Larino Cardenas & Partners Law Offices

Larino Cardenas & Partners Law Offices Contact information, map and directions, contact form, opening hours, services, ratings, photos, videos and announcements from Larino Cardenas & Partners Law Offices, Lawyer & Law Firm, The Forum Building, Archbishop Reyes Avenue, Cebu City.

Attorneys-at-Law | Notary Public

Larino Cardenas & Partners Law Offices is a Cebu City-based law office offering notarization services, legal consultation, retainer services, and representation in civil, criminal, and labor cases.

19/08/2026
Another criminal complaint filed against our client was dismissed during preliminary investigation before the Office of ...
24/07/2026

Another criminal complaint filed against our client was dismissed during preliminary investigation before the Office of the Prosecutor.

The matter was addressed through the preparation and filing of a counter-affidavit presenting the respondentโ€™s factual account, supporting evidence, and applicable legal defenses for the investigating prosecutorโ€™s evaluation.

Our law office provides legal assistance in criminal cases, including the evaluation of criminal complaints, preparation and filing of counter-affidavits, representation during preliminary investigation, and defense before the courts when an Information has been filed.

๐Ÿ“ ๐—ฉ๐—ถ๐˜€๐—ถ๐˜ ๐—จ๐˜€: G/F, The Forum Building, right beside 1Nito Tower, Archbishop Reyes Avenue, Cebu City, Cebu 6000
https://share.google/JiIRNJJtwwWEVbCkc
๐Ÿ•’ ๐—ข๐—ณ๐—ณ๐—ถ๐—ฐ๐—ฒ ๐—›๐—ผ๐˜‚๐—ฟ๐˜€: Monday to Saturday, 10:00 AM to 7:00 PM
๐Ÿ’ฌ ๐—œ๐—ป๐—พ๐˜‚๐—ถ๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐—ฒ๐˜€ & ๐—”๐—ฝ๐—ฝ๐—ผ๐—ถ๐—ป๐˜๐—บ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐˜๐˜€: Message us on Facebook or Instagram
๐Ÿ“ž ๐—–๐—ฎ๐—น๐—น / ๐—ง๐—ฒ๐˜…๐˜: 0956 778 6413
๐Ÿ“ง ๐—˜๐—บ๐—ฎ๐—ถ๐—น: [email protected]

Walk-ins are welcome. For faster service and assured availability, scheduling an appointment is recommended.

Legal consultations are also available in person or online via Zoom or Google Meet.

16/07/2026

The (SC) has ruled that the infliction of psychological violence, if done through Facebook, is considered done through information and communications technology, which warrants the imposition of a higher penalty pursuant to Section 6 of RA 10175 or the ๐˜Š๐˜บ๐˜ฃ๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ๐˜ค๐˜ณ๐˜ช๐˜ฎ๐˜ฆ ๐˜—๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ๐˜ท๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ๐˜ต๐˜ช๐˜ฐ๐˜ฏ ๐˜ˆ๐˜ค๐˜ต ๐˜ฐ๐˜ง 2012.

In a Resolution penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, the SCโ€™s First Division affirmed with modification its October 22, 2025 Decision (assailed Decision), which upheld the conviction of an individual (###) for committing psychological violence under Section 5(i) of Republic Act (RA) No. 9262, or the ๐˜ˆ๐˜ฏ๐˜ต๐˜ช-๐˜๐˜ช๐˜ฐ๐˜ญ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ๐˜ค๐˜ฆ ๐˜ˆ๐˜จ๐˜ข๐˜ช๐˜ฏ๐˜ด๐˜ต ๐˜ž๐˜ฐ๐˜ฎ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜ฅ ๐˜›๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ๐˜ช๐˜ณ ๐˜Š๐˜ฉ๐˜ช๐˜ญ๐˜ฅ๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ ๐˜ˆ๐˜ค๐˜ต ๐˜ฐ๐˜ง 2004 (Anti-VAWC Act) against his ex-girlfriend (AAA) by posting derogatory statements about her on Facebook.

