Intestate Estate of Manolita Gonzales Vda. De Carungcong , G.R. No.

181409, February 11, 2011

Article 38 of Void and Voidable Marriages

Facts:

Mediatrix Carungcong, in her capacity as the duly appointed administratrix of petitioner intestate estate of her deceased mother
Manolita Gonzales vda. De Carungcong, filed a complaint-affidavit for estafa against her brother-in-law, William Sato, a Japanese
national. It was alleged that the said accused feloniously induced Manolita Gonzales, the owner of the estate and herein deceased,
to sign and thumb mark a special power of attorney (in the pretense of presenting a document pertaining to taxes) which authorized
the sale, assignment, transfer and disposition of the latter’s properties. In relation to this, the accused moved for the dismissal of
the case.

As a defense against his arrant prosecution, the accused here applies Art 332 of the Revised Penal Code. He cites that he falls under
the enumeration of those relatives who shall be exempt from criminal prosecution. Being a relative by affinity, he cannot be held
liable for the crime of estafa as stated in the law. He further counters that the same law makes no distinction that the relationship
may not be invoked in case of death of spouse at the time the crime was allegedly committed. Thus, the death of his spouse Zenaida
Carungcong Sato though dissolved the marriage with the accused, did not on the other hand dissolve the mother in-law and son-
law relationship between Sato and his wife’s mother, Manolita. He then cannot be removed from the protective mantle of Art 332.

Issues:

1. Whether or not the death of William’s wife and Manolita’s daughter, Zenaida, extinguished the relationship by affinity between
William and Manolita.
2. Whether or not William should be exempt from criminal liability for reason of his relationship to Manolita.

Held:

1. No. Relationship by affinity between the surviving spouse and the kindred of the deceased spouse continues even after the death
of the deceased spouse, regardless of whether the marriage produced children or not.
2. No. The absolutory cause under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code only applies to the felonies of theft, swindling and malicious
mischief. Under the said provision, the State condones the criminal responsibility of the offender in cases of theft, swindling and
malicious mischief. As an act of grace, the State waives its right to prosecute the offender for the said crimes but leaves the private
offended party with the option to hold the offender civilly liable.

However, the coverage of Article 332 is strictly limited to the felonies mentioned therein. The plain, categorical and unmistakable
language of the provision shows that it applies exclusively to the simple crimes of theft, swindling and malicious mischief. It does
not apply where any of the crimes mentioned under Article 332 is complexed with another crime, such as theft through falsification
or estafa through falsification.

Sato, the accused, could not avail of the beneficial application of ART 332 considering that the crime he committed falls under the
nature of a complex crime which is the crime estafa through falsification of public document and does not anymore concern private
relations of family members. He then can be held criminally liable.
PEOPLE v. MARCELINO OLOVERIO, GR No. 211159, 2015-03-18
Facts:
Issues:
Ruling:
Accused-appellant Marcelino Oloverio is guilty only of homicide under Article 249 of the
Revised Penal Code. He is entitled to the mitigating circumstances of passion and
obfuscation and of voluntary surrender.
Principles:
Passion and obfuscation as a mitigating circumstance need not be felt only in the seconds
before the commission of the crime. It may build up and strengthen over time until it can no
longer be repressed and will ultimately motivate the commission of the... crime.
[T]here is passional obfuscation when the crime was committed due to an uncontrollable
burst of passion provoked by prior unjust or improper acts, or due to a legitimate stimulus so
powerful as to overcome reason."
"The obfuscation must originate from lawful feelings. The turmoil and unreason which
naturally result from a quarrel or fight should not be confused with the sentiment or
excitement in the mind of a person injured or offended to such a degree as to deprive him of
his sanity and... self-control, because the cause of this condition of mind must necessarily
have preceded the commission of the offense."
Moreover, "the act producing the obfuscation must not be far removed from the commission
of the crime by a considerable length of time, during which the accused might have
recovered his normal equanimity.
 People v. Genosa, GR No. 135981

Subject Matter: Applications of the provisions of Art. 11(1) and Art. 14 of the Revised Penal
Code
Facts:
Marivic Genosa, the appellant, on November 15, 1995, attacked and wounded his husband which
ultimately led to his death. According to the appellant, she did not provoke her husband when she got
home that night and it was her husband who began the provocation. The appellant said she was
frightened that her husband would hurt her and she wanted to make sure she would deliver her baby
safely.
The appellant testified that during her marriage she had tried to leave her husband at least five times,
but that Ben would always follow her and they would reconcile. The appellant said that the reason
why Ben was violent and abusive towards her that night was because he was crazy about his recent
girlfriend, Lulu Rubillos. The appellant, after being interviewed by specialist, has been shown to be
suffering from Battered Woman Syndrome. The appellant with a plea of self-defense admitted the
killing of her husband. She was found guilty of the crime of parricide, with the aggravating
circumstance of treachery, for the husband was attacked while asleep.

Issues:
(1) Whether or not appellant acted in self-defense.
(2) Whether or not treachery attended the killing.

