court gave credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses on the basis of of Joel who was expected to give testimony tending or aiming at securing the annulment of his
which it adjudged accused-appellant guilty. In the absence of bias, partiality, and grave abuse of marriage he sought and seeks. Whether Remedios is really impotent cannot be deemed to have
discretion on the part of the presiding judge, his findings as to their credibility are entitled to utmost been satisfactorily established, because from the commencement of the proceedings until the entry
respect as he had the opportunity to observe their demeanor on the witness stand. of the decree she had abstained from taking part therein. Although her refusal to be examined or
failure to appear in court show indifference on her part, yet from such attitude the presumption
10. People v Lacena arising out of the suppression of evidence could not arise or be inferred, because women of this
country are by nature coy, bashful and shy and would not submit to a physical examination unless
FACTS: compelled to by competent authority. Impotency being an abnormal condition should not be
About 3 o’clock in the morning of August 16, 1938, Marciano Dante awoke with a start because his presumed. The presumption is in favor of potency. The lone testimony of Joel that his wife is
wife, the appellant defendant, who was sick with a fever, said, "Patay ka ngayon" (You're going to physically incapable of sexual intercourse is insufficient to tear asunder the ties that have bound
die now), digging in the abdominal a pair of scissors. The wound was the cause of acute peritonitis them together as husband and wife.
that the injured later died.
It has been proven that in the day of the event, the appellant was experiencing high fever and 12. Salita v Magtolis
delirium. She attacked anybody who lived with her in the house. In the analysis of his blood on the
October 12, 1938, she was found suffering from malaria plasmodium falciparum or malignant 13. Chi Ming Tsoi v CA
disease that causes disturbance in the nervous system, causing complications including acute mania,
madness and outstanding melancholia sometimes because their common sequel is neuralgia. FACTS:
The circumstances in which the appellant struck and gave her husband cut reveals that such an act
was in moments of madness suffered as a result of its illness. Chi Ming Tsoi and Gina Lao Tsoi was married in 1988. After the celebration of their wedding, they
proceed to the house of defendant’s mother. There was no sexual intercourse between them
ISSUE: Whether or not the accused appellant can validly invoke insanity. during their first night and same thing happened until their fourth night. In an effort to have their
honeymoon in a private place, they went to Baguio but Gina’s relatives went with them. Again,
there was no sexual intercourse since the defendant avoided by taking a long walk during siesta or obligations. In addition, respondent alleged that such state of psychological incapacity was present
sleeping on a rocking chair at the living room. Since May 1988 until March 1989 they slept together prior and even during the time of the marriage ceremony. Hence, respondent prays that her
in the same bed but no attempt of sexual intercourse between them. Because of this, they marriage be declared null and void under Article 36 of the Family Code. On November 8, 2002,
submitted themselves for medical examination to a urologist in Chinese General Hospital in 1989. petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss6 the petition. Petitioner principally argued that the petition
The result of the physical examination of Gina was disclosed, while that of the husband was kept failed to state a cause of action and that it failed to meet the standards set by the Court for the
confidential even the medicine prescribed. There were allegations that the reason why Chi Ming interpretation and implementation of Article 36 of the Family Code.
Tsoi married her is to maintain his residency status here in the country. Gina does not want to On November 8, 2002, petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss the petition. Petitioner principally argued
reconcile with Chi Ming Tsoi and want their marriage declared void on the ground of psychological that the petition failed to state a cause of action and that it failed to meet the standards set by the
incapacity. On the other hand, the latter does not want to have their marriage annulled because he Court for the interpretation and implementation of Article 36 of the Family Code.
loves her very much, he has no defect on his part and is physically and psychologically capable and On January 14, 2003, the RTC ISSUEd an Order denying petitioner’s motion.
since their relationship is still young, they can still overcome their differences. Chi Ming Tsoi On February 21, 2003, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was, however, denied by
submitted himself to another physical examination and the result was there is not evidence of the RTC in an Order dated December 17, 2003. A review of the petition shows that it observed the
impotency and he is capable of erection. requirements in Republic vs. Court of Appeals (268 SCRA 198), otherwise known as the Molina
Doctrine. There is a cause of action presented in the petition for the nullification of marriage under
Article 36 of the Family Code.
ISSUE: Whether Chi Ming Tsoi’s refusal to have sexual intercourse with his wife constitutes On February 16, 2004, petitioner appealed the RTC decision to the CA via petition for
psychological incapacity. certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
On October 6, 2005, the CA rendered a Decision dismissing the petition.