The SC, however, resolved to raise the penalty by one degree, considering that the offense was committed through Facebook, as adequately alleged in the Information and established during trial.

AAA filed the VAWC case against her former partner ### after he posted a statement on Facebook calling her a dirty woman and an animal, and threatening to box her when he sees her. He repeated the insults in the comments to the post, which was public.

During trial, AAA presented screenshots of the Facebook post and testified that she had created for ### the Facebook account which made the post. Her two siblings testified that the account was ###โ€™s and that they received messages from him through the same account.

Despite ###โ€™s denial, the SC, in its assailed Decision, affirmed the decisions of the Family Court and the Court of Appeals (CA) convicting ###, stressing that in criminal cases, the prosecution must prove not only the elements of the crime but also the identity of the offender. The SC also upheld the penalty imposed by the CA, consisting of imprisonment for six months and one day to eight years and one day, a fine of PHP 100,000, and psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment.

Resolving ###โ€™s Motion for Reconsideration, the SC held that ###โ€™s authorship of the Facebook post was established beyond reasonable doubt, using the guideposts it established in its assailed Decision:

๐Ÿ. ๐€๐๐ฆ๐ข๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐จ๐ฐ๐ง๐ž๐ซ๐ฌ๐ก๐ข๐ฉ ๐จ๐ซ ๐š๐ฎ๐ญ๐ก๐จ๐ซ๐ฌ๐ก๐ข๐ฉ;
๐Ÿ. ๐๐ž๐ข๐ง๐  ๐ฌ๐ž๐ž๐ง ๐š๐œ๐œ๐ž๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ข๐ง๐  ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐š๐œ๐œ๐จ๐ฎ๐ง๐ญ ๐จ๐ซ ๐œ๐จ๐ฆ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฌ๐ข๐ง๐  ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฌ๐ญ;
๐Ÿ‘. ๐‚๐จ๐ง๐ญ๐š๐ข๐ง๐ข๐ง๐  ๐ข๐ง๐Ÿ๐จ๐ซ๐ฆ๐š๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐ค๐ง๐จ๐ฐ๐ง ๐จ๐ง๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐ญ๐จ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐จ๐Ÿ๐Ÿ๐ž๐ง๐๐ž๐ซ ๐จ๐ซ ๐š ๐Ÿ๐ž๐ฐ ๐ฉ๐ž๐จ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐ž;
๐Ÿ’. ๐‹๐š๐ง๐ ๐ฎ๐š๐ ๐ž ๐œ๐จ๐ง๐ฌ๐ข๐ฌ๐ญ๐ž๐ง๐ญ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐จ๐Ÿ๐Ÿ๐ž๐ง๐๐ž๐ซโ€™๐ฌ ๐œ๐ก๐š๐ซ๐š๐œ๐ญ๐ž๐ซ๐ข๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐œ๐ฌ;
๐Ÿ“. ๐‘๐ž๐œ๐จ๐ซ๐๐ฌ ๐Ÿ๐ซ๐จ๐ฆ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐ข๐ง๐ญ๐ž๐ซ๐ง๐ž๐ญ ๐ฌ๐ž๐ซ๐ฏ๐ข๐œ๐ž ๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐ฏ๐ข๐๐ž๐ซ, ๐ญ๐ž๐ฅ๐ž๐œ๐จ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ง๐ข๐œ๐š๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐ฌ ๐œ๐จ๐ฆ๐ฉ๐š๐ง๐ฒ, ๐จ๐ซ ๐ฌ๐จ๐œ๐ข๐š๐ฅ ๐ฆ๐ž๐๐ข๐š ๐ฌ๐ข๐ญ๐ž, ๐š๐ง๐ ๐ซ๐ž๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐ญ๐ฌ ๐Ÿ๐ซ๐จ๐ฆ ๐๐ž๐ฏ๐ข๐œ๐ž ๐Ÿ๐จ๐ซ๐ž๐ง๐ฌ๐ข๐œ ๐š๐ง๐š๐ฅ๐ฒ๐ฌ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฌ๐ก๐จ๐ฐ๐ข๐ง๐  ๐ ๐ž๐จ๐ฅ๐จ๐œ๐š๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐Ÿ๐ž๐š๐ญ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ž๐ฌ, ๐š๐ง๐ ๐จ๐ญ๐ก๐ž๐ซ ๐š๐ญ๐ญ๐ซ๐ข๐›๐ฎ๐ญ๐ž๐ฌ ๐ฅ๐ข๐ง๐ค๐ข๐ง๐  ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐š๐œ๐œ๐จ๐ฎ๐ง๐ญ ๐ญ๐จ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐จ๐Ÿ๐Ÿ๐ž๐ง๐๐ž๐ซ;
๐Ÿ”. ๐€๐œ๐ญ๐ฌ ๐œ๐จ๐ง๐ฌ๐ข๐ฌ๐ญ๐ž๐ง๐ญ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก ๐ฉ๐ซ๐ž๐ฏ๐ข๐จ๐ฎ๐ฌ ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฌ๐ญ๐ฌ; ๐จ๐ซ
๐Ÿ•. ๐Ž๐ญ๐ก๐ž๐ซ ๐ข๐ง๐ฌ๐ญ๐š๐ง๐œ๐ž๐ฌ ๐ฌ๐ก๐จ๐ฐ๐ข๐ง๐  ๐จ๐ฐ๐ง๐ž๐ซ๐ฌ๐ก๐ข๐ฉ, ๐š๐œ๐œ๐ž๐ฌ๐ฌ, ๐จ๐ซ ๐š๐ฎ๐ญ๐ก๐จ๐ซ๐ฌ๐ก๐ข๐ฉ.

