No episode playing
Philippine Law Updates is a podcast about relevant Philippine laws and&nbsp; jurisprudence compiled by Amicus Juris Production, a group of volunteer lawyers and law students based in Iloilo City and the Ilonggo Volunteer Lawyers (IVL).&nbsp; Excerpts from Supreme Court decisions are featured in this podcast.</p>
The existence of grounds for legal separation does not foreclose the possibility of psychological incapacity.
#nullityofmarriage
#philippinelawonmarraige
#supremecourtdecision
"A dismissed employee is entitled to moral damages when the dismissal is attended by bad faith or fraud or constitutes an act oppressive to labor, or is done in a manner contrary to good morals, good customs or public policy." Bad faith connotes a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong, or a breach of a known duty through some motive or interest or ill will that partakes of the nature of fraud.
It cannot be overemphasized that Dr. Daz cannot be assumed to be responsible for the bursting of the water bag. Precisely, that it gave way cannot be attributed to his fault. It goes deep into a discussion on the instrument itself or its dilapidated state. How can a doctor be responsible for the usability of an instrument that can be safely assumed to be that of the hospital's? The Court would have appreciated the circumstances differently had the instrument/s used been his or her own, such that it relates to his or her specialization. It would be unreasonable to assume that a water bag would be a personal instrument of a doctor such that he or she would be responsible for its condition.
Nevertheless, regardless of who owns the instrument, whether the doctor or the hospital, the propriety of its use would still depend on evidence acceptable before the Court, based on law and jurisprudence. As will be later discussed, the circumstances surrounding the propriety of using a water bag require expert testimony.
A party to a civil marriage who converts to Islam and contracts another marriage, despite the first marriage's subsistence, is guilty of bigamy. Likewise guilty is the spouse in the subsequent marriage. Conversion to Islam does not operate to exculpate them from criminal liability.
Further, a married Muslim cannot marry another. In exceptional cases, a married Muslim man may do so if "he can deal with them with equal companionship and just treatment as enjoined by Islamic law." The formal requisites of the subsequent marriage under Presidential Decree No. 1083 or the Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines (Muslim Code) entails the wife's knowledge of the impending subsequent marriage.
Pursuant to its policy to protect the safety, health, and welfare of women and children, the State has a duty to acknowledge the different, but no less damaging forms, that violence and abuse can take, to provide meaningful safeguards that concurrently defend the wellbeing of the victims and seek commensurate redress from their abusers. Marital infidelity is one such form of domestic violence that not only transgresses the matrimonial vows of faithfulness and commitment, but also inflicts inconceivable psychological and emotional harm upon the aggrieved spouse and their children. As a form of psychological abuse, marital infidelity destroys the stability and unity of the family at its core, shatters the self-worth and trust of the betrayed spouse, and fosters deep-seated trauma borne of emotional turmoil and related mental health issues. To stem the perpetuation of the cycle of abuse, and to prevent the normalization of extramarital promiscuity in our society, the Court declares marital infidelity to be a form of psychological violence punishable under Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004.
(Excerpts from the Supreme Court decision)
This is a petition for review of the decision dated January 31, 1992 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 19240, modifying the judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Santiago, Isabela, Branch 21, in Criminal Case No. 066. Petitioner George Manantan was acquitted by the trial court of homicide through reckless imprudence without a ruling on his civil liability. On appeal from the civil aspect of the judgment in Criminal Case No. 066, the appellate court found petitioner Manantan civilly liable and ordered him to indemnify private respondents Marcelino Nicolas and Maria Nicolas P104,400.00 representing loss of support, P50,000.00 as death indemnity, and moral damages of P20,000.00 or a total of P174,400.00 for the death of their son, Ruben Nicolas.
This is only an excerpt from the above-cited Supreme Court decision.
Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code provides that one of the circumstances that is exempt from criminal liability is when a person is insane, unless they have acted during a lucid interval.
Insanity in the context of this exempting circumstance is defined in People v. Formigones as being "deprived completely of reason or discernment and freedom of the will at the time of committing the crime."[118]
In determining whether a defense of insanity may prosper, this Court laid down the following three-way test in People v. Paña, thus, clarifying the guidelines in Formigones:
Considering the foregoing, we clarify the guidelines laid down in Formigones. Under this test, the insanity defense may prosper if: (1) the accused was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his or her acts; (2) the inability occurred at the time of the commission of the crime; and (3) it must be as a result of a mental illness or disorder.
The right to speedy disposition of cases is provided for in Section 16, Article III, of the 1987 Constitution. In determining whether the right to speedy disposition of cases has been violated, the following guidelines in this Supreme Court decision must be considered.
Republic Act No. 9262 or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 also applies even if the perpetrator is a woman, so long as the victim is a woman.
The police officers were obliged to give the appellant notice, show to her their authority, and demand that they be allowed entry. They may only break open any outer or inner door or window of a house to execute the search warrant if, after such notice and demand, such officers are refused entry to the place of directed search. This is known as the "knock and announce" principle which is embodied in Anglo-American Law. The method of entry of an officer into a dwelling and the presence or absence of such notice are as important considerations in assessing whether subsequent entry to search and/or arrest is constitutionally reasonable.
Amanda is a wife. A mother. A blogger. A Christian.
A charming, beautiful, bubbly, young woman who lives life to the fullest.
But Amanda is dying, with a secret she doesn’t want anyone to know.
She starts a blog detailing her cancer journey, and becomes an inspiration, touching and
captivating her local community as well as followers all over the world.
Until one day investigative producer Nancy gets an anonymous tip telling her to look at Amanda’s
blog, setting Nancy on an unimaginable road to uncover Amanda’s secret.
Award winning journalist Charlie Webster explores this unbelievable and bizarre, but
all-too-real tale, of a woman from San Jose, California whose secret ripped a family apart and
left a community in shock.
Scamanda is the true story of a woman whose own words held the key to her secret.
New episodes every Monday.
Follow Scamanda on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen.
Amanda’s blog posts are read by actor Kendall Horn.
