Atty. Richard Abangan, Jr. Law Office

24/08/2026

02/05/2026

SUPREME COURT: FORMER PRES. DUTERTE ABUSED POWER IN DISMISSAL OF FORMER DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN CARANDANG

FIRST ON BATAS PH: The Supreme Court (SC) has voided the dismissal order imposed by former president Rodrigo Duterte against former Overall Deputy Ombudsman Arthur Carandang, ruling that the Office of the President has no authority to impose administrative penalties on high-ranking officials of the Office of the Ombudsman, an independent constitutional body.

In a 28-page decision penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh, the SC's Third Division affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals, which declared Carandang’s dismissal void ab initio, describing it as an assault on the principle of checks and balances.

Carandang was dismissed by former president Duterte in 2018 for allegedly disclosing confidential bank records of the Dutertes which allegedly contain billions in wealth.

Then Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales inhibited herself from handling complaints involving Duterte due to her relation by affinity to the President’s daughter Vice President Sara Duterte . With the Ombudsman recused, the mandate fell to Carandang.

Carandang took over the complaint filed on May 5, 2016 by Senator Antonio Trillanes IV, which accused Duterte of malversation, violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, plunder, and unexplained wealth.

“To ensure the enduring existence and effectiveness of the Office of the Ombudsman, the Constitution expressly labeled it as independent,” the Court said.

The highest bench ruled that Carandang is entitled to all retirement benefits upon the expiration of his term, as well as back salaries covering the period of his preventive suspension and dismissal.

01/05/2026

SUPREME COURT ACQUITS BOYFRIEND IN VAWC CASE, SAYS COMPLAINT STEMMED FROM MERE LOVERS' QUARREL

The Supreme Court (SC) voting 3-2 has acquitted a man accused of psychological violence for allegedly threatening to kill his girlfriend if she refused to engage in s*xual in*******se, ruling that the prosecution failed to establish sufficient proof of mental and emotional anguish on the part of the complainant.

In a 21-page ruling penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul Inting, the SC's Third Division reversed the ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA) finding the accused guilty of violation of Republic Act No. 9262, or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 (Anti-VAWC Act).

The case stemmed from a complaint filed by the girlfriend, who alleged that she received text messages from the accused demanding that they engage in s*xual in*******se, threatening to kill her if she refused.

The complainant alleged that she was emotionally abused by the accused throughout their almost four years of relationship. She narrated how the accused blackmailed her whenever she would not do his bidding. The accused would also threaten to post her n**e photos and their s*x video.

Unable to bear the burden any longer, the complainant sought the help of the police authorities as the accused demanded money from her in exchange for not uploading their s*x video. In response, the police officers organized an entrapment operation, but it did not materialize because the accused failed to meet up with her. The police conducted a second entrapment operation, during which the suspect was arrested after receiving Php2,000.

This prompted the complainant to file criminal cases for grave threats under Article 282 and violation of RA 9262 or the Anti-VAWC Law. The accused denied the allegations. He alleged that while he is working as an OFW in Taiwan, the complainant supposedly had another boyfriend. She apologized to him and promised not to cheat again.

The accused denied psychologically abusing the victim, claiming that the criminal complaints were filed out of vengeance. He alleged that the victim's parents sought revenge due to their disapproval of the relationship.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted the accused for violating Section 5(i) of the Anti-VAWC Act, highlighting that all the elements of psychological violence were proven by the prosecution. The Court of Appeals subsequently affirmed the said decision, paving the way for him to elevate the case before the Supreme Court.

In acquitting the accused, the SC ruled that the complainant failed to sufficiently prove that she suffered mental or emotional anguish. It emphasized that there is no sufficient proof that the accused acted purposefully and knowingly, with intent to alarm or cause substantial emotional or psychological distress to the victim.

The Court did not give great credence to the complainant’s testimony, noting that her actions appeared inconsistent with her claims. It pointed out that after allegedly receiving threatening text messages, she did not exhibit substantial distress, as shown by her willingness to ride the motorcycle with the accused.

"Her behavior after receiving the text messages does not show there was substantial distress on her part. For one, AAA even boarded [the accused]'s motorcycle shortly after the incident. If, indeed, AAA was afraid for her life, she would not have boarded the motorcycle, considering that she was already with the police officers during the alleged entrapment operations."

Upon reviewing the text messages, the High Court found no clear intent on the part of the accused to cause mental anguish to the complainant. It noted that their exchanges showed the accused was still asking and making plans for a s*xual encounter, while also requesting a shirt as a gift.

"These circumstances imply, if not show, that the two were in good terms at the time of the conversation and lend more credence to the conclusion that the two text messages sent by the accused were out of anger and not out of a specific intent to cause distress," the Supreme Court said.

It took into account the Instagram posts of the victim with the caption "Nagmahal, nasaktan, nagpakulong," alluding to the imprisonment of the accused. In another post, she posted a photograph of the accused in his jail cell with the statement, "Diba ang saya mo na. Lol," which, according to the court, is not a normal behavior of a victim of abuse.

"Thus, the foregoing circumstances all give rise to the conclusion that the case of AAA and ### is not one for psychological violence but merely that of a private quarrel between the couple, not within the ambit of what is sought to be punished by Republic Act 9262," the Supreme Court added.

