Philippine Law Updates

The existence of grounds for legal separation does not foreclose the possibility of psychological incapacity. #nullityofmarriage #philippinelawonmarraige #supremecourtdecision

"A dismissed employee is entitled to moral damages when the dismissal is attended by bad faith or fraud or constitutes an act oppressive to labor, or is done in a manner contrary to good morals, good customs or public policy." Bad faith connotes a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong, or a breach of a known duty through some motive or interest or ill will that partakes of the nature of fraud.

It cannot be overemphasized that Dr. Daz cannot be assumed to be responsible for the bursting of the water bag. Precisely, that it gave way cannot be attributed to his fault. It goes deep into a discussion on the instrument itself or its dilapidated state. How can a doctor be responsible for the usability of an instrument that can be safely assumed to be that of the hospital's? The Court would have appreciated the circumstances differently had the instrument/s used been his or her own, such that it relates to his or her specialization. It would be unreasonable to assume that a water bag would be a personal instrument of a doctor such that he or she would be responsible for its condition. Nevertheless, regardless of who owns the instrument, whether the doctor or the hospital, the propriety of its use would still depend on evidence acceptable before the Court, based on law and jurisprudence. As will be later discussed, the circumstances surrounding the propriety of using a water bag require expert testimony.

A party to a civil marriage who converts to Islam and contracts another marriage, despite the first marriage's subsistence, is guilty of bigamy. Likewise guilty is the spouse in the subsequent marriage. Conversion to Islam does not operate to exculpate them from criminal liability. Further, a married Muslim cannot marry another. In exceptional cases, a married Muslim man may do so if "he can deal with them with equal companionship and just treatment as enjoined by Islamic law." The formal requisites of the subsequent marriage under Presidential Decree No. 1083 or the Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines (Muslim Code) entails the wife's knowledge of the impending subsequent marriage.

Pursuant to its policy to protect the safety, health, and welfare of women and children, the State has a duty to acknowledge the different, but no less damaging forms, that violence and abuse can take, to provide meaningful safeguards that concurrently defend the wellbeing of the victims and seek commensurate redress from their abusers. Marital infidelity is one such form of domestic violence that not only transgresses the matrimonial vows of faithfulness and commitment, but also inflicts inconceivable psychological and emotional harm upon the aggrieved spouse and their children. As a form of psychological abuse, marital infidelity destroys the stability and unity of the family at its core, shatters the self-worth and trust of the betrayed spouse, and fosters deep-seated trauma borne of emotional turmoil and related mental health issues. To stem the perpetuation of the cycle of abuse, and to prevent the normalization of extramarital promiscuity in our society, the Court declares marital infidelity to be a form of psychological violence punishable under Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004. (Excerpts from the Supreme Court decision)

This is a petition for review of the decision dated January 31, 1992 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 19240, modifying the judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Santiago, Isabela, Branch 21, in Criminal Case No. 066. Petitioner George Manantan was acquitted by the trial court of homicide through reckless imprudence without a ruling on his civil liability. On appeal from the civil aspect of the judgment in Criminal Case No. 066, the appellate court found petitioner Manantan civilly liable and ordered him to indemnify private respondents Marcelino Nicolas and Maria Nicolas P104,400.00 representing loss of support, P50,000.00 as death indemnity, and moral damages of P20,000.00 or a total of P174,400.00 for the death of their son, Ruben Nicolas. This is only an excerpt from the above-cited Supreme Court decision.

Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code provides that one of the circumstances that is exempt from criminal liability is when a person is insane, unless they have acted during a lucid interval. Insanity in the context of this exempting circumstance is defined in People v. Formigones as being "deprived completely of reason or discernment and freedom of the will at the time of committing the crime."[118] In determining whether a defense of insanity may prosper, this Court laid down the following three-way test in People v. Paña, thus, clarifying the guidelines in Formigones: Formigones

The right to speedy disposition of cases is provided for in Section 16, Article III, of the 1987 Constitution. In determining whether the right to speedy disposition of cases has been violated, the following guidelines in this Supreme Court decision must be considered.

Republic Act No. 9262 or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 also applies even if the perpetrator is a woman, so long as the victim is a woman.

The police officers were obliged to give the appellant notice, show to her their authority, and demand that they be allowed entry. They may only break open any outer or inner door or window of a house to execute the search warrant if, after such notice and demand, such officers are refused entry to the place of directed search. This is known as the "knock and announce" principle which is embodied in Anglo-American Law. The method of entry of an officer into a dwelling and the presence or absence of such notice are as important considerations in assessing whether subsequent entry to search and/or arrest is constitutionally reasonable.

