Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Atty. Emphasis
Student
Professor
MALAPO
else.
alone
at
home
(Nos
their
she
while
house. Amalia
was
then
September
15,
1991,
there
being
no
is
alleged
to
have
Family
Code,
The
accused-appellant
testimony
of
Amalia,
can
as
Revised
Penal
Code,
accused-appellant
Rulings:
ALBERTO MEDINA
G.R No. 113691
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
says
that
Medina
has
mild
disturbances.
The presumption
Issues:
not
surrender
appreciating
Medinas
voluntary
surrender
should
have
been
former
desk
officer
of
the
sufficiently
established
the
that
the
defense
did
not
PEOPLE V BONOAN
64 Phil. 93
following evidence:
Facts:
1.
dementia
foundation
complete
record
of
mental
assistant
alienist
Dr.
Jose
2.
praecox
long
before
the
symptoms
similar
to
manic
depression psychosis
3.
4.
Abelardo
normalcy
5.
was
suffering
only
from
ISSUE:
PEOPLE v. FORMIGONES
FACTS:
HELD:
No. In
order that an
exempting
necessary
like
an
insane
person,
that
silent
and
indifferent
to
his
that
there
be
complete
49 PHIL. 887
FACTS:
ISSUE:
Whether
women,
inquired
Roberto
to
Villelas
Graciano
tenant,
and
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
Roberto
and
Villela
Villela
or
then
dodged
the
asked
blow
PEOPLE v. GIMENA
FACTS:
On the night of May 9, 1933, Felipe Ferolino,
brother in law of the deceased, commented a
FACTS:
Leyte,
because
of
severe
as
an
exempting
circumstance.
HELD:
the
circumstances
surrounding
the
conditionOn
cane,
much
less
taking
into
the
other
hand,
accused-
PEOPLE VS BAID
FACTS:
a physical examination.
prosecution
presented
Dr.
Herminigilda
three
Salangad,
the
ISSUE:
of
relapse
of
her
mental
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
known
Her
could
her
testimony
perceptions
indicates
to
others.
that
she
damages
made
by
the
trial
court,
amount of P50,000.00.
They
show
that
FACTS:
Plaintiff Joel Jimenez filed a
been
suffering
construed
from
deficiency
or
mental
some
to
include
those
abnormality
form
of
or
mental
Even
assuming
then
complainant
consented
to
intercourse
with
copulation
would
the
sexual
that
have
the
third
impotency
and simple
accused-appellant,
fall
under
the
has
not
been
satisfactorily
ISSUE:
HELD:
to costs.
FACTS:
incapacity.
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
thereafter.
petition,
Joselita
moved
for
bill
of
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
responsive pleading.
Court.
action.
efforts
sot
that
she
frequently
recourse
action.
but
to
order
the
immediate
trial
stage.
psychologically
Whether
petitioner
is
incapacitated
should
be
9)
Submitted
themselves
to
medical
other.
annulled
by
reason
of
psychological
Denied
Facts:
3)
for
reconsideration
marriage contact-evidence
technology
wife
fourth nights
(forced);
2)
that
her
husband
will
perform
his
or
her
essential
marital
REASONS:
June 6, 2011
Facts:
On March 23, 1988, petitioner Danilo
A. Aurelio and respondent Vida Ma. Corazon
psychological
assessment
respondent
suffers
parties
Personality
Disorder
4)
Issue
that
failure
to
have
sexual
revealed
from
with
that
Histrionic
Narcissistic
also
for
reconsideration
and
found
that
finds
that
the
essential
marital
marriage
complied
with
the
Molina
TE VS. TE
FACTS:
Petitioner Edward Te first met respondent
the petition.
Issues:
Whether
or
not
the
petition
for
Ruling:
and jobless.
boat ticket.
of
such
illness,
and
(c)
non-
Second,
the
petition
Personality
Disorder
with
from
Passive
Aggressive
that
are
allegedly
grave,
house
but
Rowena
refused
and
ISSUE:
Whether
contracted
is
the
void
on
marriage
the
ground
of
psychological incapacity.
HELD:
marital
disorder
to
be
declared
psychologically
if
the
totality
of
evidence
obligations
on
account
for
her
severe
itself.
presentation
presupposes
assessment
of
of expert
thorough
the
and
parties
proof
in-depth
by
the
petitioner,
personality
afflicted
disorder,
with
cannot
and
incurable
psychological
showed
that
AAA
had
two
hymenal
this appeal.
ISSUE:
HELD:
her
grandmothers
house.
Upon
her
P30,000.
accused,
though
innocent,
to
rape
complainants
may
be
solely
testimony
based
on
provided
the
it
is
FACTS:
Synthesis:
The Supreme Court laid down requirements
for domestic violence, so defined, has many
forms,
including
physical
aggression
or
is
committed
by
having
carnal
intimidation;
when
the
woman
is
In
their
complaint,
respondents
requests
for
Martins
support
In
no
uncertain
terms,
we
also
action.
Intrusions
The trial court denied the MTD and
the
right
must
be
into
ISSUE:
the
infringement
of
privacy
of
W/N
HELD:
1. No.
FACTS:
facts alleged.
down
the
proposed
national
of
live
birth;
(b)
petitioners
Appearance
and
Comment
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
affirmative
defences,
parties have
legitimacy,
and
Acting
on
Jesus
Motion
presumption
physical
of
resemblance
presented
their respective
possibility
scientific
new
court
precedent
the
potential
hearing,
the
to
produce
said
conditions
are
established.
In
some
states,
to
warrant
the
paternity.
determine
should
be
As
whether
applied
explained
there
in
is
our
can
of
first
present
sufficient
paternity.
averred that she never became his commonlaw wife nor was she treated as such.
FACTS:
Antonio
minor
son,
respondents),
filed
Randy
before
(collectively
the
RTC
and
Antonio
lived
together
having
sexual
admitted
as
the
information
in
the
said
information.
ISSUE:
established
WON,
Randys
HELD:
illegitimate
filiation
to
Antonio.
relations
has
not
of
by
this
Randy
rules
life,
The
in
Birth
basis.
and
for
Live
no
society
in
presented
document
incompetent
to
prove
and
they
cannot
be
admitted
the same.
dated
March
31,
2005
and
one
is
entered
DISMISSING
the
incapable of erection
HELD:
No.
1.
as proper remedy:
a.
3.
Villa
doubt
of
b.
2.
guilty
qualified
beyond
rape,
reasonable
De Villa:
RTC:
ISSUE:
1.
c.
constitutional
restraint
deprivation of a
ii.
iii.
e.
2.
(b)
HC
introduced
b.
would
reasonable diligence;
cumulative,
corroborative
or
impeaching; and
new trial
a.
admitted
5.
and
after trial;
b.
and
a.
discovered
have
the
certiorari or appeal
3.
Criminal Procedure:
c.
d.
grounds:
(a)
irregularities
prejudicial
to
the