The authorship of the Facebook post and all the elements of psychological violence having been established, the SC said Section 6 of the ๐˜Š๐˜บ๐˜ฃ๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ๐˜ค๐˜ณ๐˜ช๐˜ฎ๐˜ฆ ๐˜—๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ๐˜ท๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ๐˜ต๐˜ช๐˜ฐ๐˜ฏ ๐˜ˆ๐˜ค๐˜ต ๐˜ฐ๐˜ง 2012 applies, which mandates the imposition of a penalty higher by one degree for crimes and offenses committed using ICT. The use of ICT can enable offenders to evade liability, reach more victims, or cause greater harm.

Citing the definition of ICT, the Court ruled that social media platforms, such as Facebook, qualify as ICT systems because they allow users to generate, send, receive, store, and process electronic data messages through computers, mobile phones, or similar electronic devices.

In this case, the Information alleged that ### made the Facebook post using his "Facebook Messenger Accountโ€ฆ which was set to public view." The SC ruled that this statement constitutes a sufficient allegation of the use of ICT as a qualifying circumstance. Even if the term "ICT" was not stated, the Information adequately informed ### that he is being charged of inflicting psychological violence upon AAA through Facebook, which falls under the contemplation of an ICT system.

The allegation was established by the prosecution during trial.

Thus, the Court increased the penalty by one degree from six months and one day to eight years and one day to imprisonment of six years and one day to 14 years, eight months, and one day, but retained the fined PHP 100,000. He was likewise ordered to undergo psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=168987

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=168968

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIOโ€™s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution

Appeal Memorandum successfully prepared and filed for our client in an administrative case.If you received an unfavorabl...
15/07/2026

Appeal Memorandum successfully prepared and filed for our client in an administrative case.

If you received an unfavorable decision in an administrative case, you may need to file the proper appeal within the required period to have the decision reviewed by the appropriate authority.

