You are on page 1of 24

Course No : JD 217

Course Title : LEGAL MEDICINE

Degree Program : Juris Doctor


Academic term : 1st. Sem. 2016
Time
: 9:00-10:00 p.m.
Friday

Zennie Jean L. Panadero

Atty. Emphasis

Student

Professor

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. NIXON

the floor, covered her mouth, and forcibly

MALAPO

removed her short pants and undergarment.


Next, he removed his pants, lay on top of her,

G.R. No. 123115 August 25, 1998

and forced his sexual organ into her private

Doctrine: In the case at bar, it can be

part, causing lacerations and bleeding in her

inferred that conception occurred at or about

vagina. Amalia said she tried to punch the

the time that accused-appellant is alleged to

accused-appellant and to remove his hand

have committed the crime, i.e., within 120

from her mouth, but he was too strong for

days from the commission of the offense in

her. After he had succeeded in having sexual

September 1991. 15 Pursuant to Art. 166 of

intercourse with her, accused-appellant left

the Family Code, accused-appellant can

after warning her that he would kill her if she

overcome the presumption that Amalia's child

reported the incident to Mrs. Nenita I. No

was begotten as a result of her having been

(Amalias aunt and guardian) or to anyone

raped in September 1991 only if he can show

else.

either that it was physically impossible for


him to have sexual intercourse because of
impotence or serious illness which absolutely
prevents him from having sexual intercourse
or that Amalia had sexual intercourse with
another man. However, accused-appellant
has not shown either of these.

Amalia Trinidad recounted how at around


9:30 in the morning in September 1991,
was

alone

at

home

(Nos

residence), accused-appellant Nixon Malapo


entered

their

not tell her what had happened to her. She


confirmed that it was only when she was
about to give birth to her baby on May 18,
1992 that she told Bernardita Marquinez that
Thus, an Information for the crime of

The rape victim, a psuedoretardate,

she

Mrs. No asked why she was crying, she did

she had been raped by accused-appellant.

FACTS: (MENDOZA, J.)

while

For this reason, Amalia said, when

house. Amalia

was

then

cooking. Upon seeing accused-appellant,


she tried to run away, but Malapo caught her
hand and brought her to the dining room. The
accused-appellant then caused her to fall on

rape was filed against accused. In the course


of the trial,he claimed alibi as his defense. He
presented as witnesses Felipe Edroso and
Santos Ramos to corroborate his claim that
he and Ramos worked together as duck
watchers hired by Edroso in San Jose, Buhi,
Camarines Sur, about fifteen kilometers away
from Salvacion, Iriga City, from July 1991
until January 1992.

The RTC found the accused guilty, hence

(a) the physical incapacity of the husband to

this appeal. His sole contention is that, as,

have sexual intercourse with his wife;

according to Exhibit 1-A, the baby was a full


term baby, it is unlikely, nay unbelievable,
that same baby was the fruit of the alleged
rape perpetrated sometime in September

(b) the fact that the husband and wife were


living separately in such a way that sexual
intercourse was not possible; or

1991, because from September 15, 1991

(c) serious illness of the husband, which

(assuming that the rape took place on

absolutely prevented sexual intercourse;

September

15,

1991,

there

being

no

evidence as to when in September 1991 the


rape took place) to May 18, 1992 when the
baby was born, is a period of only eight (8)
months and three (3) days, contrary to the
Certificate (Exh. 1 and 1-A) that the baby
was full term when delivered.
ISSUE: Is the accused the father of Amalias
baby?

(2) That it is proved that for biological or


other scientific reasons, the child could not
have been that of the husband, except in the
instance provided in the second paragraph of
Article 164; . . .
In the case at bar, it can be inferred that
conception occurred at or about the time that
accused-appellant

is

alleged

to

have

committed the crime, i.e., within 120 days

HELD: YES. A textbook on pediatrics states

from the commission of the offense in

that "Infants delivered before the thirty-

September 1991. Pursuant to Art. 166 of the

seventh week of gestation with a birth weight

Family

of less than 2,500 grams (American) or 2,275

overcome the presumption that Amalia's child

grams (Filipino) are considered premature."

was begotten as a result of her having been

An infant can therefore be considered a full-

raped in September 1991 only if he can show

term baby if it weighs more than 2,275 grams

either that it was physically impossible for

even if it is born before the thirty-seventh

him to have sexual intercourse because of

week which is less than 9.3 months. Since

impotence or serious illness which absolutely

according to the medical certificate (Exh. 1)

prevents him from having sexual intercourse

Amalia's baby weighed 2.4 kilograms or

or that Amalia had sexual intercourse with

2,400 grams, it was a full-term baby even if it

another man. However, accused-appellant

was born before the normal gestation period.

has not shown either of these.

Art. 166 of the Family Code provides:


Legitimacy of a child may be impugned only
on the following grounds:

Code,

The

accused-appellant

testimony

of

Amalia,

can

as

corroborated by Nenita No and Bernardita


Marquinez, leaves no doubt in our mind that
accused-appellant is the father of the child.

(1) That it was physically impossible for the

Therefore, in accordance with Art. 345 of the

husband to have sexual intercourse with his

Revised

wife within the first 120 days of the 300 days

should be ordered to pay support.

which immediately preceded the birth of the


child because of:

Penal

Code,

accused-appellant

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS.

Rulings:

ALBERTO MEDINA
G.R No. 113691

1. No. The decision was not based


on the qualifications of Dr. Adigue as a doctor

Facts:
June October 1982, Medina was
confined in the National Mental Hospital for
schizophreniform disorder, where he was
subsequently released. Relatives say that his
condition did not seem to improve. He was
referred

to

Dr.

Adigue

for

further

examinations. May 20, 1991, 11 pm, a party


was attended by both Dalisay and Medina,
as well as Larry Andal, where the both
Dalisay and Medina danced the chacha
together. Afterwards, Dalisay invited Andal to
go home, with Dalisay walking in front of
Larry. They were waylaid by Medina who
stabbed Dalisay. Dalisay fell down and the
two grappled on the ground. Dalisay was
able to run away but he was chased and
once more stabbed repeatedly by Medina.
Andal was so stunned that he wasnt able to
help Dalisay, who was brought DOA to the
hospital.

but as a witness. What mattered was the


failure of Dr. Adigues testimony to establish
the legal insanity of Medina as shown in the
results of the tests she conducted which
merely

says

that

Medina

depression and emotional

has

mild

disturbances.

The testimony also did not establish the


complete deprivation of reason on Medinas
part. Art. 12, par. 1 of the Revised Penal
Code, requires a complete deprivation of
rationality in committing the act; i.e., that the
accused be deprived of reason, that there be
no consciousness of responsibility for his
acts, or that there be complete absence of
the power to discern.

