Centeno Aquisan & Cameyeng - CAC LAW - Baguio City

21/07/2026

If the accusation is true, is it still slander?

In the case of Baula v. People (G.R. No. 249034, April 7, 2026), the Supreme Court ruled that the truth of an accusation does not justify the public imputation of a crime.

In this case, the accused uttered “Ang lahat ng gulo na ito ay nagsimula sa pagnanakaw mo” to a corporate officer during a confrontation, in the presence of several persons. The officer filed a criminal complaint for oral defamation or slander, which led to the accused’s conviction.

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction even though the accused invoked a separate civil case that found financial irregularities within the corporation and the officer’s involvement therein.

The Court held that even assuming that financial irregularities were judicially established, such findings do not authorize the public imputation of the crime of theft. A finding of financial irregularity in a civil case is not the same as a criminal conviction.

The Court further explained that good intentions involve more than simply claiming to protect a corporation’s interest. If a person genuinely believes another has committed a crime, the law expects them to file a complaint and use the proper legal process – not to make public accusations. Doing the latter, according to the Supreme Court, does not evince good faith; rather it reinforces the presumption of malice.

Disclaimer: This content is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Read the full decision for complete context, and consult a qualified lawyer for guidance on your specific situation.

03/07/2026

Does the spouses' mutual desire to end their marriage constitute collusion, warranting the dismissal of a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage?

Recently, the Supreme Court, in Republic vs. Ramoran-Wong, G.R. No. 276986, ruled that both spouses wanting to end their marriage does not automatically mean they are colluding.

In this case, the wife asked the court to declare their marriage void because her husband was psychologically incapacitated to fulfil his duties as a husband. She alleged that she had been subjected to physical, psychological, and economic abuse by her husband, even before they got married.

The husband did not file an answer to oppose the petition. Consequently, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) asked the Provincial Prosecutor to investigate whether the spouses had colluded to obtain a declaration of nullity of their marriage. The prosecutor found no collusion.

The wife testified on her behalf and presented witnesses including a clinical psychologist and her husband’s father. The husband, on the other hand, presented none.

The RTC dismissed the petition for insufficiency of evidence in proving the psychological incapacity. The RTC also took note of the testimony of the husband’s father that he and his son had discussed his appearance in court to testify about the marriage so that his son’s problem could be resolved.

The Supreme Court ruled that the husband’s failure to file his answer and present his evidence, or that he consented to his father serving as witness to the wife-petitioner does not automatically prove the existence of collusion. The high court emphasized that the parties’ mutual desire to void their marriage does not necessarily equate to collusion.

To establish collusion, there must be proof that the spouses agreed to mislead the court, such as by fabricating facts, presenting fake evidence, or suppressing valid defenses, to enable one of them to obtain a declaration of nullity of the marriage.

The Supreme Court found no sufficient evidence that the spouses conspired to have their marriage voided. It also held that the prosecutor’s Investigation Report finding no collusion is entitled to the presumption of regularity.

Disclaimer: This content is for general informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. For guidance on your specific legal concern, consult a qualified lawyer.

29/06/2026

Thank you, AI Law, for your trust and valued partnership. CAC Law is grateful for the opportunity to work alongside a distinguished team united by a shared commitment to excellence and client service. We look forward to strengthening this partnership and achieving greater milestones together.

25/06/2026

21/06/2026

Wishing all fathers a day of happiness and gratitude.