Our law office can assist with:
โœ” Administrative Cases and Appeals
โœ” Appeal Memorandum Preparation and Filing
โœ” Representation Before Government Agencies and Administrative Offices
โœ” Legal Consultation and Case Assessment

๐Ÿ“ ๐—ฉ๐—ถ๐˜€๐—ถ๐˜ ๐—จ๐˜€: G/F, The Forum Building, right beside 1Nito Tower, Archbishop Reyes Avenue, Cebu City, Cebu 6000
https://share.google/JiIRNJJtwwWEVbCkc
๐Ÿ•’ ๐—ข๐—ณ๐—ณ๐—ถ๐—ฐ๐—ฒ ๐—›๐—ผ๐˜‚๐—ฟ๐˜€: Monday to Saturday, 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM
๐Ÿ’ฌ ๐—œ๐—ป๐—พ๐˜‚๐—ถ๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐—ฒ๐˜€ & ๐—”๐—ฝ๐—ฝ๐—ผ๐—ถ๐—ป๐˜๐—บ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐˜๐˜€: Message us on Facebook
๐Ÿ“ž ๐—–๐—ฎ๐—น๐—น / ๐—ง๐—ฒ๐˜…๐˜: 0956 778 6413
๐Ÿ“ง ๐—˜๐—บ๐—ฎ๐—ถ๐—น: [email protected]

Walk-ins are welcome. For faster service and assured availability, scheduling an appointment is recommended.

Legal consultations are also available in person or online via Zoom or Google Meet.

Larino Cardenas & Partners Law Offices
Attorney-at-Law | Notary Public

Another successful court petition for the issuance of a new ownerโ€™s duplicate certificate of title after the original ow...
10/07/2026

Another successful court petition for the issuance of a new ownerโ€™s duplicate certificate of title after the original ownerโ€™s duplicate was lost.

If your ownerโ€™s duplicate Certificate of Title, whether OCT or TCT, has been lost, destroyed, misplaced, or can no longer be found, you may need to file the proper court petition before the Register of Deeds can issue a new ownerโ€™s duplicate title.

Our law office can assist with:

โœ” Petition for Lost Ownerโ€™s Duplicate Title
โœ” Reissuance of Ownerโ€™s Duplicate Certificate of Title
โœ” Lost TCT / Lost OCT Concerns
โœ” Registry of Deeds Requirements
โœ” Land Title and Property Documentation
โœ” Court Filing and Representation for Lost Title Cases
โœ” Legal Consultation for Real Property Concerns

๐Ÿ“ ๐—ฉ๐—ถ๐˜€๐—ถ๐˜ ๐—จ๐˜€: G/F, The Forum Building, right beside 1Nito Tower, Archbishop Reyes Avenue, Cebu City, Cebu 6000
https://share.google/JiIRNJJtwwWEVbCkc
๐Ÿ•’ ๐—ข๐—ณ๐—ณ๐—ถ๐—ฐ๐—ฒ ๐—›๐—ผ๐˜‚๐—ฟ๐˜€: Monday to Saturday, 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM
๐Ÿ’ฌ ๐—œ๐—ป๐—พ๐˜‚๐—ถ๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐—ฒ๐˜€ & ๐—”๐—ฝ๐—ฝ๐—ผ๐—ถ๐—ป๐˜๐—บ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐˜๐˜€: Message us on Facebook or Instagram
๐Ÿ“ž ๐—–๐—ฎ๐—น๐—น / ๐—ง๐—ฒ๐˜…๐˜: 0956 778 6413
๐Ÿ“ง ๐—˜๐—บ๐—ฎ๐—ถ๐—น: [email protected]

Walk-ins are welcome. For faster service and assured availability, scheduling an appointment is recommended.

Legal consultations are also available in person or online via Zoom or Google Meet.

05/07/2026

SUPREME COURT: R**E THROUGH CARNAL KNOWLEDGE CAN NOW BE COMMITTED BY WOMEN OFFENDERS AGAINST MEN VICTIMS

The Supreme Court (SC) clarified that the crime of r**e by sexual in*******se can now be committed by a woman, saying the offense became gender-neutral following the enactment of Republic Act No. 11648 in 2022, which amended the Revised Penal Code and the Anti-R**e Law.

In a recent ruling, the SC sustained the conviction of 25-year-old Annabell Maliclic for statutory acts of lasciviousness after she forced her 11-year-old nephew into sexual in*******se.