The presumption

of law, per Art. 800 of the Civil 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. The defense
of insanity or imbecility must be clearly
proved. Hence, in the absence of positive

The Trial Court convicted Medina of

evidence that the accused had previously

murder & said that his defense of insanity is

lost his reason or was demented moments

not meritorious since Dr. Adigue was not

prior to or during the perpetration of the

qualified as an expert witness, that his

crime, the courts will always presume that he

sisters testimony didnt constitute sufficient

was in a normal state of mind. Care must be

proof of insanity, and that he was actually

taken to distinguish between insanity or lack

mentally agile during trial.

of reason and failure to use reason or good


judgment due to extreme anger or passion.

Issues:

Moral insanity or mere mental depravity

1. Whether or not medina was insane


therefore exempt from criminal liability.
2. Whether or not the trial court erred
in

not

surrender

appreciating

Medinas

voluntary

results not from the disease of the mind but


from a perverted condition of the moral
system; person is sane and is not exempted
from the criminal liability.

2. The mitigating circumstance of


voluntary

surrender

should

have

been

found Bonoan guilty and sentenced him to


life imprisonment.

credited in favor of the appellant. The


solicitor general concurs and notes that
appellant, after having earlier given himself
up to a certain Col. Faltado, surrendered at
midnight on May 20, 1992, or about an hour
after the stabbing incident, to Wilfredo
Sevillano,

former

desk

officer

of

the

Batangas City Police Station. Hence, the


evidence

sufficiently

established

the

elements of voluntary surrender, namely: (1)


the offender has not been actually arrested;
(2) he surrendered himself to a person in
authority or an agent of a person in authority;
and (3) his surrender was voluntary.

The defense now appeals, claiming


the lower court made errors in finding
Bonoan suffered dementia only occasionally
and intermittently, did not show any kind of
abnormality,

that

the

defense

did

not

establish the defendants insanity and finding


accused guilty.
Issue:
W/N the lower court erred in finding the
accused guilty
Held:
Yes. The Court finds the accused demented
at the time he perpetrated the crime, which
consequently exempts him from criminal
liability, and orders for his confinement in San
Lazaro Hospital or other hospital for the

PEOPLE V BONOAN

insane. This ruling was based on the

64 Phil. 93

following evidence:

Facts:

1.

Uncontradicted evidence that accused

Celestino Bonoan is charged with the

was confined in the insane department of

crime of murder for stabbing Carlos Guison

San Lazaro Hospital and diagnosed with

with a knife, which caused his death three

dementia

days afterwards. An arraignment was then

commission of the offense and recurrence of

called, but the defense objected on the

ailments were not entirely lacking of scientific

ground that the defendant was mentally

foundation

deranged and was at the time confined at the


Psychopathic Hospital. After several months
of summons for doctors, production of the
defendants

complete

record

of

mental

condition from the hospital and defendants


admission to the hospital for personal
observation,

assistant

alienist

Dr.

Jose

2.

praecox

long

before

the

Persons with dementia praecox are

disqualified from legal responsibility because


they have no control of their acts; dementia
praecox

symptoms

similar

to

manic

depression psychosis
3.

Accused had an insomnia attack, a

Fernandez finally reported to the court that

symptom leading to dementia praecox, four

Bonoan may be discharged for being a

days prior to act according to Dr. Francisco

recovered case. After trial, the lower court

4.

Accused was sent the Psychopathic

liability. Dr. Francisco Gomez told that

hospital on the same day of crime and arrest,

Abelardo

indicating the polices doubt of his mental

feeblemindedness and not imbecility and that

normalcy

he could distinguish right from wrong. An

5.

was

suffering

only

from

imbecile so as to be exempt from criminal

Defendant suffered from manic

liability, he must be deprived completely of


reason or discernment and freedom of the
will at the time of committing the crime.

ISSUE:

PEOPLE v. FORMIGONES

WON the defendant who is

suffering from feeblemindedness is exempt

November 29, 1950 (G.R. No. L-3246)

from criminal liability.

FACTS:

HELD:

From November to December 1946,

No. In

order that an

exempting

defendant Abelardo Formigones together

circumstance may be taken into account, it is

with his wife Julia Agricola, and his five

necessary

children lived in the house of his half-brother,

deprivation of intelligence in committing the

Zacarias Formigones to find employment as

act, that is, that the accused be deprived of

harvesters. One afternoon, the accused,

reason; that there be no responsibility for his

without any previous quarrel or provocation

own acts; that he acts without the least

whatsoever, took his bolo from the wall of the

discernment; that there be a complete

house and stabbed his wife at the back, the

absence of the power to discern, or that there

blade penetrating the right lung which latter

be a total deprivation of freedom of the will.

caused her death. When she fall ont he

As to the strange behavior of the accused

ground the defendant carried her up the

during his confinement, assuming that it was

house, laid her on the floor of the living room

not feigned to stimulate insanity, it may be

and then lay down beside her. He was

attributed either to his being feebleminded or

convicted of parricide and was sentenced to

eccentric, or to a morbid mental condition

prison. The defendant entered a plea of not

produced by remorse at having killed his

guilty. His counsel presented testimonies of

wife. He could distinguish right from wrong.

two guards of the provincial jail where


defendant was confined. They said that he
behaved

like

an

insane

person,

that

sometimes he would remove his clothes in


front of others, would not take a bath, and
remained

silent

and

indifferent

to

his

surroundings. His counsel claimed that e is


an imbecile therefore exempt from criminal

that

there

be

complete

PEOPLE VS MANCAO & AGUILAR

Mancao had shouted for help and struck


Roberto Villela a blow on the thigh as a result

49 PHIL. 887

of which he fell to his knees. Crispino

FACTS:

Mancao then took hold of Roberto Villela by

This was an appeal by Crispino


Mancao and Ciriaco Aguilar from a judgment
of the Court of First

the hands and while thus held, the accused


Ciriaco Aguilar struck him with his sickle in
the back as a result of which Roberto Villela
fell to the ground unconscious.

Instance of Cebu in convicting them of


the crime of homicide, alleging that the lower

ISSUE:

court erred in not holding that the accused

Whether

Ciriaco Aguilar is mentally deficient and is,

acquitted on the crime of homicide for his

therefore, not criminally liable.

alleged mental deficiency and action for self-

The issue ensued when Crispino


Mancao, accompanied by three men and
several
Sedimo,

women,

inquired

Roberto

to

Villelas

Graciano

tenant,

and

ordered the persons with him to begin


harvesting the corns.
Roberto

not

Crispino

Mancao

be

defense
DECISION:
No. Based on a careful and detailed
examination of the oral and documentary
evidence presented by both parties, the
antecedents given and the circumstances

the

surrounding the commission of the criminal

harvesters who ordered them to harvest the

act, it has been proven that the accused

corn. Crispino Mancao, replied that he was

Crispino Mancao was the instigator and

the one who ordered them to do so and

aggressor. Thus, the allegation of self-

started towards Roberto Villela. The latter

defense made by the accused is groundless

then asked the former if he had an order

because the evidence sufficiently proves that

from the court to harvest the products.

he carried a stick and a bolo while Roberto

Crispino Mancao struck him with a bamboo

Villela was unarmed. Neither can the defense

stick and said: "This is the order." Thus,

of lack of free will of the accused Ciriaco

Roberto

and

Aguilar, who is an epileptic, be sustained.

snatched the cane. Having been deprived of

While Ciriaco Aguilar, as an epileptic, was

his bamboo stick, Crispino Mancao took hold

susceptible to nervous attacks that may

of his bolo and attempted to strike Roberto

momentarily deprive him of his mental

Villela which the latter warded off with a stick

faculties and lead him to unconsciously

he had in his hand. Crispino Mancao

attempt to take his own life and the lives of

continued to strike Roberto Villela inflicting

others, nevertheless, it has not been shown

but slight wounds. Upon being attacked,

that he was under the influence of an

Roberto Villela rushed at Crispino Mancao

epileptic fit before, during, and immediately

and a hand to hand fight ensued. A men

after the aggression.