Whether or not the petition for the declaration of nullity filed by the private respondent is sufficient
The abnormal reluctance or unwillingness to consummate his marriage is strongly indicative of a and has complied with the RULING of the Molina case.
serious personality disorder which to the mind of the Supreme Court clearly demonstrates an utter
insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance tot the marriage within the meaning of RULING:
Article 36 of the Family Code. Yes. Petitioner anchors his petition on the premise that the allegations contained in respondent’s
petition are insufficient to support a declaration of nullity of marriage based on psychological
If a spouse, although physically capable but simply refuses to perform his or her essential marital incapacity. Specifically, petitioner contends that the petition failed to comply with three of the
obligations and the refusal is senseless and constant, Catholic marriage tribunals attribute the Molina guidelines, namely: that the root cause of the psychological incapacity must be alleged in the
causes to psychological incapacity than to stubborn refusal. Furthermore, one of the essential complaint; that such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to
marital obligations under the Family Code is to procreate children thus constant non-fulfillment of assume the essential obligations of marriage; and that the non-complied marital obligation must be
this obligation will finally destroy the integrity and wholeness of the marriage. stated in the petition.17
First, contrary to petitioner’s assertion, this Court finds that the root cause of psychological
14. Aurelio v Aurelio incapacity was stated and alleged in the complaint. We agree with the manifestation of respondent
that the family backgrounds of both petitioner and respondent were discussed in the complaint as
FACTS: the root causes of their psychological incapacity. Moreover, a competent and expert psychologist
Petitioner Danilo A. Aurelio and respondent Vida Ma. Corazon Aurelio were married on March 23, clinically identified the same as the root causes.
1988. They have two sons, namely: Danilo Miguel and Danilo Gabriel. On May 9, 2002, respondent Second, the petition likewise alleged that the illness of both parties was of such grave a nature as to
filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 94, a Petition for Declaration of bring about a disability for them to assume the essential obligations of marriage. The psychologist
Nullity of Marriage. In her petition, respondent alleged that both she and petitioner were reported that respondent suffers from Histrionic Personality Disorder with Narcissistic Features.
psychologically incapacitated of performing and complying with their respective essential marital Petitioner, on the other hand, allegedly suffers from Passive Aggressive (Negativistic) Personality
Disorder.lawph!1 The incapacity of both parties to perform their marital obligations was alleged to RULING:
be grave, incorrigible and incurable.
Lastly, this Court also finds that the essential marital obligations that were not complied with were The parties’ whirlwind relationship lasted more or less six months. They met in January 1996, eloped
alleged in the petition. As can be easily gleaned from the totality of the petition, respondent’s in March, exchanged marital vows in May, and parted ways in June. The psychologist who provided
allegations fall under Article 68 of the Family Code which states that "the husband and the wife are expert testimony found both parties psychologically incapacitated. Petitioner’s behavioral pattern
obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and falls under the classification of dependent personality disorder, and respondent’s, that of the
support." narcissistic and antisocial personality disorder
It bears to stress that whether or not petitioner and respondent are psychologically incapacitated to
fulfill their marital obligations is a matter for the RTC to decide at the first instance. A perusal of the There is no requirement that the person to be declared psychologically incapacitated be personally
Molina guidelines would show that the same contemplate a situation wherein the parties have examined by a physician, if the totality of evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of
presented their evidence, witnesses have testified, and that a decision has been reached by the psychological incapacity. Verily, the evidence must show a link, medical or the like, between the
court after due hearing. Such process can be gleaned from guidelines 2, 6 and 8, which refer to a acts that manifest psychological incapacity and the psychological disorder itself.
decision rendered by the RTC after trial on the merits. It would certainly be too burdensome to ask
this Court to resolve at first instance whether the allegations contained in the petition are sufficient The presentation of expert proof presupposes a thorough and in-depth assessment of the parties by
to substantiate a case for psychological incapacity. the psychologist or expert, for a conclusive diagnosis of a grave, severe and incurable presence of
psychological incapacity.
