Dela Torre vs Imbuido

Pedrito was married to Carmen. Carmen was to give birth in the Divine Spirit General Hospital.. Carmen
delivered via ceasarian section. The next day, Carmen experienced abdominal pain and difficulty in
urinating. She was diagnosed to be suffering from urinary tract infection (UTI). Her stomach was also
growing bigger. Initially, Pedrito was told that his wife was merely experiencing ‘kabag”, but eventually
advised Perdrito of a necessary 2nd operation on the wife. Despite the operation, Carmen did not
improve. She began couphing blood. She eventually fied. Pedrito sued the owners of the hospital for
medical malpractice. To support his case, he presented the testimony of f Dr. Patilano, the medicolegal
officer who conducted an autopsy on the body of Carmen upon a telephone request made by the City
Health Officer of Olongapo City. Dr Patilano testified that upon examination of the corpse, he concluded
that he cause of death was peritonitis which could have been due to the conditions of the instruments
used, the materials used in the operating room being not aseptic and the ladies assisting the operation
were not in uniform (See Note 1 for testimony) . The RTC ruled for Pedrito. The CA reversed. Hence this
petition.

Whether Pedrito is entitled to damages –NO

In medical malpractice suits, the claimant has the duty to prove that the medical practitioner failed to do
something which a reasonably prudent health care provider would have done, or that he or she did
something that a reasonably prudent provider would not have done; and that failure or action caused
injury to the patient. In particular he needs to prove 4 elements:

(1) duty;
(2) breach;
(3) injury; and
(4) proximate causation.

In this case, Pedrito relied upon the testimony of Dr. Patilano. The SC ruled that Dr. Patilano’s testimony
was not sufficient to support Pedrito’s claim because:

1.) It was not duly established that Dr. Patilano practiced and was an expert in the fields that
involved Carmen's condition
2.) Pedrito’s study was limited to examining Carmen’s corpse at the time. His study did not consider
Carmen’s full medical history, her actual health condition at the time of hospital admission, and
her condition as it progressed while she was being monitored and treated by the respondents.
3.) While Dr. Patilan concluded that Carmen died of peritonitis which could be due to the poor state
of the hospital equipment and medical supplies used during her operation, there was no
sufficient proof that any such fault actually attended the surgery of Carmen, caused her illness
and resulted in her death.
4.) The PNP Crime lab also cionducted an investigation. The Nedico Legal Division of the PNP stated
that Dr. Patilano
5.) did not comply with the basic autopsy procedure when he examined the cadaver of Carmen. Dr.
Patilano did not appear to have thoroughly examined Carmen's vital organs such as her heart,
lungs, uterus and brain during the autopsy. His findings were then inconclusive on the issue of
the actual cause of Carmen's death
Notes

1.) In the intestines, [Dr. Patilano] found out that it was more reddish than the normal condition
which is supposed to be pinkish. There was presence of adhesions, meaning, it sticks to each
other and these areas were dilated. There were constricted areas. He concluded that there might
have been foreign organic matters in the intestines. He did not see any swelling but assuming
that there was, it would be concomitant to the enlargement. . . . He came to the conclusion that
the cause of death was peritonitis, with the multiple adhesions status in the post caesarian
section. In connection with peritonitis, this is the

Continental Steel Manufacturing Corporation

Hortillano was an employee of Continental Steel Manufacturing Corporation (Continental Steel). His
unborn child died, as his wife had a premature delivery. Because of this Hortillano availed of both
Paternity leave and bereavement leave as provided under the existing CBA. Continental Steel granted
paternity leave, but denied the bereavement leave. According to Continental Steel, this was because
there were 3 requirements to properly avail bereavement leave:

(1) death;
(2) the death must be of a: dependent, i.e., parent, spouse, child, brother, or sister, of an employee;
and
(3) legitimate relations of the dependent to the employee.

Continental Steel believed that:

(1) There was no death as it believed that for there to be death, one must first be alive. Continental
Steel believed that only one with civil personality could die. They argued that the unborn child
did not have civil personality in accordance with Arts 40,41, and 42 of the Civil Code, hence the
unborn child could not die.
(2) The unborn child was not a dependent.

