People vs. Perfecto

43 Phil 887

FACTS: The Secretary of the Philippine Senate, Fernando M. Guerrero, discovered that certain documents, which constituted the records of testimony given by witnesses in the investigation of oil companies, had disappeared from his office. The day following the convening of the Senate, the newspaper La Nacion, edited by Mr. Gregorio Perfecto, published an article regarding what happened. Perfecto was prosecuted for writing an editorial against the Philippine Senate. The editorial in question was alleged to have violated Art. 256 of the Penal Code, punishing insults to Ministers of the Crown.

ISSUE: Whether Article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code is still in force.

RULING: The Supreme Court acquitted him, holding that the particular article, of the said Code had been automatically abrogated, being political in nature, upon the advent of American sovereignty. Furthermore, Article 256 of the Penal Code is contrary to the genius and fundamental principles of the American character and system of government. The gulf which separates this article from this spirit which inspires all penal legislation of American origin, is as wide as that which separates a monarchy from a democratic republic like that of the Unite States. Punishment for contempt of non-judicial officers has no place in a government based upon American principles. The American system of government is calculated to enforce respect and obedience where such respect and obedience is due, but never does it place around the individual who happens to occupy an official position by mandate of the people any official halo, which calls for drastic punishment for contemptuous remarks. 

Te vs. Te

Eduard Kenneth Ngo Te vs. Rowena Ong Gutierrez Yu-Te

G.R. No. 161793

FACTS: The parties’ whirlwind relationship lasted more or less six (6) months. They met in January 1996, eloped in March, exchanged marital vows in May, and parted ways in June. After almost four years, or on January 18, 2000, Edward filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Quezon City for the annulment of his marriage to Rowena on the basis of the latter’s psychological incapacity. The psychologist who provided expert testimony found both parties psychologically incapacitated. Petitioner’s behavioral pattern falls under the classification of dependent personality disorder, and the respondent’s, that of the narcissistic and antisocial personality disorder.

The trial court, on July 30, 2001, rendered its decision declaring the marriage of the parties null and void on the ground that both parties were psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations. On review, the appellate court reversed and set aside the trial’s court ruling. It ruled that petitioner failed to prove the psychological incapacity of respondent, for the clinical psychologist did not personally examine respondent, and relied only on the information provided by petitioner. Further, the psychological incapacity was not shown to be attended by gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability. In sum, the evidence adduced fell short of the requirements stated in the Molina case needed for the declaration of nullity of the marriage under Art. 36 of the Family Code. Dissatisfied, petitioner filed before the SC the instant petition for review on certiorari. He posited that the trial court declared the marriage void, not only because of respondent’s psychological incapacity, but rather due to both parties’ psychological incapacity. He also pointed out that there is no requirement for the psychologist to personally examine respondent.

ISSUE: Whether, based on Article 36 of the Family Code, the marriage between the parties is null and void?

HELD: The petition for review for certiorari was granted. The decision of the CA was reversed and set aside, and the decision of the trial court was reinstated. Both parties afflicted with grave, severe and incurable psychological incapacity, the precipitous marriage is, thus, declared null and void. For the fulfillment of the obligations of marriage depends on the strength of this interpersonal relationship. A serious incapacity for interpersonal sharing and support is held to impair the relationship and consequently, the ability to fulfill the essential marital obligations.

The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be (a) medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the decision. Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the incapacity must be psychological – not physical, although its manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical.

In dissolving the marital bonds on account of either party’s psychological incapacity, the Court is not demolishing the foundation of families, but it is actually protecting the sanctity of marriage, because it refuses to allow a person afflicted with a psychological disorder, who cannot comply with or assume the essential marital obligations, from remaining that sacred bond. Let it be noted that in Art. 36, there is no marriage to speak of in the first place, as the same is void from the very beginning.

People vs. Juliano

People of the Philippines (appellee)

vs.

Lea Sagan Juliano (appellant)

G.R.  No. 134120

January 17, 2005

FACTS: The accused purchased 190 sacks of milled rice from JCT Agro-Development Corporation and in payment she issued a check for a value of P89,000, knowing at the time of issue that she did not have funds with the drawee bank for payment of the said check. When presented for encashment, it was dishonored by the bank for reason of insufficiency of funds. On the following month the accused issued another check that was again dishonored by the drawee bank for the same reason, to the damage and prejudice of JCT Agro-Development Corporation.

The trial court found her guilty of violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (the Bouncing Checks Law) and Estafa. Appellant appealed her conviction for estafa to the Court of Appeals, but still found her guilty, with intent to defraud and by means of false pretense, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, committed the offenses.