15. Te v Te
Indeed, petitioner, afflicted with dependent personality disorder, cannot assume the essential
FACTS: marital obligations of living together, observing love, respect and fidelity and rendering help and
support, for he is unable to make everyday decisions without advice from others, and allows others
Petitioner Edward Te first met respondent Rowena Te in a gathering organized by the Filipino- to make most of his important decisions (such as where to live). As clearly shown in this case,
Chinese association in their college. Initially, he was attracted to Rowena’s close friend but, as the petitioner followed everything dictated to him by the persons around him. He is insecure, weak and
latter already had a boyfriend, the young man decided to court Rowena, which happened in January gullible, has no sense of his identity as a person, has no cohesive self to speak of, and has no goals
1996. It was Rowena who asked that they elope but Edward refused bickering that he was young and clear direction in life.
and jobless. Her persistence, however, made him relent. They left Manila and sailed to Cebu that
month; he, providing their travel money of P80,000 and she, purchasing the boat ticket. As for the respondent, her being afflicted with antisocial personality disorder makes her unable to
assume the essential marital obligations on account for her disregard in the rights of others, her
They decided to go back to Manila in April 1996. Rowena proceeded to her uncle’s house and abuse, mistreatment and control of others without remorse, and her tendency to blame others.
Edward to his parents’ home. Eventually they got married but without a marriage license. Edward Moreover, as shown in this case, respondent is impulsive and domineering; she had no qualms in
was prohibited from getting out of the house unaccompanied and was threatened by Rowena and manipulating petitioner with her threats of blackmail and of committing suicide.
her uncle. After a month, Edward escaped from the house, and stayed with his parents. Edward’s
parents wanted them to stay at their house but Rowena refused and demanded that they have a Both parties being afflicted with grave, severe and incurable psychological incapacity, the
separate abode. In June 1996, she said that it was better for them to live separate lives and they precipitous marriage that they contracted on April 23, 1996 is thus, declared null and void.
then parted ways.
16. People v Cruz
After four years in January 2000, Edward filed a petition for the annulment of his marriage to
Rowena on the basis of the latter’s psychological incapacity. This is an appeal from the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated May 30, 2008in CA-G.R. CR-H.C.
No. 01760, which affirmed the August 12, 2002 Decision inCriminal Case No. 99-329 of the Regional
ISSUE: Whether the marriage contracted is void on the ground of psychological incapacity. Trial Court, Branch 259 in Parañaque City.
FACTS: staining of her honor, rather than a violation of herbeing. It was considered a private crime, and only
On June 6, 1998, AAA, then a nine-year old, was at her house watching television with her cousin the injured party or specific familymembers could file a complaint against the perpetrator.
Jady. It was past three in the afternoon when Jady left to go to her grandmother’s house. Upon her
departure, Cruz abruptly entered the house and turned off the television. He closed the windows 17. Agustin v CA and Martin
and told AAA to remove her shorts. She did as instructed. Cruz later kissed AAA and touched her
vagina. She felt pain as he inserted his penis into her vagina. She did not do anything, however, as FACTS:
she was fearful of Cruz. To intimidate her further, Cruz threatened to kill her should she report what
had just happened. He then left in a hurry and closed the door of the house. Respondents Fe Angela and her son Martin Prollamante sued Martin’s alleged biological father,
petitioner Arnel Agustin, for support and support pendente lite before the Quezon City RTC.
AAA tried her best to keep the rape a secret as she was terrified that Cruz would come back and kill
her. Nevertheless, she told her mother BBB what happened to her a few months later. BBB In their complaint, respondents alleged that Arnel courted Fe, after which they entered into an
subsequently told Cruz’s wife of what she had just discovered. Thereafter, BBB took her daughter to intimate relationship. Arnel supposedly impregnated Fe on her 34th birthday but despite Arnel’s
the barangay hall and then to the police station to report the matter to the authorities. A medical insistence on abortion, Fe decided to give birth to their child out of wedlock, Martin. The baby’s
examination was conducted on AAA by Dr. Winston Tan. His report showed that AAA had two birth certificate was purportedly signed by Arnel as the father. Arnel shouldered the pre-natal and
hymenal lacerations. Accused Jesus Paragas Cruz was then found guilty beyond reasonable doubt by hospital expenses but later refused Fe’s repeated requests for Martin’s support despite his adequate
the RTC of Parañaque for the crime of Rape. In an appeal before the Court of Appeals, RTC’s decision financial capacity and even suggested to have the child committed for adoption. Arnel also denied
was affirmed, hence this appeal. having fathered the child.

ISSUE: On January 2001, while Fe was carrying five-month old Martin at the Capitol Hills Golf and Country
Whether or not the court erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty beyondreasonable doubt of Club parking lot, Arnel sped off in his van, with the open car door hitting Fe’s leg. This incident was
the crime of rape? reported to the police. Several months later, Fe was diagnosed with leukemia and has, since then,
been undergoing chemotherapy. Fe and Martin then sued Arnel for support.