Hortillano resorted to grievance machinery. Atty. Montaño, the appointed Accredited Voluntary
Arbitrator ruled that Hortillano was entitled to bereavement leave. The CA affirmed. Hence this petition.

Whether Hortillano was entitled to Bereavement leave? –YES

Continental Steel’s belief that one needed to have civil personality to have life which is required to die is
erroneous. Civil personality is different from life. While the Civil Code expressly provides that civil
personality may be extinguished by death, it does not explicitly state that only those who have acquired
juridical personality could die. Even a child inside the womb already has life. No less than the
Constitution recognizes the life of the unborn from conception. If an unborn has life, it could die.

As to whether the unborn being a dependent, the SC rules that it was a dependent. A dependent is "one
who relies on another for support; one not able to exist or sustain oneself without the power or aid of
someone else". Under said general definition, even an unborn child is a dependent of its parents.
Hortillano's child could not have reached 38-39 weeks of its gestational life without depending upon its
mother, Hortillano's wife, for sustenance.
Notes

1.) It is apparent that according to the Family Code and the afore-cited jurisprudence, the
legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child attaches upon his/her conception. In the present case, it was
not disputed that Hortillano and his wife were validly married and that their child was conceived
during said marriage, hence, making said child legitimate upon her conception.

People vs Paycana

Jesus Paycana was a butcher. He went home 6:30 in the morning. According to Jesus, he and his wife
had an altercation the previous day because Jesus saw a man come out of their home. He went home to
announcing that he was leaving. As he was packing his things he alleged that his wife WHO WAS 7
MONTHS PREGNANT stabbed him once. He then wrested the knife from his wife and then stabbed her
14 times. The wife and the unborn child died. Jesus’ daughter had a different version of the events. She
testified that she saw her father choke and stabbed the mother as she was greeting him home. There
was no provocation on the mother’s part. Jesus was charged with the complex crime of parricide with
unintentional abortion. Jesus tried to argue that his act was of self defense. The lower courts convicted
him. Hence this petition.

Whether the crime committed in relation to the unborn child was unintentional abortion or
infanticide? –UNINTENTINAL ABORTION

As distinguished from infanticide, the elements of unintentional abortion are as follows:

(1) that there is a pregnant woman;

(2) that violence is used upon such pregnant woman without intending an abortion;
(3) that the violence is intentionally exerted; and
(4) that as a result of the violence the fetus dies, either in the womb or after having been expelled
therefrom.

In the crime of infanticide, it is necessary that the child be born alive and be viable, that is, capable of
independent existence. However, even if the child who was expelled prematurely and deliberately were
alive at birth, the offense is abortion due to the fact that a fetus with an intrauterine life of 6 months is
not viable. In the present case, the unborn fetus was also killed when the appellant stabbed Lilybeth
several times.

Whether Jesus’ or his daughter’s testimony was more believable? –THE DAUGHTER’S TESTIMONY
WAS MORE BELIEVEABLE

The Court agrees with the trial court's observation, thus:

Angelina who is 15 years old will not testify against her father were it not for the fact that she
personally saw her father to be the aggressor and stab her mother. Telling her grandfather
immediately after the incident that accused stabbed her mother is part of the res gestae hence,
admissible as evidence. Between the testimony of Angelica who positively identified accused to
have initiated the stabbing and continuously stabbed her mother and on the other hand, the
 testimony of accused that he killed the victim in self-defense, the testimony of the former
prevails.

Republic vs Jennifer Kagandahan

Jennifer Kagandahan was born female. She filed a Petition for Correction of Entries in Birth Certificate.
She wanted to change her gender from female to male, and change her first name to Jeff. As testified by
Dr. Michael Sionzon of the Department of Psychiatry of UP, Kagandahan was suffering from a condition
called Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH) which is a condition where persons thus afflicted possess
both male and female characteristics. Kagandahan was bor female but because her body secretes male
hormones, her female organs did not develop normally and she has two sex organs — female and male.
The RTC granted the petition. The OSG appealed.

