Jose Cristobal C.

Liwanag
Asynchronous Activity - October 27, 2023

Second Video: PART 2 | NABUNTIS NI BUNSO SI ATE.

The video is about two siblings by consanguinity who engaged in an incestuous

relationship that resulted in the pregnancy of the elder of the two.

Under the Art. 165 of the Family Code, children conceived and born outside a
valid marriage are considered illegitimate. In the video, the child conceived was a
product of an incestuous relationship between an elder sister and her youngest brother.
Since they are not married to each other, the child born will be illegitimate.

Even if by some reason they got married and later on discovered that they are in
fact blood siblings, their marriage is incestuous and void from the beginning under Art.
37 of the Family Code. Thereafter, the child conceived from a void ab initio marriage is
deemed illegitimate, except when the ground for the declaration of nullity is
psychological incapacity or a void subsequent marriage under Article 53 of the Family
Code.

Though extremely frowned upon, incestuous relations between two consenting

adults is not illegal nor criminalized under this jurisdiction. Consequently, there can be
no criminal charges filed against them for having consensual relations, be it sexual or
otherwise.
 Third Video: HULI SA AKTO NI MRS SI MR SA ILALIM NG KAMA NI KABIT!

The video was about how a wife caught her husband in the house of the alleged
mistress. Later on in the video, we can hear that the alleged mistress is still married to
her husband when the events caught on video took place.

The wife could pursue a case of Concubinage under the Revised Penal Code.
Concubinage refers to the cohabitation of a married man with a mistress in the same or
conjugal dwelling or an involvement of a married man with a woman who is not his wife
in any other place.
However, the case of concubinage would not prosper if it is not proven that the
husband and the alleged mistress had sexual intercourse/sexual relations.

In a recent case decided by the Supreme Court (XXX vs People of the Philippines,
G.R. No. 250219, March 1, 2023), marital infidelity by the husband was ruled to be
psychological violence in violation of RA 9262 or the Anti-VAWC Act. In the
decision,The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' and Regional Trial Court's
rulings, finding that all the elements of a violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act No.
9262 were present. These elements are:

- The offended party must be a woman and/or her child or children.

- The woman must be either the wife or former wife of the offender.
- The offender must cause mental or emotional anguish to the woman
and/or child.
- The anguish must be caused through acts of public ridicule or humiliation,
repeated verbal and emotional abuse, denial of financial support or
custody of minor children, or access to the children, or similar acts or
omissions.

As for the alleged mistress, who as we found out later on in the video was still
married to her husband, if proven that she had sexual relations or had sexual
intercourse with a man not her husband, she could be charged with adultery for every
single instance of sexual intercourse she had with the man that is not her husband.

Lastly, both the philandering husband and alleged mistress may be charged with
both concubinage and adultery since the case of concubinage and adultery has to be filed
against the erring spouse as well as the paramour.
 Fourth Video: MAG-BIYENAN, NAGTANAN!

The video was about how a father “stole” the wife of his child, and how together
they have run away, leaving behind their respective spouses, as well as minor children.

The aggrieved spouses, the mother and the son, could pursue a case of
Concubinage and adultery for both the father and the wife of the father’s child since
under the Revised Penal Code, adultery is committed by a wife and should be charged
together with the other man, while concubinage is committed by a husband and should
be charged together with the other woman or concubine. Concubinage refers to the
cohabitation of a married man with a mistress in the same or conjugal dwelling or an
involvement of a married man with a woman who is not his wife in any other place.
Since they have run away together to a palace unknown to both their respective spouses,
such a fact could be appreciated as proof of cohabitation, and consequently, falling
within the ambit of the provisions against concubinage.

As for the wife who run away with his father in law, who was still married to her
husband, if proven that she had sexual relations or had sexual intercourse with a man
not her husband, she could be charged with adultery for every single instance of sexual
intercourse she had with the man that is not her husband.

Moreover, both the philandering husband and runaway daughter in law may be
charged with both concubinage and adultery since the case of concubinage and adultery
has to be filed against the erring spouse as well as the paramour.