Villela

Villela

or

then

dodged

the

asked

blow

dressed in khaki immediately appeared after

Hence, SC affirmed the decision of the


lower court having no errors found on the

was ordered to be confined in an insane


asylum.

judgment of guilty beyond reasonable doubt

PEOPLE v. GIMENA

and each being criminally liable for having

February 16, 1934 (G.R. No. L-40203)

taken direct part in the commission of the


crime.

FACTS:
On the night of May 9, 1933, Felipe Ferolino,
brother in law of the deceased, commented a

PEOPLE VS. TANEO

frank or sarcastic remark to the defendant.

March 31, 1933 (58 Phil 255)

Ferolino moved backward and the appellant,

FACTS:

taking that attitude as an acceptance of his

On January 16, 1932, in the house of


Potenciano Taneos parents in Dolores,
Ormoc,

Leyte,

because

of

severe

stomachache, Potenciano slept early. While


sleeping, he suddenly got up, left the room
with a bolo in hand and upon meeting his
wife who tried stop him, he wounded her int
eh abdomen. Several others were also
attacked, this includes his father, and his
guests, Fred Tanner and Luis Malinao. It was
claimed that he was dreaming when the
crime happened. The trial court found
Potenciano guilty of parricide and was
sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
ISSUE:
WON the defendant is criminally liable.
HELD:
No. The defendant acted while in a dream

challenge, gave him a blow on the head with


the cane he carried and later stabbed him on
the hip and on the back. The deceased,
Casimiro Mahinay, , completely unarmed,
approached the two for the purpose of
separating them or helping Ferolino, his
brother-in-law, the appellant gave him a blow
with his cane on the right eyebrow and later
mortally wounded him on the left side of the
abdomen with his knife. The defendant said
that it was an act of self-defense because the
deceased held him by the neck, chokings
him in such a way that he could hardly
breathe. The CFI later convicted him of
homicide.
ISSUE:
invoke

WON the defendant may validly


self-defense

as

an

exempting

circumstance.
HELD:

and his acts with which he was charged were

No. The defendants claim of self-defense is

not voluntary in the sense of entailing

unfounded. He was the one who provoked

criminal liability. The expert witness claimed

the fight between him and Felipe Ferolino

that the defendant was under the influence of

and likewise he was the aggressor. Under

hallucination and not in his right mind. The

the

defendant is not criminally liable however, he

commencement and development of the

circumstances

surrounding

the

fight, there was not at least necessity of his

conditionOn

having used the knife in wounding Casimiro

appellant was a nurse-aide of said clinic.

Mahinay inasmuch as he was already armed


with

cane,

much

less

taking

into

consideration that the deceased was entirely


unarmed. The justifying circumstance of selfdefense, once the act against which it is
invoked is proven, should be satisfactorily
established, and without proof, it should
necessarily be rejected.

the

other

hand,

accused-

On December 22, 1996, at around 3


a.m., accused-appellant sneaked into the
patients' room. He woke the complainant up
and offered her a cigarette, at the same time
touching her foot. Complainant took the
cigarette. As she smoked it, accusedappellant caressed her and had a sexual
intercourse with the victim with the latters
consent.
Complainant was brought later during
the day before Dr. Emmanuel Reyes for

PEOPLE VS BAID

medico-legal examination. She told him what

G.R. No. 129667

happened. Dr. Reyes reduced her narration


of the incident into writing and then gave her

FACTS:

a physical examination.

This is an appeal from the decision of


the Regional Trial Court, Branch 95, Quezon
City, finding accused-appellant Eric Baid y
Ominta guilty of the crime of rape against
Nieva Garcia y Saban, a mental patient, and
sentencing him to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua and to pay the victim the
amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages.
The

prosecution

presented

Dr.

Herminigilda

three

Salangad,

guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime


of rape defined in and penalized by Art. 335
of the Revised penal Code as amended by
Rep. Act. 7659, and hereby sentences the
said accused to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua. The accused is further
ordered to indemnify the victim the amount of

witnesses, namely, the complainant, Nieva


Garcia,

The court later on find the accused

the

50,000 as moral damages.


Hence, this petition.

complainant's attending psychiatrist, and Dr.

ISSUE:

Emmanuel Reyes, the medico-legal officer

witness to warrant the accused conviction of

who examined the complainant.

the crime of rape.

Complainant is a 27-year old single


woman, who was diagnosed as having
suffered from schizophrenia since 1988. In
December 1996, she was confined at the
Holy Spirit Clinic in Cubao, Quezon City
because

of

relapse

of

her

mental

Won the victim is qualified as a

HELD:
The victim is a qualified witness
notwithstanding the fact of her mental
disorder.
The court ruled that notwithstanding
her mental illness, complainant showed that

she was qualified to be a witness, i.e., she

WHEREFORE, the decision of the

could perceive and was capable of making

Regional Trial Court, Branch 95, Quezon City

known

Her

is AFFIRMED with the modification that, in

could

addition to the award of P50,000.00 for moral

her

testimony

perceptions
indicates

to

others.

that

she

understand questions particularly relating to

damages

made

by

the

trial

court,

the incident and could give responsive

complainant should be indemnified in the

answers to them, it is established that

amount of P50,000.00.

schizophrenic persons do not suffer from a


clouding of consciousness and gross deficits
of memory. It has long been settled that a
person should not be disqualified on the
basis of mental handicap alone.

JIMENEZ VS. REPUBLIC OF THE


PHILIPPINES

Whatever may be the inconsistencies

109 PHIL 273

in her testimony, they are minor and


inconsequential.

They

show

that

complainant's testimony was unrehearsed,


and rather than diminish the probative value

FACTS:
Plaintiff Joel Jimenez filed a

of her testimony, they reinforce it.