Whether a change in the birth certificate was proper –YES

The SC ultimately rules that our laws has to conform with nature. Here Kagandahan naturally possesses
the characteristics of both sexes. As a result, respondent has ambiguous genitalia and the phenotypic
features of a male. The Court believes that Kagandahan should have the right to choose her sex.

Notes

1.) The OSG tried to argue that the correction to be done in this case was in accordance with Rule
108. OSG argues that The Civil Registrar was an indispense party who was not impleaded so the
action was procedurally defective. The SC rules there is substantial compliance with Rule 108
when respondent furnished a copy of the petition to the local civil registrar

People vs Francisco

Francisco was a deaf-mute who was charged with rape and homicide. Throughout that trial (even in the
arraignment) he was not assisted with a sign language expert. He was convicted. in a motion for
reconsideration, the counsel of Francisco brought to the Court's attention that he was convicted without
the assistance of a sign language expert. Upon several tests done upon Francisco, it was concluded that
Francisco was a deaf-mute and who could not read, and suffers from a moderate degree of mental
retardation with an estimated IQ of 60.

Whether Francisco was accorded due process? –NO

"The absence of an interpreter in sign language who could have conveyed to the accused, a deaf-mute,
the full facts of the offense with which he was charged and who could also have communicated the
accused's own version of the circumstances which led to his implication in the crime, deprived the
accused of a full and fair trial and a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. Not even the accused's
final plea of not guilty can excuse these inherently unjust circumstances.

The absence of a qualified interpreter in sign language and of any other means, whether in writing or
otherwise, to inform the accused of the charges against him denied the accused his fundamental right to
due process of law. The accuracy and fairness of the factual process by which the guilt or innocence of
the accused was determined was not safeguarded. The accused could not be said to have enjoyed the
right to be heard by himself and counsel, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him in the proceedings where his life and liberty were at stake."

All the foregoing studiedly considered, the court is of the irresistible conclusion that movant richly
deserves a re-arraignment and re-trial, to the end that only upon proof of guilt beyond reasonable
doubt may he be consigned to the lethal injection chamber.

People vs Aleman

Aleman was accused and convicted in the RTC of the crime of robbery with homicide. The main piece of
evidence presented by the prosecution was the testimony of Mark Aldomovar who was a 14 year old
deaf-mute. He was able to recite his testimony with the help of Daniel Catinguil who was a licensed sign
language interpreter from the Philippine Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf who has been teaching in
the Philippine School for the Deaf since 1990. According to Mark, on the day of the incident, he went to
play in a basketball court. He peed near the parking area. There, he saw 2 persons (one of which he later
identified as Aleman), who surrounded the victim and attacked him (one was armed with a gun while
another was armed with a knife). The malefactors took the belongings of the victim, went to a place far
away, and then buried their weapons. The CA affirmed the conviction, hence this petition wherein
Aleman attacks the credibility of Mark

Whether Mark’s testimony was credible? –YES

Aleman puts into issue the fact that Mark was a deaf mute. The SC rules that

The mere fact that Mark is a deaf-mute does not render him unqualified to be a witness. The rule is that
all "all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception to others, may be
witnesses." Both the RTC and the CA were convinced that Mark understood and appreciated the sanctity
of an oath and that he comprehended the facts he testified on. This Court sees no reason in ruling
otherwise.

It is to be noted that Mark communicated his ideas with the help of Catinguil (See Note 1). The trial and
the appellate courts found Catinguil qualified to act as interpreter for Mark. No ground to disturb that
finding exists.

Additional, the SC notes that Mark's testimony was corroborated by the findings of the medico-legal
officer who autopsied the victim's corpse that the cause of death was "hemorrhagic shock secondary to
multiple stab wounds [in] the thorax."

Aleman also put into issue that Mark was initially unable to identify during the police lineup. The SC
rules that there is no law stating that a police line-up is essential to proper identification. What matters
is that the positive identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime be made by the witness
in open court.