The court said that while the offense was prosecuted under the law in effect at the time it was committed, Republic Act No. 11648 now recognizes that r**e by sexual in*******se may be committed by either a man or a woman.

The Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals initially found Maliclic guilty of "lascivious conduct" under R.A. No. 7610. The high court modified her conviction as it ruled that because the victim was under 12 years old and legally incapable of consent, the proper crime is statutory acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code.

It explained that r**e through carnal knowledge is no longer legally limited to a male offender and a female victim, as the new amendments stipulated in RA No. 11648 use gender-neutral language: R**e may be committed โ€œby a person who shall have carnal knowledge of another person.โ€

The SC emphasized the clear intent of the legislation, which technically includes women who may now be held criminally liable for r**e through carnal knowledge, and a man may be legally recognized as a r**e victim, provided that all the elements required by Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code are established.

It underscored that the anti-r**e law before the passage of R.A. No. 11648 in 2022 only referred to r**e as committed โ€œby a manโ€ against โ€œa woman.โ€

The highest bench noted that not recognizing men as victims of r**e by sexual in*******se is not only misogynistic but also disenfranchises male victims, who have less legal redress despite suffering the same trauma. It said that the failure to recognize that males can be victims likewise impairs their ability to recognize that they have been violated in the first place.

Nevertheless, it emphasized that the new amendments cannot be applied in Maliclic's case, as the crime was committed in 2018 or before R.A. No. 11648 took effect in 2022. It cited the prospectivity principle, which provides that criminal laws generally cannot be applied retroactively when unfavorable to an accused.

OCA Circular No. 48-2026The requirement of the filing of a motion to post bail is unnecessary and only impedes the right...
04/07/2026

OCA Circular No. 48-2026

The requirement of the filing of a motion to post bail is unnecessary and only impedes the right of an accused to immediately post bail and should be discontinued.

๐—ก๐—ฒ๐—ฒ๐—ฑ ๐—ฎ ๐—ก๐—ผ๐˜๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐˜† ๐—ฃ๐˜‚๐—ฏ๐—น๐—ถ๐—ฐ ๐—ถ๐—ป ๐—–๐—ฒ๐—ฏ๐˜‚ ๐—–๐—ถ๐˜๐˜†?Looking for a ๐—ป๐—ผ๐˜๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐˜† ๐—ป๐—ฒ๐—ฎ๐—ฟ ๐˜†๐—ผ๐˜‚, urgent notarization, or a law office in Cebu City that ...
25/06/2026

๐—ก๐—ฒ๐—ฒ๐—ฑ ๐—ฎ ๐—ก๐—ผ๐˜๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐˜† ๐—ฃ๐˜‚๐—ฏ๐—น๐—ถ๐—ฐ ๐—ถ๐—ป ๐—–๐—ฒ๐—ฏ๐˜‚ ๐—–๐—ถ๐˜๐˜†?

Looking for a ๐—ป๐—ผ๐˜๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐˜† ๐—ป๐—ฒ๐—ฎ๐—ฟ ๐˜†๐—ผ๐˜‚, urgent notarization, or a law office in Cebu City that can assist with your documents? We provide notarial services for walk-in and scheduled clients in Cebu City.

Common documents for notarization include:

โ€ข Affidavit of Loss
โ€ข Affidavit of Support
โ€ข Affidavit of Undertaking
โ€ข Affidavit of Two Disinterested Persons
โ€ข Affidavit of Cohabitation
โ€ข Sworn Statement / Sinumpaang Salaysay
โ€ข Special Power of Attorney / SPA
โ€ข General Power of Attorney
โ€ข Authorization Letters requiring notarization
โ€ข Deed of Absolute Sale
โ€ข Deed of Donation
โ€ข Deed of Assignment
โ€ข Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate
โ€ข Extrajudicial Settlement with Sale
โ€ข Waiver of Rights
โ€ข Lease Contract / Rental Agreement
โ€ข Contract of Sale
โ€ข Service Agreement
โ€ข Memorandum of Agreement
โ€ข Business Contracts and Company Documents
โ€ข Real Estate and Property Documents
โ€ข Bank, loan, and financing documents
โ€ข Incorporation, corporate, and business registration documents
โ€ข Other documents requiring notarization