To warrant a conviction for rape under
paragraph (2) of Art. 335, a woman need not
be proven as completely insane or deprived
of reason. The phrase "deprived of reason"
has

been

suffering

construed
from

deficiency

or

mental
some

to

include

those

abnormality
form

of

or

mental

retardation, those who are feebleminded


although coherent

complaint praying of a decree annulling his


marriage with Remedios Canizares. He
claimed that the orifice of her genitals was
too small to allow the penetration of a male
organ or penis for copulation. He also
claimed that the condition of her genitals
existed at the time of marriage and continues
to exist. The wife was summoned and served
with a copy of the complaint but she did not
file an answer. The court entered an order

Even

assuming

then

complainant

consented

to

intercourse

with

copulation

would

the

requiring defendant to submit to a physical

sexual

examination by a competent lady physician

that

have

the

to determine her physical capacity for

third

copulation. Defendant did not submit herself

paragraph of Art. 335 of the Revised Penal

to the examination and the court entered a

Code in view of the fact that complainant was

decree annulling the marriage. The City

mentally ill. Sexual intercourse with an

Attorney filed a Motion for Reconsideration,

insane, deranged, or mentally deficient,

among the grounds that the defendants

feebleminded, or idiotic woman is rape, pure

impotency

and simple

established as required by law; that she had

accused-appellant,
fall

under

the

has

not

been

satisfactorily

not been physically examined because she


refused to be examined.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the marriage

may be annulled on the strength only of the

insufficient to tear asunder the ties that have


bound them together as husband and wife.

lone testimony of the husband who claimed


and testified that his wife is impotent.
Ruling: The decree appealed from is set

HELD:

aside and the case remanded to the lower


The law specifically enumerates the

court for further proceedings in accordance

legal grounds that must be proved to exist by

with this decision, without pronouncement as

indubitable evidence to annul a marriage. In

to costs.

the case at bar, the annulment of the


marriage in question was decreed upon the
sole testimony of the husband who was
expected to give testimony tending or aiming

SALITA VS. MAGTOLIS

at securing the annulment of his marriage he

233 SCRA 100

sought and seeks. Whether the wife is really


impotent cannot be deemed to have been
satisfactorily established because from the

FACTS:

commencement of the proceedings until the

1. Erwin Espinosa and Joselita Salita were

entry of the decree she had abstained from

married in church rites on January 25, 1986.

taking part therein.


Although her refusal to be examined
or failure to appear in court show indifference

2. A year later their union turned sour.


3. They separated in fact in 1988.

on her part, yet from such attitude the

4. Subsequently, Erwin sued for annulment

presumption arising out of the suppression of

on the ground of Joselitas psychological

evidence could not arise or be inferred

incapacity.

because women of this country are by nature


coy, bashful and shy and would not submit to
a physical examination unless compelled to

5. The petition for annulment was filed in


January 7, 1992 before the RTC of Quezon
City.

by competent authority.
6. The petition alleged that sometime in
A physical examination in this case is
not self-incriminating. She is not charged with
any offense. She is not being compelled to
be a witness against herself.

1987,

petitioner

respondent

came
was

to

realize

that

psychologically

incapacitated to comply with the essential


marital obligations of their marriage, which

Impotency being an abnormal

incapacity existed at the time of marriage

condition should not be presumed. The

although the same became manifest only

presumption is in favor of potency. The lone

thereafter.

testimony of the husband that his wife is


physically incapable of sexual intercourse is

7. Dissatisfied with the allegation in the

Particulars constitute the ultimate facts which

petition,

the Rules of Court requires.

Joselita

moved

for

bill

of

particulars which the trial court granted.


8. Joselita was not contented with the Bill of
Particulars and argued that the assertion in
the bill of particulars is a statement of legal
conclusion made by petitioners counsel and
not an averment of ultimate facts, as
required by the Rules of Court, from which
such a conclusion may be properly be
inferred.

ISSUE:
Was the Bill of Particulars submitted by
respondents of sufficient definiteness or
particularity as to enable herein petitioner to
properly prepare her responsive pleading.
HELD:
The

Bill

of

Particular

filed

by

private

respondent is sufficient to state a cause of

9. The trial court found the Bill of Particulars

action and to requirement more details from

adequate and directed Joselita of file her

private respondent would be to ask for

responsive pleading.

information on evidentiary matters.

10. Joselita was not convinced and she filed

A complaint only needs to state the ultimate

a petition for certiorari with the Supreme

facts constituting the plaintiffs cause or

Court.

causes of action. Ultimate facts has been

11. The SC referred the same to the Court of


Appeals.
12. The CA denied due course to her petition.

defined as those facts which the expected


evidence will support.
The Bill of Particular specified that ***
at the time of marriage, respondent (Joselita

13. It was the view of the CA that the

Salita) was psychologically incapacitated to

specification more than satisfies the Rules

comply with the essential marital obligations

requirement that a complaint must allege the

of their marriage in that she was unable to

ultimate facts constituting plaintiffs cause of

understand and accept the demands made

action.

by his profession that of a verily qualified

14. Petitioner insists that the allegations in


the Bill of Particulars constitute a legal
conclusion, not an averment of facts, and
fails to point out the specific essential marital
obligations she was not able to perform, and

Doctor of Medicine upon petitioners time


and

efforts

sot

that

she

frequently

complained of his lack of attention to her


even to her mother, whose intervention
caused petitioner to loss his job.

thus render the Bill of Particulars insufficient

Consequently, the SC has no other

if not irrelevant to her husbands cause of

recourse

action.

resumption of the annulment proceedings

15. Private respondent on the other hand


believes that his allegations in the Bill of

but

to

order

the

immediate

which have already been delayed for more


than 2 years now, even before it could reach
its

trial

stage.

psychologically

Whether

petitioner

is

incapacitated

should

be

immediately determined. There is no point in

intercourse between them, not even saw

unreasonably delaying the resolution of the

husbands private parts

petition and prolonging the agony of the


wedded couple who after coming out from a
storm still have the right to a renewed blissful

9)

Submitted

themselves

to

medical

examinationCGH- January 20, 1989

life either alone or in the company of each

10) She was healthy, still a virgin; her

other.

husbands results were kept confidential


given medication but confidentialasked to
return but never did
11) Impotent husband, closet homosexual,
CHI MING TSOI V. CA

G.R. No. 119190 (January 16, 1997)

annulled

1) RTC QC Br 89 which decreed the


annulment of the marriage on the ground of
psychological incapacity

court to CA (42758) which affirmed the RTC


decision (Nov 29, 1994)
motion

by

reason

of

psychological

incapacity, it will be fault of the wife


He did not want marriage to be annulled due
to:

2) Petitioner appealed the decision of the trial

Denied

acquire and maintain residency status


CLAIM OF DEFENDANT: if marriage will be

Facts:

3)

defendant married her a Filipino citizen to

a) He loves her so much


b) He has no defect on his part and he is

for

reconsideration

(February 14, 1995)


4) May 22, 1988 plaintiff married defendant

physically and psychologically capable


c) The relationship is still young and
differences can still be reconciled\

at Manila cathedral, Intramuros manila

d) Defect can be cured with medical

marriage contact-evidence

technology

5) Wedding reception South Villa Makati

- Admitted that no sexual intercourse from

house of defendants mother

May 22, 1988 to March 15, 1989blames

6) No making love on the first nyt after

wife

marriagesame with second, third and

- Two reasons given by him: 1) she is afraid

fourth nights

that she will return jewelry of her mother

7) Baguio cityfirst week as husband and


wifewith mother, uncle, his mother and
nephew of defendantn sexual intercourse
within the 4-day stay

(forced);

2)

that

her

husband

will

consummate the marriage


- He insists on the validity of the marriage
12) Submitted himself to examinationDr.