Notes
 1.) Catiguil was a licensed sign language interpreter from the Philippine Registry of Interpreters for
the Deaf who has been teaching in the Philippine School for the Deaf since 1990 and possessed
special education and training for interpreting sign language.
2.) Aleman’s defense was that he had an alibi: he was in the billiards hall when the crinme took
place. This alibi was corroborated by Aleman’s grandmother and sister. The courts gave greater
weight to Mark’s testimony.

People vs Nunez

Cayetano along with Nunez and 1 other person at large was charged with Kidnapping for Ransom. What
happened was that Nunez tricked a certain Joseph Rivera and Neil Quillosa to go with them. Nunez then
bound the 2 and made a tape recording of Rivera asking for help from his parents. The plan was to
demand P3 million pesos from the parents of Rivera. Meanwhile Neil was drowned in the river. Accused
Cayetano was tasked to guard Rivera, but instead he cut grass. This inattentiveness was what allowed
Rivera to escape and call his grandmother for help. During the trial for kidnapping for ransom, one of the
defenses of Cayetano was that he was an imbecile as proven by the fact that when he was tasked to
guard Rivera, he instead cut grass. The lower courts did not accept this defense. In the end the lower
courts convicted Cayetano. Hence this petition.

Whether Cayetano was an imbecile? –NO

Imbecility, one of the exempting circumstances under Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code, is defined as
feeblemindedness or a mental condition approaching that of one who is insane. It is analogous to
childishness and dotage. An imbecile, within the meaning of Article 12, is one who must be deprived
completely of reason or discernment and freedom of will at the time of committing the crime. He is one
who, while advanced in age, has a mental development comparable to that of children between two
and seven years of age.

The SC finds that Cayetano was not suffering from imbecility as:

1.) The act of attending to cutting the grass instead of guarding Rivera may be considered as
negligence but definitely not childishness or even that of one completely deprived of reason or
discernment and freedom of the will
2.) Cayetano admitted on cross examination that he can tell what is right and what is wrong

Notes

1.) Assuming arguendo that accused-appellant is an imbecile or a feebleminded person, in the case
of People v. Formigones, 8 it was held that feeblemindedness is not exempting, because the
offender could distinguish right from wrong. An imbecile or an insane cannot. In any case, Article
800 of the Civil Code provides that "the law presumes that every person is of sound mind, in the
absence of proof to the contrary." The allegation of insanity or imbecility must be clearly proved.
Moreover, the law presumes all acts to be voluntary. It is improper to presume that acts were
executed unconsciously.
People vs Aquino

Aquino raped Carmelita Morado in a clinic and then hit her with a rock. Thinking that the victim was
dead, he left her there. Apparently, Morado did not die immediately. She was found by Armando Frias
who asked her what had happened; she explained that she was raped by Aquino. She was then brought
to a hospital, but she eventually died. Police officers arrested Aquino who was found in a dance hall. He
was interrogated with an Atty. present. A complaint was filed against him,, but before he could be
arraigned, Motion to Commit appellant to the National Center for Mental Health was filed and granted;
this was because Aquino appeared to be exhibiting signs of mental disorder. Upon arraignment, he
pleaded not guilty and raised the defense of insanity. To prove his insanity, he presented the testimony
of Dr. Nicanor L. Echavez, a psychiatrist at the National Center for Mental Health. He testified that he
conducted physical, mental and psychological examinations and found him to be suffering from mental
disorder classified under organic mental disorder with psychosis. He was of the opinion that when
appellant Juanito Aquino committed the heinous act, the latter was totally deprived of mind. The lower
courts still convicted Aquino. Hence this petition. Hence this petition.

Whether Aquino was insane? –NO

Insanity exists when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act, that is, the
accused is deprived of reason, he acts without the least discernment because there is complete absence
of the power to discern, or there is total deprivation of the freedom of the will. Mere abnormality of the
mental faculties will not exclude imputability. The onus probandi rests upon whoever invokes insanity as
an exempting circumstance and must prove it by clear and positive evidence. As to how insanity can be
proved, the SC explains that as insanity is a state of mind that can be known by outward acts. In
interpreting these physical manifestations, scientific knowledge and experience have been resorted to
by our judicial agencies.