The appeal is DENIED. The CA’s Decision finding accused Fe and Martin moved for the issuance of an order directing all the parties to submit themselves to
-appellant JesusParagas Cruz guilty of statutory rape is affirmed with the modification that the DNA paternity testing, which Arnel opposed by invoking his constitutional right against self-
award of exemplary damages is increased to P30,000. incrimination and moving to dismiss the complaint for lack of cause of action.
Courts use the following principles in deciding rape cases: (1) an accusationof rape can be made with The trial court denied the MTD and ordered the parties to submit themselves to DNA paternity
facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the personaccused, though innocent, to disprove; testing at the expense of the applicants. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, thus this
(2) due to the nature of the crime of rape in whichonly two persons are usually involved, the petition.
testimony of the complainant must bescrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the
prosecution must stand orfall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the
weakness of theevidence for the defense. Due to the nature of this crime, conviction for rape may ISSUE: W/N the court erred in directing parties to subject to DNA paternity testing and was a form
besolely based on the compl of unreasonable search
ainant’s testimony provided it is credible, natural, convincing,
and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. RULING:
The crime of rape, under the old provisions of the Revised Penal Code, wasconsidered a "Crime No. In Ople v. Torres,the Supreme Court struck down the proposed national computerized
against Chastity," implying that only "virtuous" or "chaste" womencan be victims of rape. More identification system embodied in Administrative Order No. 308, we said:
emphasis was placed on the "loss of chastity" of a woman orthe denigration of her "value" and the
In no uncertain terms, we also underscore that the right to privacy does not bar all incursions into Whether a prima facie showing is necessary before a court can ISSUE a DNA testing order
individual privacy. The right is not intended to stifle scientific and technological advancements that
enhance public service and the common good... Intrusions into the right must be accompanied by RULING:
proper safeguards that enhance public service and the common good. Yes, but it is not yet time to discuss the lack ofa prima facie case vis-à-vis the motion for DNA testing
since no evidence has, as yet, been presented by petitioner.
Historically, it has mostly been in the areas of legality of searches and seizures, and the infringement RATIO:
of privacy of communication where the constitutional right to privacy has been critically at issue. Misapplication of Herrera v. Alba by the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals. The
Petitioner’s case involves neither and, as already stated, his argument that his right against self- statement in Herrera v. Alba that there are four significant proceduralaspects in a traditional
incrimination is in jeopardy holds no water. paternity case which parties have to face has been widely misunderstood and misapplied in this
case. A party is confronted by these so-called procedural aspects during trial, when the parties have
18. Lucas v Lucas presented their respective evidence. They are matters of evidence that cannot be determined at this
initial stage of the proceedings, when only the petition to establish filiation has been filed. The CA’s
FACTS: observation that petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case is herefore misplaced. A prima facie
Petitioner, Jesse Lucas filed a Petition to Establish Filiation with a Motion for the Submission of case is built by a party’s evidence and not by mere allegations in the initiatory pleading.
Parties to DNA Testing before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Jesse alleged that he is the son of his Section 4 of the Rule on DNA Evidence merely provides for conditions that areaimed to safeguard
mother Elsie who got acquainted with respondent, Jesus S. Lucas in Manila. He also submitted the accuracy and integrity of the DNA testing. It states that the appropriate court may, at any time,
documents which include (a) petitioner’s certificate of live birth; (b) either motu proprio or on application of any person, who has a legal interest in the matter in
petitioner’s baptismal certificate; (c) petitioner’s college diploma, showing that he graduated from litigation, order a DNA testing. Such order shall ISSUE after due hearing and notice to the parties
Saint Louis University in Baguio City with a degree in Psychology; (d) his Certificate of Graduation upon a showing of the following: (a) A biological sample exists that is relevant to the case;(b)
from the same school; (e) Certificate of Recognition from the University of the Philippines, College of The biologicalsample: (i) was not previously subjected to the type of DNA testing now requested; or
Music; and (f) clippings of several articles from different newspapers about petitioner, as a musical (ii) was previously subjected to DNA testing, but the results may require confirmation for good
prodigy. reasons; (c) The DNA testing uses a scientifically valid technique; (d) The DNA testing has the
Jesus learned of this and he filed a Special Appearance and Comment manifesting that the petition scientific potential to produce new information that is relevant to the proper resolution of the case;
was adversarial in nature and therefore summons should be served on him. Meanwhile, Jesse filed a and (e) The existence of other factors, if any, which the court may consider as potentially affecting
Very Urgent Motion to Try and Hear the Case which the RTC found to be sufficient in form and the accuracy or integrity of the DNA testing. This Rule shall not preclude a DNA testing, without
hence set the case for hearing. Jesus filed a Motion for Reconsideration arguing that DNA testing need of a prior court order, at the behest of any party, including law enforcement agencies, before a
cannot be had on the basis of a mere allegation pointing to him as Jesse’s father. suit or proceeding is commenced. This does not mean, however, that a DNA testing order will be
Acting on Jesus’ Motion for Reconsideration, the RTC dismissed the case and held that Jesse failed to issued as a matter of right if, during the hearing, the said conditions are established.