8) May 22, 1988- March 15, 1989but

Sergio Atleza Jr said he has no signs of

during this period no attempt of sexual

impotency and capable of erection

DECISION OF TRIAL COURT: declared Void

basic end of marriageif one although

marriage. let copy be furnished the local civil

physically capable but simply refuses to

registrar of QC and of Manila

perform

his

or

her

essential

marital

obligations and the refusal is senseless and

CA: affirmed TCs decision

constanteven canon Law attribute the

DECISION OF SUPREME COURT: petition

cause to psychological incapacity

to be bereft of merit; assailed decision of the


CA dated Nov 29, 1994 AFFIRMED in all
respects and the petition is hereby DENIED

AURELIO vs. AURELIO

for lack of merit.

G.R. No. 175367

REASONS:

June 6, 2011

1) Private respondent has the burden of


proving the allegations in her complaintno
independent evidence to prove the alleged
non-coitus between husband and wifeonly

Facts:
On March 23, 1988, petitioner Danilo
A. Aurelio and respondent Vida Ma. Corazon

basis is admission of petitioner


2) Need to prevent collusion between parties
CC provides that no judgment annulling
marriage shall be promulgated upon a
stipulation of facts or by confession of
judgments

Aurelio were married. They begot two sons.


On May 9, 2002, respondent filed with the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City a
Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage
on the basis of psychological incapacity
under Article 36 of the Family Code. The

3) But since petitioner did not want marriage

psychological

assessment

to be annulled then no collusion between

respondent

suffers

parties

Personality

Disorder

4)

Issue

that

failure

to

have

sexual

intercourse meant psychological incapacity of


bothother reasons may existthe court
said the fact that no coitus happened
between themno need to determine who
did not want to have sex with whom

revealed

from
with

that

Histrionic
Narcissistic

features as seen from her quick changes in


temperament, self-indulgence, intolerance,
and inability to delay her needs. On the part
of the petitioner, it has been revealed in the
same assessment that he suffers from
Passive Aggressive (Negativistic) Personality
Disorder as seen from his lack of drive to

5) Wanted to have sex but refusesmaybe

discern the plight of his working wife,

because of pain?== no attempt to discover

consistent jealousy and distrust toward his

what the problem with his wife could be

wife, arrogance and insensitivity toward his

6) One of the essential marital obligations


under the FC is to procreate children based
on the universal principle that procreation of
children through sexual cooperation is the

wife. These findings were found to be grave,


incorrigible, and incurable. On November 8,
2002, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss. On
January 14, 2003, the Regional Trial Court

rendered a Decision denying the motion. On

also

February 21, 2003, petitioner filed a motion

obligations were not complied with. Petition

for

for dismissal is denied.

reconsideration

and

found

that

finds

that

the

essential

marital

respondents petition for declaration for nullity


of

marriage

complied

with

the

Molina
TE VS. TE

Doctrine and that the merits of the case


depend upon the proofs presented in trial.

GR No. 161793, February 13, 2009

On February 16, 2004, petitioner appealed


the Regional Trial Court decision to the Court
of Appeals via petition for certiorari. On
October 6, 2005, Court of Appeals dismissed

FACTS:
Petitioner Edward Te first met respondent

the petition.

Rowena Te in a gathering organized by the

Issues:

Filipino-Chinese association in their college.

Whether

or

not

the

petition

for

Initially, he was attracted to Rowenas close


friend but, as the latter already had a

declaration of nullity of marriage is valid.

boyfriend, the young man decided to court

Ruling:

Rowena, which happened in January 1996.

Yes. For a petition for declaration of

It was Rowena who asked that they elope but

nullity of marriage to be valid, it must comply

Edward refused bickering that he was young

with the standards or criteria set by the

and jobless.

Molina Doctrine. Petitioner asserts that the

made him relent. They left Manila and sailed

petition for declaration of nullity of marriage is

to Cebu that month; he, providing their travel

invalid because it did not comply with the

money of P80,000 and she, purchasing the

following cited in the Molina Doctrine: (a) root

boat ticket.

cause of the psychological incapacity, (b)


gravity

of

such

illness,

and

(c)

non-

compliance of marital obligations. First, the


root cause of the psychological incapacity
was stated and alleged in the complaint. The
root cause being their family backgrounds,
as determined by a competent and expert
psychologist.

Second,

the

petition

establishes that the respondent suffers from


Histrionic

Personality

Disorder

with

Narcissistic Features as well as the petitioner


suffers

from

Passive

Aggressive

(Negativistic) Personality Disorder which are


conditions

that

are

allegedly

grave,

incorrigible and incurable. Lastly, the Court

Her persistence, however,

They decided to go back to Manila in


April 1996. Rowena proceeded to her uncles
house and Edward to his parents home.
Eventually they got married but without a
marriage license.

Edward was prohibited

from getting out of the house unaccompanied


and was threatened by Rowena and her
uncle. After a month, Edward escaped from
the house, and stayed with his parents.
Edwards parents wanted them to stay at
their

house

but

Rowena

refused

and

demanded that they have a separate abode.


In June 1996, she said that it was better for
them to live separate lives and they then
parted ways.

After four years in January 2000,

assume the essential marital obligations of

Edward filed a petition for the annulment of

living together, observing love, respect and

his marriage to Rowena on the basis of the

fidelity and rendering help and support, for

latters psychological incapacity.

he is unable to make everyday decisions

ISSUE:

Whether

contracted

is

the

void

on

marriage

the

ground

of

psychological incapacity.

without advice from others, and allows others


to make most of his important decisions
(such as where to live). As clearly shown in
this case, petitioner followed everything

HELD:

dictated to him by the persons around him.

The parties whirlwind relationship


lasted more or less six months. They met in
January 1996, eloped in March, exchanged
marital vows in May, and parted ways in

He is insecure, weak and gullible, has no


sense of his identity as a person, has no
cohesive self to speak of, and has no goals
and clear direction in life.

June. The psychologist who provided expert

As for the respondent, her being

testimony found both parties psychologically

afflicted with antisocial personality disorder

incapacitated. Petitioners behavioral pattern

makes her unable to assume the essential

falls under the classification of dependent

marital

personality disorder, and respondents, that

disregard in the rights of others, her abuse,

of the narcissistic and antisocial personality

mistreatment and control of others without

disorder

remorse, and her tendency to blame others.

There is no requirement that the


person

to

be

declared

psychologically

incapacitated be personally examined by a


physician,

if

the

totality

of

evidence

presented is enough to sustain a finding of


psychological incapacity. Verily, the evidence

obligations

on

account

for

her

Moreover, as shown in this case, respondent


is impulsive and domineering; she had no
qualms in manipulating petitioner with her
threats of blackmail and of committing
suicide.
Both parties being afflicted with grave,

must show a link, medical or the like,

severe

between the acts that manifest psychological

incapacity, the precipitous marriage that they

incapacity and the psychological disorder

contracted on April 23, 1996 is thus, declared

itself.

null and void.