The SC finds that Aquino was not insane in such that he was deprived of reason when he committed the
crime. The testimony of Dr. Echavez did not prove absolutely that Aquino was deprived of reason. He
admitted that a person suffering from insanity may know that what he is doing is wrong and that he
observed that the mental illness of appellant came on and off (See Note 1)

Another indication that Aquino was not deprived of reason at the time of commission was that Aquino’s
admissions during an interview in the mental institutions matched his previous extrajudicial confessions
(See Note 2). This shows that he was not deprived of intelligence at the time of the incident

Notes

1.) While Dr. Nicanor L. Echavez of the National Center for Mental Health described the mental
illness of the accused as "organic mental disorder with psychosis," 28 he admitted that a person
suffering from insanity may know that what he is doing is wrong. 29 The same witness also
testified that there is no possibility of appellant having lucid intervals, 30 but he, however, also
observed that the mental illness of appellant came on and off.
2.) The clinical case report also shows that appellant, when interviewed upon his admission to the
mental institution, recalled having taken 120 cubic centimeters of cough syrup and consumed
about 3 sticks of marijuana before the commission of the crime. 32 This admission substantially
affirms his prior extrajudicial confession that he was under the influence of marijuana when he
 sexually abused the victim and, on the occasion thereof, killed her. 33 It is, therefore, beyond
cavil that assuming appellant had some form of mental illness, it did not totally deprive him of
intelligence. The presence of his reasoning faculties, which enabled him to exercise sound
judgment and satisfactorily articulate the aforesaid matters, sufficiently discounts any intimation
of insanity of appellant when he committed the dastardly felonies.

People vs Austria

One night, Austria went to the house of Myrna Samson and her children while they were sleeping. He
stabbed Myrna, her son and her daughter. The daughter survived, but Myrna and her son died. Austria
was charged with 2 counts of murder and 1 count of frustrated murder. Austria set up the defense of
insanity by presenting Dr. Constantine D. Della to testify. It was explained that as early as 1972 (17 years
before the crime) he had been in and out of confinement in a mental hospital. This was because he was
diagnosed with Schizophrenic Psychosis, Paranoid type (See Note 1 and 2). Dr. Della explained that he
was having a relapse at the time of the commission. According to Austria, it was only the schizophrenic
manifestations that disappear and not the disease itself. He was convicted in the lower court. Hence this
petition.

Whether Austria was insane insucthat he should not be found criminally liable? –YES

Insanity exists when there is complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act, that is, the
accused is deprived of reason, he acts without the least discernment because there is complete absence
of the power to discern, or that there is total deprivation of freedom of the will. Mere abnormality of
the mental faculties will not exclude imputability.

The SC analyzed that schizophrenia would be considered insanity if it deprived completely of reason or
discernment and freedom of the will at the time of committing the crime

The SC is convinced that the testimonial and documentary evidenced marshalled in this case by
acknowledged medical experts have sufficiently established the fact that appellant was legally insane at
the time he committed the crimes. His previous confinements, as early as 1972, his erratic behavior
before the assaults and Dr. Della's testimony that he was having a relapse all point to a man deprived of
complete freedom of will or a lack of reason and discernment that should thus exempt him from
criminal liability

Note however that while Austria is not criminally liable, he is still civilly liable.

Notes

1.) "In view of the foregoing history, examinations, interviews, and observations, the patient Roger
N. Austria is found to be suffering from a long-standing illness classified as Schizophrenic
Psychosis, Paranoid type. This is manifested by the patient as follows: (1) deterioration in areas
of work, social relations, and personal hygiene; (2) auditory hallucinations; (3) incoherence and
irrelevance; (4) talking by himself; (5) delusions of grandeur; (6) delusion of persecution; (7) poor
impulse control, judgment, and insight; (8) walking aimlessly; (9) failure to sleep well; and (10)
violent and destructive behavior." 7
 2.) Schizophrenia is defined as a chronic mental disorder characterized by inability to distinguish
between fantasy and reality, and often accompanied by hallucinations and delusions.