establish compliance with the four procedural aspects for a paternity action enumerated in the case In some states, to warrant the issuance of the DNA testing order, there must be a show cause
of Herrera v. Alba namely, a prima faciecase, affirmative defences, presumption of legitimacy, and hearing wherein the applicant must first present sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case
physical resemblance between the putative father and the child. or a reasonable possibility of paternity or “good cause” for the holding of the test. In these states, a
This prompted Jesse to file a Motion for Reconsideration which the RTC granted. A new hearing was court order for blood testing is considered a “search,” which, under their Constitutions (as in ours),
scheduled where the RTC held that RULING on the grounds relied upon by Jesse for filing the instant must be preceded by a finding of probable cause in order to be valid. Hence, the requirement of a
petition is premature considering that a full-blown trial has not yet taken place. Jesus filed a Motion prima facie case, or reasonable possibility, was imposed in civil actions as a counterpart of a finding
for Reconsideration which was denied by the RTC. He then filed a petition for certiorari with the of probable cause. Courts in various jurisdictions have differed regarding the kind of procedures
Court of Appeals (CA). The CA ruled in favour of Jesus, it noted that Jesse failed to show that the which are required, but those jurisdictions have almost universally found that a preliminary showing
four significant aspects of a traditional paternity action had been met and held that DNA testing must be made before a court can constitutionally order compulsory blood testing in paternity cases.
should not be allowed when the petitioner has failed to establish a prima facie case. Weagree, and find that, as a preliminary matter, before the court may ISSUE an order for
compulsory blood testing, the moving party must show that there is a reasonable possibility of
ISSUE: paternity. As explained hereafter, in cases in which paternity is contested and a party to the action
refuses to voluntarily undergo a blood test, a show cause hearing must be held in which the court as proof of filiation and they cannot be admitted indirectly as circumstantial evidence to prove the
can determine whether there is sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case which warrants same.
issuance of a court order for blood testing The same condition precedent should be applied in our
jurisdiction to protect the putative father from mere harassment suits. Thus, during the hearing on 20. De Villa v Director, New Bilibid Prisons
the motion for DNA testing, the petitioner must present prima facie evidence or establish a
reasonable possibility of paternity.”

19. Perla v Baring and Perla

FACTS: Respondent Mirasol Baring (Mirasol) and petitioner Antonio Perla (Antonio) were allegedly
neighbors. Eventually, they became sweethearts. When Mirasol became pregnant, Antonio allegedly
assured her that he would support her. However, Antonio started to evade her.

Mirasol and her then minor son, Randy Perla (Randy), filed before the RTC a Complaint for support
against Antonio. Mirasol and Randy thus prayed that Antonio be ordered to support Randy. During
the trial, Mirasol presented Randys Certificate of Live Birth and Baptismal Certificate indicating her
and Antonio as parents of the child. Mirasol testified that she and Antonio supplied the information
in the said certificates. The RTC rendered a decision ordering Antonio to support Randy, which was
affirmed by CA.


Is Randy entitled for support from Antonio?

Mirasol and Randy's Complaint for support is based on Randy's alleged illegitimate filiation to
Antonio. Hence, for Randy to be entitled for support, his filiation must be established with sufficient
certainty. The Court has ruled that a high standard of proof is required to establish paternity and
filiation. An order for x xx support may create an unwholesome situation or may be an irritant to the
family or the lives of the parties so that it must be issued only if paternity or filiation is established
by clear and convincing evidence.

In the case at bar, Mirasol and Randy failed to establish Randys illegitimate filiation to Antonio. The
Certificate of Live Birth and baptismal certificate of Randy have no probative value to establish
Randys filiation to Antonio since the latter had not signed the same. A certificate of live birth
purportedly identifying the putative father is not competent evidence of paternity when there is no
showing that the putative father had a hand in the preparation of said certificate. Also, while a
baptismal certificate may be considered a public document, it can only serve as evidence of the
administration of the sacrament on the date specified but not the veracity of the entries with
respect to the childs paternity. Thus, x xx baptismal certificates are per se inadmissible in evidence