The

presentation

presupposes

assessment

of

of expert

thorough
the

and

parties

proof

in-depth
by

the

psychologist or expert, for a conclusive


diagnosis of a grave, severe and incurable
presence of psychological incapacity.
Indeed,
dependent

petitioner,

personality

afflicted

disorder,

with

cannot

and

incurable

psychological

barangay hall and then to the police station


to report the matter to the authorities.
A medical examination was conducted
on AAA by Dr. Winston Tan. His report
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JESUS
PARAGAS CRUZ

showed

that

AAA

had

two

hymenal

lacerations. Accused Jesus Paragas Cruz


was then found guilty beyond reasonable

G.R. No. 186129 August 4, 2009

doubt by the RTC of Paraaque for the crime

Nature: This is an appeal from the Decision

of Rape. In an appeal before the Court of

of the Court of Appeals dated May 30, 2008

Appeals, RTCs decision was affirmed, hence

in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01760, which

this appeal.

affirmed the August 12, 2002 Decision in


Criminal Case No. 99-329 of the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 259 in Paraaque City.
FACTS:

ISSUE:

Whether or not the court

erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty


beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
rape?

On June 6, 1998, AAA, then a nine-

HELD:

The appeal is DENIED.

year old, was at her house watching

The CAs Decision finding accused-appellant

television with her cousin Jady. It was past

Jesus Paragas Cruz guilty of statutory rape is

three in the afternoon when Jady left to go to

affirmed with the modification that the award

her

of exemplary damages is increased to

grandmothers

house.

Upon

her

departure, Cruz abruptly entered the house

P30,000.

and turned off the television. He closed the


windows 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 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.

Reasoning: Courts use the following


principles in deciding rape cases: (1) an
accusation of rape can be made with facility;
it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the
person

accused,

though

innocent,

to

disprove; (2) due to the nature of the crime of


rape in which only two persons are usually
involved, the testimony of the complainant
must be scrutinized with extreme caution;
and (3) the evidence for the prosecution

AAA tried her best to keep the rape a

must stand or fall on its own merits and

secret as she was terrified that Cruz would

cannot be allowed to draw strength from the

come back and kill her. Nevertheless, she

weakness of the evidence for the defense.

told her mother BBB what happened to her a

Due to the nature of this crime, conviction for

few months later. BBB subsequently told

rape

Cruzs wife of what she had just discovered.

complainants

Thereafter, BBB took her daughter to the

credible, natural, convincing, and consistent

may

be

solely

testimony

based

on

provided

the
it

is

with human nature and the normal course of


things.
Policy: The crime of rape, under the
old provisions of the Revised Penal Code,
was considered a "Crime against Chastity,"

AGUSTIN VS CA & MARTIN

implying that only "virtuous" or "chaste"

G.R. No. 162571

women can be victims of rape. More


emphasis was placed on the "loss of
chastity" of a woman or the denigration of her
"value" and the staining of her honor, rather

FACTS:

than a violation of her being. It was

Respondents Fe Angela and her son

considered a private crime, and only the

Martin Prollamante sued Martins alleged

injured party or specific family members

biological father, petitioner Arnel Agustin, for

could file a complaint against the perpetrator.

support and support pendente lite before the


Quezon City RTC.

Synthesis:
The Supreme Court laid down requirements
for domestic violence, so defined, has many
forms,

including

physical

aggression

or

assault or threats thereof; sexual abuse;


emotional abuse; controlling or domineering;
intimidation; stalking; passive/covert abuse;
and economic deprivation. One of the crimes
that fall under this category is rape, under the
law it is classified as a crime against chastity
and

is

committed

by

having

carnal

knowledge of a woman by a man using force


and

intimidation;

when

the

woman

is

deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious.


The following classifications are present in
the case of People of the Philippines v. Jesus

In

their

complaint,

respondents

alleged that Arnel courted Fe, after which


they entered into an intimate relationship.
Arnel supposedly impregnated Fe on her
34th birthday but despite Arnels insistence
on abortion, Fe decided to give birth to their
child out of wedlock, Martin. The babys birth
certificate was purportedly signed by Arnel as
the father. Arnel shouldered the pre-natal and
hospital expenses but later refused Fes
repeated

requests

for

Martins

support

despite his adequate financial capacity and


even suggested to have the child committed
for adoption. Arnel also denied having
fathered the child.

Paragas Cruz where the accused locked the

On January 2001, while Fe was

house with only him and the nine year old

carrying five-month old Martin at the Capitol

victim inside. He told the victim to remove her

Hills Golf and Country Club parking lot, Arnel

shorts. Then he later kissed and touched her

sped off in his van, with the open car door

vagina. Lastly, the accused inserted his

hitting Fes leg. This incident was reported to

organ to the victims organ

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.

Fe and Martin moved for the issuance

In

no

uncertain

terms,

we

also

of an order directing all the parties to submit

underscore that the right to privacy does not

themselves to DNA paternity testing, which

bar all incursions into individual privacy. The

Arnel opposed by invoking his constitutional

right is not intended to stifle scientific and

right against self-incrimination and moving to

technological advancements that enhance

dismiss the complaint for lack of cause of

public service and the common good...

action.

Intrusions
The trial court denied the MTD and

ordered the parties to submit themselves to


DNA paternity testing at the expense of the

the

right

must

be

accompanied by proper safeguards that


enhance public service and the common
good.

applicants. The Court of Appeals affirmed the


trial court, thus this petition.

into

Historically, it has mostly been in the


areas of legality of searches and seizures,
and

ISSUE:

the

infringement

of

privacy

of

communication where the constitutional right

W/N

the respondent court erred in

denying the petitioners MTD

to privacy has been critically at issue.


Petitioners case involves neither and, as

W/N the court erred in directing parties


to subject to DNA paternity testing and was a
form of unreasonable search

already stated, his argument that his right


against self-incrimination is in jeopardy holds
no water.

HELD:
1. No.