Held:
For the first issue, the SC held that the defense failed to establish all the elements of self-defense
arising from battered woman syndrome, to wit: (a) Each of the phases of the cycle of violence must
be proven to have characterized at least two battering episodes between the appellant and her
intimated partner; (b) The final acute battering episode preceding the killing of the batterer must have
produced in the battered person’s mind an actual fear of an imminent harm from her batterer and an
honest belief that she needed to use force in order to save her life, and; (c) At the time of the killing,
the batterer must have posed probable – not necessarily immediate and actual – grave harm to the
accused based on the history of violence perpetuated by the former against the latter.

For the second issue, the SC ruled out treachery as an aggravating circumstance because the quarrel
or argument that preceded the killing must have forewarned the victim of the assailant’s aggression.
PEOPLE V. SABILUL (G.R. No. L-3765)

Facts:
In the afternoon of September 14, 1949, while appellant Moro Sabilul was plowing in the vicinity of
hishouse and, he asked his wife, Mora Mislayan, for some water. T h e l a t t e r p r o c e e d e d
towards the creek, but no sooner had she arrived at the place than
theappellant heard a noise. 44

This caused the appellant to rush to the scene where he found Moro Lario wrestling with and on top of
MoraMislayan who was shouting "don't, don't". Whereupon, picking up a pira (a Yakan bladed weapon)
which he noticed nearby, the appellant slashed MoroLario on the right side of the face. Appellant’s wife
ran away upon appellant's arrival. Moro Lario also attempted to flee, but he was overtaken and slashed a
few more times by the appellant, afterwhich Moro Lario fell and died.
Issue:
Whether the defendant is guilty of murder for killing his wife’s paramourHeld: The Supreme Court
found appellant had killed Moro Lario in actual adultery with appellant's wife, andthus was sentenced
to destierro under article 247 of the Revised Penal Code. The murder was committed while the
deceased Lario was in the act of committing sexual intercourse withappellant's wife, Mora
Mislayan.In the main it is argued that, if appellant's wife was really forced by Moro Lario, she would
not have run awayupon appellant's arrival.
TEODORA L. VDA. De Miranda and others, plaintiffs-appellants,
vs. Feliciano IMPERIAL IMPERIAL AND JUANA, defendants-appellees.
GR No. L-49090 February 28, 1947

FACTS: Defendants Feliciano and Juana Imperial barrowed from plaintiff Miranda the amount
of P1,000; that in consideration of this debt and to guarantee payment they executed verbal
antichresis in favor of the latter. In an action filed by Miranda against Imperial, the lower court
in deciding based its finding in the judgment delivered by the Court of Appeals in the case of
Santa Rosa vs. Noble. Obtaining a negative judgment, appellant has brought the present appeal
claiming that the court erred in applying the case of Santa Rosa vs. Noble alleging that cases
decided by the court of appeals does not constitute precedent and hence may not be applied in
deciding cases.

ISSUE: Whether the decisions of the Court of Appeals constitute precedents.

HELD: Only the decisions of Supreme Court establish jurisprudence or doctrines in the
jurisdiction. However, this does not prevent that a conclusion or pronouncement of the Court
of Appeals which covers a point of law still undecided in our jurisprudence may serve as
juridical guide to the inferior courts, and that such conclusion or pronouncement be raised as a
doctrine if, after it has been subjected to test in the crucible of analysis and revision, this
Supreme Court should find that it has merits and qualities sufficient for its consecration as a rule
of jurisprudence.
People vs Que Po Lay Case Digest
G.R. No. L-6791

Facts: Que Po Lay is appealing from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila,
finding him guilty of violating Central Bank Circular No. 20. The charge was that the appellant
who was in possession of foreign exchange failed to sell to the Central Bank through its agents
within one day following the receipt of such foreign exchange as required by Circular No. 20. He
appeals basing on the claim that said circular No. 20 was not published in the Official Gazette
and that consequently, said circular had no force and effect.

Issues: Whether there was a need for a publication of the said circular to make it effective?

Whether the respondent is guilty of violating the said Circular 20?

Held: The Court agrees that the laws in question do not require the publication of the circulars,
regulations and notices therein mentioned in order to become binding and effective. All that
said two laws provide is that laws, resolutions, decisions of the Supreme Court and Court of
Appeals, notices and documents required by law to be of no force and effect.

Article 2 of the new Civil Code (Republic Act No. 386) equally provides that laws shall take effect
after fifteen days following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette, unless it is
otherwise provided.

Moreover, as a rule, circulars and regulations especially like the Circular No. 20 of the Central
Bank in question which prescribes a penalty for its violation should be published before
becoming effective, this, on the general principle and theory that before the public is bound by
its contents, especially its penal provisions, a law, regulation or circular must first be published
and the people officially and specifically informed of said contents and its penalties. The Court
further contends that appellant could not be held liable for its violation, for it was not binding at
the time he was found to have failed to sell the foreign exchange in his possession thereof.