Whether you need an ๐—ฎ๐—ณ๐—ณ๐—ถ๐—ฑ๐—ฎ๐˜ƒ๐—ถ๐˜ ๐—ป๐—ผ๐˜๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐˜‡๐—ฒ๐—ฑ, ๐—ฆ๐—ฃ๐—” ๐—ป๐—ผ๐˜๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐˜‡๐—ฎ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ผ๐—ป ๐—ถ๐—ป ๐—–๐—ฒ๐—ฏ๐˜‚, ๐—ฑ๐—ฒ๐—ฒ๐—ฑ ๐—ผ๐—ณ ๐˜€๐—ฎ๐—น๐—ฒ ๐—ป๐—ผ๐˜๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐˜†, or ๐—ฒ๐˜…๐˜๐—ฟ๐—ฎ๐—ท๐˜‚๐—ฑ๐—ถ๐—ฐ๐—ถ๐—ฎ๐—น ๐˜€๐—ฒ๐˜๐˜๐—น๐—ฒ๐—บ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐˜ ๐—ป๐—ผ๐˜๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐˜‡๐—ฎ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ผ๐—ป, our office can assist you.

๐Ÿ“ ๐—ฉ๐—ถ๐˜€๐—ถ๐˜ ๐—จ๐˜€: G/F, The Forum Building, right beside 1Nito Tower, Archbishop Reyes Avenue, Cebu City, Cebu 6000
https://share.google/JiIRNJJtwwWEVbCkc

๐Ÿ•’ ๐—ข๐—ณ๐—ณ๐—ถ๐—ฐ๐—ฒ ๐—›๐—ผ๐˜‚๐—ฟ๐˜€: Monday to Saturday, 10:00 AM to 7:00 PM

๐Ÿ’ฌ ๐—œ๐—ป๐—พ๐˜‚๐—ถ๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐—ฒ๐˜€ & ๐—”๐—ฝ๐—ฝ๐—ผ๐—ถ๐—ป๐˜๐—บ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐˜๐˜€: Message us on Facebook or Instagram

๐Ÿ“ž ๐—–๐—ฎ๐—น๐—น / ๐—ง๐—ฒ๐˜…๐˜: 0956 778 6413

๐Ÿ“ง ๐—˜๐—บ๐—ฎ๐—ถ๐—น: [email protected]

Walk-ins are welcome. For faster service and assured availability, scheduling an appointment is recommended.

Legal consultations are also available in person or online via Zoom or Google Meet.

๐—›๐—ผ๐—น๐—ถ๐—ฑ๐—ฎ๐˜† ๐—”๐—ฑ๐˜ƒ๐—ถ๐˜€๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐˜† ๐Ÿ“ขPlease be advised that Larino Cardenas & Partners Law Offices will be closed on May 1, 2026 (Friday) i...
29/04/2026

๐—›๐—ผ๐—น๐—ถ๐—ฑ๐—ฎ๐˜† ๐—”๐—ฑ๐˜ƒ๐—ถ๐˜€๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐˜† ๐Ÿ“ข

Please be advised that Larino Cardenas & Partners Law Offices will be closed on May 1, 2026 (Friday) in observance of Labor Day.

Regular office operations will resume on May 2, 2026 (Saturday), from 10:00 AM to 7:00 PM. Kindly plan your visit accordingly.

Thank you for your continued support and understanding.