Republic vs Javier

Martin and Michelle were married. 6 years into their marriage, Martin filed a petition for declaration of
nullity. According to him, both he and Michelle were psychologically incapacitated. In support of this
allegation, he presented the psychological findings of Dr. Adamos which confirmed that Martin and
Michelle were psychologically incapacitated. Dr Adamos was able to reach his conclusions regarding
Martin by having 10 interview/counselling sessions with Martin. More specifically, Dr. Adamos
diagnosed him with Narcissistic Personality Disorder which was supposedly caused by his childhood. On
the other hand, Dr. Adamos reached his conclusions with regard to Michelle by interviewing a certain
Jose Vicente who was said to be a regular confidant of Michelle. MICHELLE WAS NOT INTERVIEWED
BECAUSE SHE DID NOT RESPOND TO THE REQUEST FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION. Dr Adamos also
concluded that Michelle was suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder which was also rooted in
her childhood. The RTC denied Martin’s petition, but the CA reversed. The CA ruled that both Martin and
Michelle were suffering from psychological incapacity. Hence this petition

Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to support the conclusion that both Michelle and
Martin were suffering from psychological incapacity? –NO, ONLY MARTIN WAS SUFFICIENTLY PROVEN
TO BE SUFFERING

The SC noted first noted that the findings of the psychologist are not immediately invalidated for the
simple reason that the subject (Michelle) was not interviewed. That being said, the SC finds that there
was insufficient evidence to support the conclusion that Michelle was suffering from psychological
incapacity. The interview with Jose Vicente by itself could not have painted a full picture of Michelle’s
family and childhood from which her disorder was supposedly rooted. Without a credible source of her
supposed childhood trauma, Dr. Adamos was not equipped with enough information from which he may
reasonably conclude that Michelle is suffering from a chronic and persistent disorder that is grave and
incurable.

On the other hand, Dr. Admos’ 10 interviews with Martin was, according to the SC, gave Dr Admos
sufficient basis to conclude that Martin was indeed suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder
derived from childhood trauma (See Note 1)

These circumstances, taken together, prove the three essential characteristics of psychological incapacity
on the part of Martin. As such, insofar as the psychological incapacity of Martin is concerned, the CA did
not commit a reversible error in declaring the marriage of the respondents null and void under Article 36
of the Family Code.

Notes

1.) Dr. Adamos concluded from the tests administered on Martin that this disorder was rooted in
the traumatic experiences he experienced during his childhood, having grown up around a
violent father who was abusive of his mother. 53 This adversely affected Martin in such a
manner that he formed unrealistic values and standards on his own marriage, and proposed
 unconventional sexual practices. When Michelle would disagree with his ideals, Martin would
not only quarrel with Michelle, but would also inflict harm on her. 54 Other manifestations
include excessive love for himself, self-entitlement, immaturity, and self- centeredness.

People vs Genosa

Marivic was married to Ben. Marivic would often experience battery from her husband especially
whenever he was drunk. On the day of the incident Marivic was 8 months pregnant. She again
experienced battery at the hands of her husband; this time it seemed that Ben was armed with a knife.
Marivic was able to smash the knife out of Ben’s had. She then ran inside her children’s bedroom. AT
this point, Ben already ceased his attack and went to bed. Marivic then got a gun and killed Ben by
shooting him with it. Marivic was charged with parricide. She raised the defense that she was suffering
from “Battered Woman Syndrome”

Whether Marivic was criminally liable? –YES

The Battered Woman Syndrome, if proven, could satisfy the requisites of self defense. To prove the
existence of BWS, one would need to establish the “cycle of violence” which has 3 phases: 1) the
tension-building phase; (2) the acute battering incident; and (3) the tranquil, loving (or, at least,
nonviolent) phase. (See Note 1). Additionally, one must prove that the cycle happened at least twice.

In this case, Marivic failed to proffer sufficient evidence in regard to the third phase of the cycle. She
simply mentioned that she would usually run away to her mother’s or father’s house; that Ben would
seek her out, ask for her forgiveness and promise to change; and that believing his words, she would
return to their common abode.

Additionally, she failed to prove that in at least another battering episode in the past, she had gone
through a similar pattern.