ISSUE:  Whether the prosecution able to prove beyond reasonable doubt to convict the appellant for estafa?

RULING: The Court set aside the decision of the Regional Trial Court and acquitted Lea Sagan Juliano for the crime of estafa. The accused could not be found guilty of estafa in the absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused employed deceit constituting false pretenses or any fraudulent act. Nevertheless, appellant’s civil liability to JCT remains, in the amount of P89,000, which is the value of the sack of rice she purchased.

People vs. Enriquez

People of the Philippines (appellee)
vs.
Elpidio Enriquez, Jr. and Emiliano Enriquez (appellants)
G.R. No. 158797
July 29, 2005


FACTS: The abovenamed accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, with the use of firearm (nickel plated revolver), motor vehicle (tricycle) and by simulating public authority, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, forcibly kidnapped Alexander Pureza y Mendoza by the point of a gun (revolver) and forcibly loaded him to a yellow colored tricycle (Hazel) and brought somewhere else and detained in an undisclosed place for more than five (5) days since the kidnapping took place and up to the present time could not be located, with the aggravating circumstances of the use of a firearm, force, motor vehicle and simulation of public authority.

Appellants were convicted of kidnapping by the Regional Trial Court of Cavite City and each was sentenced to suffer an indeterminate prison term of seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as minimum to reclusion perpetua as maximum. They appealed to the Court of Appeals which not only affirmed their convictions but imposed upon each of the appellants the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

ISSUES:(1) Whether the accused are guilty beyond reasonable doubt?
(2) Whether Indeterminate Sentence Law shall apply to their case?

RULING:(1) The Court joined the lower courts in rejecting appellant’s alibi. They have repeatedly ruled that alibi is an inherently weak defense because it is easy to fabricate and is highly unreliable, more so when corroborated only by relatives and friends. It cannot stand against the positive identification of appellant by a credible witness to the crime.

The Court found that the guilt of appellants has been proven beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. All the elements of the crime of kidnapping, to wit: (1) the accused is a private individual; (2) the accused kidnaps or detains another, or in any manner deprives the latter of his liberty; (3) the act of detention or kidnapping is illegal; and (4) in the commission of the offense, any of the four circumstances mentioned in Art. 267 of the Revised Penal Code are present, have been proven through the eyewitness account and have not been shown to have any improver motive in testifying the case.

(2) Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act. No. 4103) proscribes that it will not apply to persons convicted of offenses punished with death penalty or life-imprisonment. The penalty imposed on the crime which the appellants have committed is punishable at that time by reclusion perpetua, which for purposes of the Indeterminate Sentence Law is synonymous to life-imprisonment; hence, latter law will not apply in their case, and so the penalty of reclusion perpetua will be imposed instead.

Francisco vs. Ferrer

ERLINDA FRANCISCO AND JULIANA PAMAONG (petitioners)
vs.
RICARDO FERRER, JR., ANNETTE FERRER, ERNESTO LO AND REBECCA LO (respondents)
G.R. No. 142029
February 28, 2001


FACTS: The petitioners failed to deliver the wedding cake on the wedding day as ordered and paid for. Petitioners gave the lame excuse that delivery was probably delayed because of the traffic, when in truth, no cake could be delivered because the order slip got lost. The respondents filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court, Cebu City, for breach of contract with damages. The trial court rendered a decision in favor of plaintiffs and against Erlinda Francisco who is ordered to pay an amount of P30, 000 for moral damages. The petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals which modified the appealed decision increasing the award of moral damages from thirty thousand (P30,000.00) to two hundred fifty thousand pesos (P250,000.00) and awarded an additional exemplary damages of one hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00).

ISSUE: Whether the petitioners are liable for moral and exemplary damages?

RULING: The Court granted the petition and reversed the ruling of the Court of Appeals. To recover moral and exemplary damages in an action for breach of contract, the breach must be palpable wanton, reckless, malicious, in bad faith, oppressive or abusive. The person claiming moral damages must prove the existence of bad faith by clear and convincing evidence, for the law always presumes good faith. The Court found no such fraud or bad faith.

Nevertheless, the Court found the petitioners liable for nominal damages (an amount of P10,000) for insensitivity, inadvertence or inattention to their customer’s anxiety and need of the hour. “Nominal damages are ‘recoverable where a legal right is technically violated and must be vindicated against an invasion that has produced no actual present loss of any kind or where there has been a breach of contract and no substantial injury or actual damages whatsoever have been or can be shown.” Nominal damages may be awarded “to a plaintiff whose right has been violated or invaded by the defendant, for the purpose of vindicating or recognizing that right, not for indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered.”