Furthermore, the philandering husband could be charged with violation RA

9262, under the provisions against psychological violence. In a recent case decided by
the Supreme Court (XXX vs People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 250219, March 1, 2023),
marital infidelity by the husband was ruled to be psychological violence in violation of
RA 9262 or the Anti-VAWC Act. In the decision,The Supreme Court upheld the Court of
Appeals' and Regional Trial Court's rulings, finding that all the elements of a violation of
Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 were present. These elements are:

The offended party must be a woman and/or her child or children.

The woman must be either the wife or former wife of the offender.
The offender must cause mental or emotional anguish to the woman and/or
child.
The anguish must be caused through acts of public ridicule or humiliation,
repeated verbal and emotional abuse, denial of financial support or custody of minor
children, or access to the children, or similar acts or omissions.
 Fifth Video: NUMBER 2, IPINA-TULFO SI NUMBER 1!

As the saying goes, “hell hath no fury like a woman scorned”. The video was about
how the alleged mistress was attacked by the legal wife during office hours of the alleged
mistress. This resulted in physical injuries of the alleged mistress as well as humiliation
and wounded feelings. Moreover, the legal wife was alleged to have spread

Under the Revised Penal Code the victim (alleged mistress) may file a case for
slight physical injuries. This will prosper if the victim does not require medical
attendance or is not prevented from engaging in habitual work, then the crime is
considered as slight physical injuries and punishable with imprisonment of arresto
menor (1 day to 30 days) OR a fine not exceeding P40,000. The penalty becomes higher
and is elevated to imprisonment of arresto mayor (1 month and 1 day to 6 months) if the
victim will require medical attention or is unable to work for a period of 1 to 9 days.
Thus, Art. 266 of the RPC states:

Art. 266. Slight physical injuries and maltreatment. – The crime of slight physical
injuries shall be punished:

1. By arresto mayor when the offender has inflicted physical injuries which shall
incapacitate the offended party for labor from one (1) day to nine (9) days or shall
require medical attendance during the same period.

2. By arresto menor or a fine not exceeding Forty thousand pesos (₱40,000)

and censure when the offender has caused physical injuries which do not prevent the
offended party from engaging in his habitual work nor require medical assistance.

3. By arresto menor in its minimum period or a fine not exceeding Five

thousand pesos (₱5,000) when the offender shall ill-treat another by deed without
causing any injury.”

More than this, the victim of the assault has alleged that the offender of the
assault has been spreading rumors and sensitive photos of her private parts by use of
fake accounts in social media through means of Facebook. Thus she can also be liable
for committing cyber libel under the Cybercrime Prevention Act which states that:

Sec. 4. Cybercrime Offenses. — The following acts constitute the offense of

cybercrime punishable under this Act:

xxxx

(c) Content-related Offenses:

 xxx
(4) Libel. — The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as defined in Article 355 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, committed through a computer system or any other similar
means which may be devised in the future.

Under the RPC, libel is defined as:

xxx
Art. 355. Libel means by writings or similar means. — A libel committed by means of writing,
printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition,
cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means, shall be punished…
xxx

In this jurisdiction, even if a statement is true, it doesn't automatically absolve

the defendant if the intention was to defame. Philippine libel law requires only that the
imputation be both defamatory and malicious. An imputation is defamatory if it ascribes
to a person the commission of a crime, the possession of a vice or defect, or any act,
omission, or condition that tends to dishonor or discredit them (Manila Bulletin v.
Domingo, 2017). Malice implies an intent to cause unjustifiable harm and to injure the
reputation of the person defamed. Philippine law presumes that every defamatory
imputation is malicious, even if it is true, unless the defendant can show a good
intention and justifiable motive for making it (Revised Penal Code, Art. 354). This
means that the legal wife could still be held liable criminally and civilly when she posts
about the affairs of her husband, as well as defames the alleged mistress, provided that
the intent to cause damage to the reputation of the husband and the mistress was
present.