As to the third element of a violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Practices Act, the Court finds that the same is also absent. Case law identifies the two ways by which said section may be committed, namely: (a) causing undue injury to any party, including the government; or (b) giving any private party any unwarranted benefit, advantage, or preference. In the present case, the Sandiganbayan convicted petitioners under the second mode. It held that they gave unwarranted benefit, advantage, or preference to Hydrock when they awarded the contract without public bidding. In fact, the company started working on the project even before the notice of award and notice to proceed were issued. The Court stressed in Adana,however, that to be found guilty under the second mode, it must be shown that the accused gave unjustified favor or unwarranted benefit to another in the exercise of his or her official functions. Adana elucidates:

In order to secure a conviction of an accused under Section 32 of Republic Act No. 7166, the prosecution must prove that: (a) the person is bearing, carrying, or transporting firearms or other deadly weapons; (b) such possession occurs during the election period; and (c) the weapon is carried in a public place. It is essential that possession of the deadly weapon in a public place be established beyond reasonable doubt #lawoffice #iloilo #gunban #election2025

In this 2024 decision, the Supreme Court recognized another classification of employment which is the fixed-term. A fixed-term employment is an arrangement wherein an employee is hired for projects with pre-determined completion or in a work where a fixed term is essential and a natural appurtenance of the work. The work performed here may also be necessary or desirable to the usual trade of the employer.

It is necessary that a conspirator should have performed some overt act as a direct or indirect contribution to the execution of the crime committed. The overt act may consist of active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself, or it may consist of moral assistance to his [co-conspirators] by being present at the commission of the crime or by exerting moral ascendancy over the other [co-conspirators].Conspiracy may be proven by evidence of a chain of circumstances. It may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime which indubitably points to and is indicative of a joint purpose, concert of action, and community of interest.

An employer cannot legally be compelled to continue with the employment of a person admittedly guilty of gross negligence in the performance of his duties. This holds true specially if the employee's continued tenure is patently inimical to the employer's interest.

The absence of the insulating witnesses at the time of apprehension and for approximately 30 minutes thereafter constituted a significant gap in the chain of custody, which casts reasonable doubt as to the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti. Moreover, the prosecution did not provide any explanation whatsoever as to the buy-bust team's failure to secure the presence of the insulating witnesses prior to the operation.

A disappearance has a doubly paralyzing impact: on the victim, who is removed from the protection of the law, frequently subjected to torture and in constant fear for their lives; and on their families, ignorant of the fate of their loved ones, their emotions alternating between hope and despair, wondering and waiting, sometimes for years, for news that may never come.[58] The feeling of insecurity generated by this practice is not limited to the close relatives of the disappeared, but also affects their communities and society as a whole.[59] Therefore, it is the duty of all States, under any circumstances, to make investigations whenever there is reason to believe that an enforced disappearance has taken place on a territory under their jurisdiction and, if allegations are confirmed, to prosecute its perpetrators. Given the foregoing discourse, the Court finds and so holds that the members of Tayo, Jr.'s family are entitled to the privilege of the writ of amparo. #writofamparo #philippines

For the valid issuance of a search warrant, specific requisites must be met to prevent abuse of power, viz.: (1) probable cause is present; (2) such probable cause must be determined personally by the judge; (3) the judge must examine, in writing and under oath or affirmation, the complainant and the witnesses they may produce; (4) the applicant and the witnesses testify on the facts personally known to them; and (5) the warrant specifically describes the place to be searched and the things to be seized. #searchwarrant #philippines #lawyer #iloilo #iloilocity

The mental disability of the victim was not disputed. However, the victim's level of disability has not been equated to a specific "mental age." Evidence must be adduced to aid the court in determining not only the existence of the illness and its level of severity but as well of its manifestations and the corresponding mental age of the subject.

It is true that under Section 481 of R.A. No. 7160, otherwise known as the "Local Government Code of 1991," a legal officer, such as Mata, is required to render his opinion on any question of law when requested to do so by his appointing authority, and to recommend measures and advise on all other matters related to upholding the rule of law. However, and as keenly pointed out during the deliberations of this case, the act of rendering legal advice—by and of itself, and no matter how erroneous—does not constitute a violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. Otherwise, the dockets of the Court will be clogged with criminal cases against lawyers in the government for rendering legal advice, which eventually turned out to be incorrect.