29/04/2026

In 𝐒𝐚𝐥𝐯𝐚-𝐑𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐚𝐧 𝐯. 𝐑𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐩𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬, 𝐆.𝐑. 𝐍𝐨. 𝟐𝟔𝟖𝟏𝟎𝟗, 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡 𝟑, 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟓, the Supreme Court declared annulled the marriage of Lory and Jaaziel on the ground of fraudulent CONCEALMENT OF HOMOSEXUALITY pursuant to Article 45 (3) in relation to Article 46 (4) of the Family Code.

In 2010, Lory Roldan who was then working in Sauda Arabia, added Jaaziel Salva on social media which led to their constant communication. In 2011, they became sweethearts and engaged in a long-distance relationship. In 2012, they met for the first time and went on their first date, Jaaziel noticed Lory being distant from her and wondered why they never kissed nor held hands. But Lory only confessed his timidity and lack of confidence. In 2013, they got married in Marinduque, after wedding, Lory still avoided intimacy with Jaaziel. In 2015, Jaaziel discovered a bundle of magazines showing na*ked male models in Lory’s belongings. Jaaziel confronted Lory who admitted that he was homose*xual. In 2017, Jaaziel filed a Petition for Annulment of Marriage.

The SC stressed that it is the CONCEALMENT of homos*xuality constitutive of FRAUD that serves as a valid ground to annul a marriage. The allegation of vitiated consent, particularly the CONCEALMENT of homos*xuality in this case, must be proven by preponderance of evidence.

Here, SC held that it is evident that Lory merely tricked Jaaziel to marry him by making her believe that he is heteros*xual. The Court further explained that no woman would put herself in a shameful position if the fact that she married a homos*xual was not true. More so, no man would keep silent when his s*xuality is being questioned thus creating disgrace in his name. The totality of Jaaziel’s evidence should be properly given weight, and thus, should be considered sufficient as against Lory’s eerie silence on this matter. Hence, their marriage must be annulled on the ground of fraudulent 𝘾𝙊𝙉𝘾𝙀𝘼𝙇𝙈𝙀𝙉𝙏 of homos*xuality pursuant to Article 45 (3) in relation to Article 46 (4) of the Family Code.

03/01/2026

SUPREME COURT DECLARES MARRIAGE VOID DUE TO WIFE'S CONTROLLING CONDUCT

The Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed the Court of Appeals (CA) ruling that nullified the marriage of a couple on the ground of the wife's psychological incapacity demonstrated through her domineering and controlling attitude to the extent that she always demands her husband to always update her of his whereabouts.

In a 14-page decision authored by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul Inting, the SC's Third Division has declared void from the beginning the marriage between a couple on the ground of the wife's psychological incapacity as provided under Article 36 of the Family Code.

The couple were married on January 22, 1995. They had no antenuptial agreement, and their property relations are governed by the regime of absolute community of property.

The husband narrated that even prior to the wedding, the psychological incapacity of his wife, whose childhood was marked with overindulgence at a time when her pathogenic family was still wealthy, was demonstrated by her domineering attitude coupled with her lazy and poor study habits.

He added that after the wedding, the wife's incapacity to perform her marital obligations supposedly became more apparent given that she continued to be domineering and controlling as she required the husband to always update her of his whereabouts. She also displayed an arrogant and haughty attitude, especially towards his mother.

More than these, the husband also claimed that the wife's psychologically abused their children when she physically attacked him in the presence of their kids while he was holding their daughter, and reached the point when she sneaked in the house of the husband's mother to take the kids home without telling anyone. This paved the way for him to file a petition for nullification of marriage.

A clinical psychologist testified that the wife suffered from Narcissistic Personality Disorder with paranoid features, which is categorized as grave, incurable, and with antecedents. The expert recommended the nullification of their marriage.

In her defense, the wife countered that it was the husband who abused their children, not only psychologically but also s*xually. She averred that in times of disagreement, her husband also physically and verbally abused her.

The Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals (CA) granted the petition and declared void ab initio their marriage. The CA gave much weight to the psychological reports, which showed that the wife's psychological incapacity is grave and incurable. Aggrieved the wife elevated the case before the Supreme Court.

In denying her appeal, the high court found no valid reason to overturn the consistent findings and conclusions of the RTC and the CA, which are supported by the evidence on record.

It cited the landmark case of Tan-Andal vs. Andal, which requires that in order to grant the nullification of marriage due to psychological incapacity, the same must be grave enough to cause the couple's inability, not mere refusal, neglect, or difficulty, to perform the essential marital obligations.

It must also be shown that the psychological incapacity existed prior to or at the time of the celebration of the marriage, and it must be proven that the spouse, by reason of his or her psychological incapacity, persistently fails to comply with the essential marital obligations.

The SC agreed to the CA finding that the evidence presented by the husband is sufficient to establish that the wife suffered from a narcissistic personality disorder with paranoid features through the accounts of his witnesses, corroborated by the psychological report and testimony of the clinical psychologist.

It also emphasized that the nature of the wife's psychological incapacity is severe and pervasive, citing the psychological reports that revealed it affects all areas of her life, to the point that she is unable to perform her essential marital obligations to her husband.

The high court also took into consideration that it is quite apparent that the wife's psychological incapacity, as shown by the behavioral manifestations of her personality disorder, existed even before their marriage, as the same is rooted in her childhood and carried over into her adulthood.

It ruled that since their marriage was declared void, the rules on co-ownership, in relation to Article 147 of the Family Code, govern the liquidation, partition, and distribution of their common properties.

Hence, the highest bench deemed it proper to remand the case back to the trial court, as it appears that both parties have raised issues regarding their property relations in their respective pleadings.