Notes

1.) BWS Phases

a. During the tension-building phase, minor battering occurs -- it could be verbal or slight
physical abuse or another form of hostile behavior. The woman usually tries to pacify
the batterer through a show of kind, nurturing behavior; or by simply staying out of his
way. What actually happens is that she allows herself to be abused in ways that, to her,
are comparatively minor. All she wants is to prevent the escalation of the violence
exhibited by the batterer. This wish, however, proves to be double-edged, because her
“placatory” and passive behavior legitimizes his belief that he has the right to abuse her
in the first place. However, the techniques adopted by the woman in her effort to
placate him are not usually successful, and the verbal and/or physical abuse worsens.
Each partner senses the imminent loss of control and the growing tension and despair.
Exhausted from the persistent stress, the battered woman soon withdraws emotionally.
But the more she becomes emotionally unavailable, the more the batterer becomes
angry, oppressive and abusive. Often, at some unpredictable point, the violence “spirals
out of control” and leads to an acute battering incident.
 b. The acute battering incident is said to be characterized by brutality, destructiveness
and, sometimes, death. The battered woman deems this incident as unpredictable, yet
also inevitable. During this phase, she has no control; only the batterer may put an end
to the violence. Its nature can be as unpredictable as the time of its explosion, and so
are his reasons for ending it. The battered woman usually realizes that she cannot
reason with him, and that resistance would only exacerbate her condition. At this stage,
she has a sense of detachment from the attack and the terrible pain, although she may
later clearly remember every detail. Her apparent passivity in the face of acute violence
may be rationalized thus: the batterer is almost always much stronger physically, and
she knows from her past painful experience that it is futile to fight back. Acute battering
incidents are often very savage and out of control.
c. The final phase of the cycle of violence begins when the acute battering incident ends.
During this tranquil period, the couple experience profound relief. On the one hand, the
batterer may show a tender and nurturing behavior towards his partner. He knows that
he has been viciously cruel and tries to make up for it, begging for her forgiveness and
promising never to beat her again. On the other hand, the battered woman also tries to
convince herself that the battery will never happen again; that her partner will change
for the better; and that this “good, gentle and caring man” is the real person whom she
loves.
2.) We now sum up our main points. First, 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
intimate partner. Second, 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. Third, 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 perpetrated by the former
against the latter. Taken altogether, these circumstances could satisfy the requisites of self-
defense. Under the existing facts of the present case, however, not all of these elements were
duly established.

People vs Umanito

The prosecution alleges that accused Umanito raped AAA. AAA did not immediately report the incident
to the police because she was threatened by the accused that she would be killed if she reported the
incident. 6 months later, AAA mother noticed that AAA’s stomach was growing. It was then that AAA
confessed that she was raped. They then went to the police station to report the incident. Umanito was
charged and convicted of rape. Umanito appealed to the CA but to no avail. Hence this petition where
Umanito was mainly pointing to the several inconsistencies in the statements made by AAA. The most
prominent inconsistency being that AAA initially claimed that she met Umanito only on the day of the
purported rape; later, she stated that they were actually friends; and still later, she admitted that they
were close.

Whether Umanito was guilty of rape –THE SC RULED THAT THE CASE SHOULD BE REMANDED TO THE
RTC IN ORDER TO UTILIZE THE NEW RULE ON DNA EVIDENCE
The SC noted the fact that AAA gave birth as a result of the purported rape. If it could be proven that
Umanito was not the father, there would be serious doubt that he committed the crime charged. The SC
thus remands the case back to the trial court and directed AAA and AAA's child to submit themselves to
DNA testing under the New Rule on DNA Evidence

Should the RTC find the DNA testing feasible in the case at bar, it shall order the same, in conformity with
Section 5 of the Rules. It is also the RTC which shall determine the institution to undertake the DNA
testing and the parties are free to manifest their comments on the choice of DNA testing center.

