Criminal Law I

 Article 3. Definitions. - Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies

(delitos). Felonies are committed not only be means of deceit (dolo) but
also by means of fault (culpa).There is deceit when the act is performed
with deliberate intent and there is fault when the wrongful act results from
imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.
 Mistake of Fact
 US v. Ah Chong GR No. L-5272, March 19, 1910

Facts:
The defendant, Ah Chong, was employed as a cook in one of the Officers’ quarters at Fort
McKinley, Rizal Province. Together living with him in the said quarters was the deceased,
Pascual Gualberto, who was employed as a houseboy. There had been several robberies in
Fort McKinley prior to the incident thus prompting the defendant and his roommate to reinforce
the flimsy hook used to lock the door of their room by placing a chair against it. The defendant
and the deceased had an understanding that when either returned at night, he should knock
on the door and say his name. On the night of Aug. 14, 1908, Ah Chong, who was alone in his
room, was awakened by someone trying to force open the door of the room. The defendant
called out twice, asking the identity of the person but heard no answer. Fearing that the
intruder was a robber or a thief, the defendant called out that he would kill the intruder if he tried
to enter. At that moment, the door was forced open and the defendant was struck first above
the knee by the edge of the chair. Because of the darkness of the room, the defendant thought
he was being hit by the intruder and tried to defend himself by striking wildly at the intruder
using a common kitchen knife which he kept under his pillow. It turned out that the said
intruder was actually the defendant’s roommate, Pascual Gualberto. The roommate was
brought to the military hospital where he died from the effects of the wound the following day.
Issue:
Whether Or Not the defendant was criminally liable for committing a felony.
Held:
Defendant was not criminally liable and exonerated. In order for mistake of fact to be held as a
valid defense, there has to be several requisites. One, that the act done would have been
lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to be. Two, that the intention of the
accused in performing the act should be lawful, and lastly, that the mistake must be without
fault or carelessness on the part of the accused. In the case at bar, had the intruder been a
robber as the defendant believed him to be, then Ah Chong acted in good faith, without malice
or criminal intent, and would have been wholly exempt from criminal liability and that he cannot
be said to have been guilty of negligence or recklessness.
Constitutional Law I
C. The Commission on Elections
 SECTION 1. (1) There shall be a Commission on Elections composed of a
Chairman and six Commissioners who shall be natural-born citizens of the
Philippines and, at the time of their appointment, at least thirty-five years
of age, holders of a college degree, and must not have been candidates
for any elective position in the immediately preceding elections. However,
a majority thereof, including the Chairman, shall be Members of the
Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least
ten years.
 Qualifications of a COMELEC Commissioner-Practice of Law
 Cayetano vs. Monsod 201 SCRA 210 September 1991

Facts:
President Corazon C. Aquino nominated respondent Christian Monsod to the
position of chairman of the COMELEC. Petitioner opposed the nomination
because allegedly Monsod does not posses required qualification of having been
engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. The 1987 constitution
provides in Section 1, Article IX-C: There shall be a Commission on Elections
composed of a Chairman and six Commissioners who shall be natural-born
citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of their appointment, at least thirty-five
years of age, holders of a college degree, and must not have been candidates for
any elective position in the immediately preceding elections. However, a majority
thereof, including the Chairman, shall be members of the Philippine Bar who
have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.

Issue: Whether the respondent does not posses the required qualification of
having engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.

Held: In the case of Philippine Lawyers Association vs. Agrava, stated: The
practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court; it
embraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions and
special proceeding, the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf
of clients before judges and courts, and in addition, conveying. In general, all
advice to clients, and all action taken for them in matters connected with the law
incorporation services, assessment and condemnation services, contemplating
an appearance before judicial body, the foreclosure of mortgage, enforcement of
a creditor’s claim in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and conducting
proceedings in attachment, and in matters of estate and guardianship have been
held to constitute law practice. Practice of law means any activity, in or out court,
which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and
experience.

The contention that Atty. Monsod does not posses the required qualification of
having engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years is incorrect since Atty.
Monsod’s past work experience as a lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a
lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-
legislator of both rich and the poor – verily more than satisfy the constitutional
requirement for the position of COMELEC chairman, The respondent has been
engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years does In the view of the
foregoing, the petition is DISMISSED.

Persons and Family Relations

 Art. 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the
celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential
marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such
incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization.
 Psychological Incapacity
 Santos v. Court of Appeals 204 SCRA 20 January 4, 1995

Facts:
Leouel Santos, a member of the Army, met Julia Rosario Bedia in Iloilo City. In
September 1986, they got married. The couple latter lived with Julia’s parents.
Julia gave birth to their son in 1987. Their marriage, however, was marred by the
frequent interference of Julia’s parents, as averred by Leouel. The couple also
occasionally quarreled about as to, among other things, when should they start
living independently from Julia’s parents. In 1988, Julia went to the US to work as
a nurse despite Leouel’s opposition. 7 months later, she and Leouel got to talk
and she promised to return home in 1989. She never went home that year. In
1990, Leouel got the chance to be in the US due to a military training. During his
stay, he desperately tried to locate his wife but to no avail. Leouel, in an effort to
at least have his wife come home, filed a petition to nullify their marriage due to
Julia’s alleged psychological incapacity. Leouel asserted that due to Julia’s
failure to return home or at least communicate with him even with all his effort
constitutes psychological incapacity. Julia filed an opposition; she said that it is
Leouel who is incompetent. The prosecutor ascertained that there is no collusion
between the two. Leouel’s petition is however denied by the lower and appellate
court.
ISSUE: Whether or not psychological incapacity is attendant to the case at bar.
HELD: No. Before deciding on the case, the SC noted that the Family Code did
not define the term “psychological incapacity”, which is adopted from the Catholic
Canon Law. But basing it on the deliberations of the Family Code Revision
Committee, the provision in PI, adopted with less specificity than expected, has
been designed to allow some resiliency in its application. The FCRC did not give
any examples of PI for fear that the giving of examples would limit the
applicability of the provision under the principle of ejusdem generis. Rather, the
FCRC would like the judge to interpret the provision on a case-to-case basis,
guided by experience, the findings of experts and researchers in psychological
disciplines, and by decisions of church tribunals which, although not binding on
the civil courts, may be given persuasive effect since the provision was taken
from Canon Law. The term “psychological incapacity” defies any precise
definition since psychological causes can be of an infinite variety.
Article 36 of the Family Code cannot be taken and construed independently of
but must stand in conjunction with, existing precepts in our law on marriage. PI
should refer to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party
to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be
assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage which (Art. 68), include
their mutual obligations to live together, observe love, respect and fidelity and
render help and support. The intendment of the law has been to confine the
meaning of PI to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly
demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and
significance to the marriage. This psychological condition must exist at the time
the marriage is celebrated. The SC also notes that PI must be characterized
by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability. The incapacity
must be grave or serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out
the ordinary duties required in marriage; it must be rooted in the history of the
party antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge
only after the marriage; and it must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the
cure would be beyond the means of the party involved.
In the case at bar, although Leouel stands aggrieved, his petition must be
dismissed because the alleged PI of his wife is not clearly shown by the factual
settings presented. The factual settings do not come close to to the standard
required to decree a nullity of marriage.