The trial court properly denied the

petitioners motion to dismiss because the


private respondents complaint on its face
showed that they had a cause of action

JESSE U. LUCAS VS. JESUS S. LUCAS


G.R. No. 190710, [June 6, 2011]

against the petitioner. The elements of a


cause of action are: (1) the plaintiffs primary
right and the defendants corresponding

FACTS:

primary duty, and (2) the delict or wrongful

Petitioner, Jesse Lucas filed a Petition to

act or omission of the defendant, by which

Establish Filiation with a Motion for the

the primary right and duty have been

Submission of Parties to DNA Testing before

violated. The cause of action is determined

the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Jesse

not by the prayer of the complaint but by the

alleged that he is the son of his mother Elsie

facts alleged.

who got acquainted with respondent, Jesus

2. No. In Ople v. Torres,the Supreme Court


struck

down

the

proposed

national

computerized identification system embodied


in Administrative Order No. 308, we said:

S. Lucas in Manila. He also submitted


documents which include (a) petitioners
certificate

of

live

birth;

(b)

petitioners

baptismal certificate; (c) petitioners college


diploma, showing that he graduated from

Saint Louis University in Baguio City with a

in favour of Jesus, it noted that Jesse failed

degree in Psychology; (d) his Certificate of

to show that the four significant aspects of a

Graduation from the same school; (e)

traditional paternity action had been met and

Certificate of Recognition from the University

held that DNA testing should not be allowed

of the Philippines, College of Music; and (f)

when the petitioner has failed to establish a

clippings of several articles from different

prima facie case.

newspapers about petitioner, as a musical


prodigy.
Jesus learned of this and he filed a
Special

Appearance

and

Comment

manifesting that the petition was adversarial


in nature and therefore summons should be
served on him. Meanwhile, Jesse filed a Very
Urgent Motion to Try and Hear the Case
which the RTC found to be sufficient in form
and hence set the case for hearing. Jesus
filed a Motion for Reconsideration arguing
that DNA testing cannot be had on the basis
of a mere allegation pointing to him as
Jesses father.

ISSUE:
Whether aprima facie showing is necessary
before a court can issue a DNA testing order
HELD:
Yes, but it is not yet time to discuss the lack
ofa prima facie case vis--vis the motion for
DNA testing since no evidence has, as yet,
been presented by petitioner.
RATIO:
Misapplication of Herrera v. Alba by the
Regional Trial Court and the Court of
Appeals. The statement in Herrera v. Alba

for

that there are four significant procedural

Reconsideration, the RTC dismissed the

aspects in a traditional paternity case which

case and held that Jesse failed to establish

parties have to face has been widely

compliance with the four procedural aspects

misunderstood and misapplied in this case. A

for a paternity action enumerated in the case

party is confronted by these so-called

of Herrera v. Alba namely, a prima facie case,

procedural aspects during trial, when the

affirmative

defences,

parties have

legitimacy,

and

Acting

on

Jesus

Motion

presumption

physical

of

resemblance

between the putative father and the child.


This prompted Jesse to file a Motion
for Reconsideration which the RTC granted.
A new hearing was scheduled where the
RTC held that ruling on the grounds relied
upon by Jesse for filing the instant petition is
premature considering that a full-blown trial
has not yet taken place. Jesus filed a Motion

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 CAs
observation that petitioner failed to establish
a prima facie case is herefore misplaced. A
prima facie case is built by a partys evidence
and not by mere allegations in the initiatory
pleading.

for Reconsideration which was denied by the

Section 4 of the Rule on DNA

RTC. He then filed a petition for certiorari

Evidence merely provides for conditions that

with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA ruled

are aimed to safeguard the accuracy and

integrity of the DNA testing. It states that the

valid. Hence, the requirement of a prima

appropriate court may, at any time, either

facie case, or reasonable possibility, was

motu proprio or on application of any person,

imposed in civil actions as a counterpart of a

who has a legal interest in the matter in

finding of probable cause. Courts in various

litigation, order a DNA testing. Such order

jurisdictions have differed regarding the kind

shall issue after due hearing and notice to

of procedures which are required, but those

the parties upon a showing of the following:

jurisdictions have almost universally found

(a) A biological sample exists that is relevant

that a preliminary showing must be made

to the case;(b) The biological sample: (i) was

before a court can constitutionally order

not previously subjected to the type of DNA

compulsory blood testing in paternity cases.

testing now requested; or (ii) was previously

We agree, and find that, as a preliminary

subjected to DNA testing, but the results may

matter, before the court may issue an order

require confirmation for good reasons; (c)

for compulsory blood testing, the moving

The DNA testing uses a scientifically valid

party must show that there is a reasonable

technique; (d) The DNA testing has the

possibility

scientific

new

hereafter, in cases in which paternity is

information that is relevant to the proper

contested and a party to the action refuses to

resolution of the case; and (e) The existence

voluntarily undergo a blood test, a show

of other factors, if any, which the court may

cause hearing must be held in which the

consider as potentially affecting the accuracy

court

or integrity of the DNA testing. This Rule shall

sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie

not preclude a DNA testing, without need of a

case which warrants issuance of a court

prior court order, at the behest of any party,

order for blood testing The same condition

including law enforcement agencies, before a

precedent

suit or proceeding is commenced. This does

jurisdiction to protect the putative father from

not mean, however, that a DNA testing order

mere harassment suits. Thus, during the

will be issued as a matter of right if, during

hearing on the motion for DNA testing, the

the

petitioner must present prima facie evidence

potential

hearing,

the

to

produce

said

conditions

are

established.
In

some

states,

to

warrant

the

be a show cause hearing wherein the


must

paternity.

determine

should

be

As

whether

applied

explained

there

in

is

our

or establish a reasonable possibility of

issuance of the DNA testing order, there must


applicant

can

of

first

present

sufficient

evidence to establish a prima facie case or a


reasonable possibility of paternity or good
cause for the holding of the test. In these
states, a court order for blood testing is
considered a search, which, under their
Constitutions (as in ours), must be preceded
by a finding of probable cause in order to be

paternity.

confirmed that she is the same "Mirasol


Perla" who signed as the informant therein.
In his Answer with Counterclaim, Antonio,
ANTONIO PERLA, Petitioner, vs.

who is now married and has a family of his

MIRASOL BARING and RANDY PERLA,

own, denied having fathered Randy. Although


he admitted to having known Mirasol, he

G.R. No. 172471 November 12, 2012

averred that she never became his commonlaw wife nor was she treated as such.

FACTS:

Antonio

Respondent Mirasol Baring (Mirasol) and her


then

minor

son,

respondents),

filed

Randy
before

(collectively
the

RTC

Complaint for support against Antonio.

and

Antonio

lived

together

having

sexual

intercourse with Mirasol in February and


August of 1981. When shown with Randys
Certificate of Live Birth and asked whether
he had a hand in the preparation of the
same, Antonio answered in the negative.

They alleged in said Complaint that


Mirasol

admitted

Anent Randys Certificate of Live Birth,

as

Antonio testified as to several inaccuracies in

common-law spouses for two years. As a

the entries thereon. According to him, his

result of said cohabitation, Randy was born

middle initial is "E" and not "A" as appearing

on November 11, 1983.

in the said certificate of live birth. Also, he is

However, when Antonio landed a job


as seaman, he abandoned them and failed to

not a protestant and a laborer as indicated in


said certificate.

give any support to his son. Respondents

Antonio likewise alleged that Mirasol

thus prayed that Antonio be ordered to

only made up the entries with respect to their

support Randy. She presented Randys

marriage on October 28, 1981. After trial, the

Certificate of Live Birth and Baptismal

RTC rendered a Decision dated February 26,

Certificate indicating her and Antonio as

2003 ordering Antonio to support Randy.

parents of the child.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals

Mirasol testified that she and Antonio


supplied

the

information

in

the

upheld Randys illegitimate filiation based on

said

the certified true copies of his birth certificate

certificates. Antonio supplied his name and

and of his baptismal certificate identifying

birthplace after Erlinda Balmori (Erlinda), the

Antonio as his father. According to the

"hilot" who assisted in Mirasols delivery of

appellate court, while these documents do

Randy, went to his house to solicit the said

not bear the signature of Antonio, they are

information.

proofs that Antonio is the known, imputed

Mirasol also claimed that it was

and identified father of Randy.