After the DNA analysis is obtained, it shall be incumbent upon the parties who wish to avail of the same
to offer the results in accordance with the rules of evidence. The RTC, in evaluating the DNA results upon
presentation, shall assess the same as evidence in keeping with Sections 7 and 8 of the Rules

Aquino vs Delizo

Aquino and Delizo were married. 4 months into their marriage. Delizo gave birth. Aquino believed that
Delizo hid the fact that she was impregnated by another man before their marriage, and therefore filed
a complaint for annulment on the basis of fraud. During the trial, the trial court noted that there was no
birth certificate showing that the child was born within 180 days after the marriage between the parties,
and held that concealment of pregnancy as alleged by plaintiff does not constitute such fraud as would
annul a marriage. The trial court, therefore, dismissed the complaint. Aquino filed a motion for
reconsideration/new trial stating that he now has documents such as the birth certificate of the child
which he was unable to btain in the past because of excusable negligence. Delizo was asked by the court
to answer the MR, but she did not. Because of this, the lower court denied the motion. Hence this
petition.

Whether the lower court rightfully denied the motion for new trial? –NO

The SC finds that the evidence sought to be introduced at the new trial, taken together with what has
already been adduced would be sufficient to sustain the fraud alleged by plaintiff. This is because Under
the new Civil Code, concealment by the wife of the fact that at the time of the marriage, she was
pregnant by a man other than her husband constitutes fraud and is ground for annulment of marriage.
(Art. 85, par. (4) in relation to Art. 86, par. (3).

Notes

1.) Discussion on evident pregnancy - In the case of Buccat vs. Buccat (72 Phil., 19) cited in the
decision sought to be reviewed, which was also an action for the annulment of marriage on the
ground of fraud, plaintiff's claim that he did not even suspect the pregnancy of the defendant
was held to be unbelievable, it having been proven that the latter was already in an advanced
stage of pregnancy (7th month) at the time of their marriage. That pronouncement, however,
cannot apply to the case at bar. Here the defendant wife was alleged to be only more than four
months pregnant at the time of her marriage to plaintiff. At that stage, we are not prepared to
say that her pregnancy was readily apparent, especially since she was "naturally plump" or fat as
alleged by plaintiff. According to medical authorities, even on the 5th month of pregnancy, the
enlargement of a woman's abdomen is still below the umbilicus, that is to say, the enlargement
 is limited to the lower part of the abdomen so that it is hardly noticeable and may, if noticed, be
attributed only to fat formation on the lower part of the abdomen. It is only on the 6th month of
pregnancy that the enlargement of the woman's abdomen reaches a height above the
umbilicus, making the roundness of the abdomen more general and apparent. (See Lull, Clinical
Obstetrics, p. 122.) If, as claimed by plaintiff, defendant is "naturally plump", he could hardly be
expected to know, merely by looking, whether or not she was pregnant at the time of their
marriage, more so because she must have attempted to conceal the true state of affairs. Even
physicians and surgeons, with the aid of the woman herself who shows and gives her subjective
and objective symptoms, can only claim positive diagnosis of pregnancy in 33 % at five months
and 50% at six
2.) The appellate court also said that it was not impossible for plaintiff and defendant to have had
sexual intercourse before they got married and therefore the child could be their own. This
statement, however, is purely conjectural and finds no support or justification in the record.

People vs Adoviso

Adoviso was charged and convicted in the lower courts of committing murder as against Emetrio and
Rufino (Emetrio’s grandson). Adoviso was convicted on the basis of the positive identification of
Bonifacio (Emetrio’s son) and Elmer (Bonifacio’s son). Adoviso was alleged to have shot the victims at
night with 4 other men, but Adoviso was the only one identified as he was the only one without a mask.
Adoviso’s defense included alibi and a polygraph test. As mentioned previously, he was convicted, hence
this appeal.

Whether the polygraph test may be given evidentiary weight? –NO

American courts almost uniformly reject the results of polygraph tests when offered in evidence for the
purpose of establishing the guilt or innocence of one accused of a crime, whether the accused or the
prosecution seeks its introduction, for the reason that polygraph has not as yet attained scientific
acceptance as a reliable and accurate means of ascertaining truth or deception. 32 The rule is no
different in this jurisdiction. Thus, in People v. Daniel, 33 stating that much faith and credit should not be
vested upon a lie detector test as it is not conclusive. Appellant, in this case, has not advanced any
reason why this rule should not apply to him.