Erlinda who supplied the date and place of

ISSUE:

marriage of the parents so that the latter can

illegitimate filiation to Antonio has been

file the birth certificate. Mirasol likewise

established

WON,

Randys

HELD:

have and treat the child as such in all

It is clear that respondents failed to establish


Randys

illegitimate

filiation

to

Antonio.

relations

has

not

Anent Randys baptismal certificate,


a good proof of Antonios paternity of Randy.

and 175 of the Family Code. The Certificate

Just like in a birth certificate, the lack of

of

by

participation of the supposed father in the

respondents identifying Antonio as the has

preparation of a baptismal certificate renders

no probative value to establish Randys

this

filiation to Antonio since the latter had not

paternity. And "while a baptismal certificate

signed the same. It is settled that "a

may be considered a public document, it can

certificate of live birth purportedly identifying

only serve as evidence of the administration

the putative father is not competent evidence

of the sacrament on the date specified but

of paternity when there is no showing that the

not the veracity of the entries with respect to

putative father had a hand in the preparation

the childs paternity.

Randy

rules

life,

establishing filiation are found in Articles 172


of

The

in

we cannot agree with the CA that the same is

Birth

basis.

and

for

Live

no

society

accidentally, but continuously."

Hence, the order for Antonio to support


Randy

in

presented

of said certificate. Neither does the testimony


of Randy establish his illegitimate filiation.
That during their first encounter in

document

incompetent

to

prove

Thus, x x x baptismal certificates are


per se inadmissible in evidence as proof of
filiation

and

they

cannot

be

admitted

1994 Randy called Antonio "Papa" and

indirectly as circumstantial evidence to prove

kissed his hand while Antonio hugged him

the same.

and promised to support him; or that his Aunt


Lelita treated him as a relative and was good
to him during his one-week stay in her place,
cannot be considered as indications of
Randys open and continuous possession of
the status of an illegitimate child under the
second paragraph of Article 172(1). "[T]o
prove open and continuous possession of
the status of an illegitimate child, there must
be evidence of the manifestation of the
permanent intention of the supposed father
to consider the child as his, by continuous
and clear manifestations of parental affection
and care, which cannot be attributed to pure
charity.
Such acts must be of such a nature
that they reveal not only the conviction of
paternity, but also the apparent desire to

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review


on Certiorari is GRANTED. The assailed
Decision

dated

March

31,

2005

and

Resolution dated May 5, 2006 of the Court of


Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 79312 are
REVERSED and SER ASIDE and the
Decision dated February 26, 2003 of the
Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City, Branch
71, in Civil Case No. 96-3952 is VACATED. A
new

one

is

entered

DISMISSING

the

Complaint for Support filed by Mirasol Baring


and Randy Perla against Antonio Perla.

IN RE: THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS


FOR REYNALDO DE VILLA

habeas corpus for his father.

G.R. 158802 , November 17, 2004


Lacking the requisites set by Feria,
petition for writ of habeas corpus unavailing
as a collateral attack to a final judgment.

by her uncle, Reynaldo de Villa in her home


in Pasig. Her pregnancy prompted the filing
of charges by her parents against de Villa.

incapable of erection

HELD:

No.

1.

On the issue of writ of habeas corpus

as proper remedy:
a.

individual is illegally deprived of

Mendozas bear a grudge against me

3.

Alibi: in hometown of San Luis,


Laguna at time of crime
de

Villa

doubt

of

b.

however, cannot be used to

directly assail a judgment rendered by

2.

guilty
qualified

a competent court or tribunal which,


having duly acquired jurisdiction, was
not deprived or ousted of this
jurisdiction

beyond
rape,

sentenced to death. Case automatically


elevated to SC for automatic review due to
penalty imposed.
SC:

proper remedy in the instant case.

under some form of illegal restraint

sickness, old age of 67 rendered me

reasonable

WON writ of habeas corpus a

his freedom of movement or placed

De Villa:

RTC:

ISSUE:

Ratio of the Court.

Aileen Mendoza, 12, was raped

1.

June thus filed petition for writ of

affirmed RTC decision, modified by

awarding moral damages. SC found date of


birth of Aileens child, Leahlyn medically
consistent with time of rape.
June de Villa, son of accused, alleged

c.

It is the nullity of an assailed

judgment of conviction due to said


lack of jurisdiction which makes it
susceptible to collateral attack through
HC
d.

Feria v. CA doctrine allowed

HC as post-conviction remedy only


when there exists:
i.

constitutional

that defense counsel only learned of DNA

right resulting in the

testing to resolve paternity issue at time of

restraint

pendency of SC automatic review. His 2 MRs


of the case praying for DNA tests to be
conducted were denied. DNA tests obtained
from Billy de Villa, grandson of Reynaldo,
and Leahlyn showed that de Villa could not
have sired the latter.

deprivation of a

ii.

court had no jurisdiction

iii.

penalty being excessive,


is voided

e.

2.

June did not allege any of the

(b)

three conditions in Feria to avail of

has been discovered which

HC

accused could not with reasonable


diligence

Proper remedy should have been

introduced

*On the issue of denial of de Villas

effective aid of counsel who left for the US in


the middle of appeal
a.

b.

would

Requisites for motion for new trial:

been discovered and produced at the


trial even with the exercise of

Pregnancy not an essential

reasonable diligence;

element of crime of rape

(c) that it is material, not merely

Results of DNA test could not

cumulative,

conclusively determine de Villas guilt

corroborative

or

impeaching; and

for the crime of rape

(d) that the evidence is of such weight

*On the issue of remedy of motion for

that that, if admitted, it would probably

new trial
a.

admitted

(b) that said evidence could not have

DNA test as to de Villas guilt

5.

and

after trial;

*On the issue of the relevance of the

b.

and

(a) that the evidence was discovered

SC did not find negligence amounting

a.

discovered

probably change the judgment.

to denial of constitutional right


4.

have

the

produced at the trial and which if

certiorari or appeal
3.

That new and material evidence

change the judgment


Rule 121 of Revised Rules of

Criminal Procedure:

c.

Lack of knowledge of DNA testing

attributable to negligence of counsel, and the

SEC. 2. Grounds for a new trial.The court

same is binding upon de Villa

shall grant a new trial on any of the following

d.

grounds:

were previously available to de Villa anyway.

(a)

That errors of law or

irregularities

prejudicial

to

the

substantial rights of the accused have


been committed during the trial;

Other means to determine paternity

Dispositive. Petition for habeas corpus and


motion for new trial dismissed.