๐Ÿ“ ๐—ฉ๐—ถ๐˜€๐—ถ๐˜ ๐—จ๐˜€: G/F, The Forum Building, right beside 1Nito Tower, Archbishop Avenue, Cebu City, Cebu 6000
๐Ÿ•’ ๐—ข๐—ณ๐—ณ๐—ถ๐—ฐ๐—ฒ ๐—›๐—ผ๐˜‚๐—ฟ๐˜€: Monday to Saturday, 10:00 AM to 7:00 PM
๐Ÿ’ฌ ๐—œ๐—ป๐—พ๐˜‚๐—ถ๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐—ฒ๐˜€ ๐—ฎ๐—ป๐—ฑ ๐—”๐—ฝ๐—ฝ๐—ผ๐—ถ๐—ป๐˜๐—บ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐˜๐˜€: Message us on Facebook
๐Ÿ“ž ๐—–๐—ฎ๐—น๐—น/๐—ง๐—ฒ๐˜…๐˜: 0945 437 9063 / 0995 353 3467
๐Ÿ“ง ๐—˜๐—บ๐—ฎ๐—ถ๐—น: [email protected]

Walk-ins are welcome. For faster service and assured availability, scheduling an appointment is recommended.

Consultations are available in person or online via Zoom or Google Meet.

Notary Public Cebu City | Legal Services Cebu

The Supreme Court ruled that a husband who abandons his wife and openly lives with a mistress may be held liable for psy...
16/04/2026

The Supreme Court ruled that a husband who abandons his wife and openly lives with a mistress may be held liable for psychological violence under RA 9262 if it causes her emotional or mental suffering. In this case, he was sentenced to 4 to 8 years in prison.

The Court clarified that de facto separation is not a defense, that infidelity itself already implies intent to cause harm, and that a wifeโ€™s own testimony of emotional suffering is enough. Financial support does not excuse the act.

SUPREME COURT SLAPS HUSBAND WITH UP TO 8 YEARS IMPRISONMENT FOR HAVING A MISTRESS THAT CAUSED WIFE MENTAL ANGUISH

The Supreme Court (SC) has convicted a man of psychological violence for causing mental and emotional anguish to his wife after abandoning her to live with his mistress, with whom he had two children, noting that criminal intent to cause such anguish is presumed from the act of infidelity.

In a 17-page decision penned by Associate Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier, the SC's Second Division has affirmed the criminal conviction of the accused for violating Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262, or psychological violence, and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of four to eight years imprisonment.

The case stemmed from the criminal complaints filed by his own wife, whom he left for another woman. The accused and complainant were married in 2005 and had a son in 2008. While the wife was pregnant, she noticed the accused frequently coming home in the wee hours of the morning.

She later discovered a text message on his phone from another woman saying, "AYAW KO NG MAGING KABIT" (I don't want to be a mistress). When confronted, the accused dismissed it as a prank. The following day, he left their conjugal home and never returned, only visiting their son on weekends.

The wife later discovered that the accused was living with his mistress, with whom he fathered two children, and publicly flaunted their relationship and their children on social media. Because of this, the wife suffered mental and emotional anguish and was diagnosed by a psychiatrist with depression (dysthymia).

This prompted her to file a criminal complaint against the accused for psychological violence under Section 5(i) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9262, or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) acquitted the accused based on reasonable doubt, reasoning that the complaint was filed belatedly four years after the separation. It noted that the accused continued to provide financial support, and the marital infidelity allegedly occurred after their de facto separation.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion.

The CA reversed the RTC's decision and convicted the husband, ruling that the evidence clearly showed his infidelity caused the wife mental and emotional suffering. This paved the way for him to elevate the case before the Supreme Court, arguing that the CA's reversal of his acquittal violated his constitutional right against double jeopardy.

In dismissing his appeal, the high court ruled that double jeopardy does not attach to void judgments. While a judgment of acquittal is generally final and unappealable, it may be assailed by the People through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 if it is shown that the trial court acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.

It noted that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion by acting with an obstinate disregard of basic and established rules of law and erroneously held that marital infidelity committed after a de facto separation falls outside the scope of R.A. No. 9262.

The highest bench emphasized that a mere de facto separation does not sever marriage bonds; thus, any extramarital affair maintained by a spouse still constitutes marital infidelity.

It underscored that marital infidelity is expressly recognized as a form of psychological violence under Section 3(c) in relation to Section (i) of RA No. 9262. The court added that the requirement of specific criminal intent to cause mental and emotional suffering is already satisfied at the moment the perpetrator commits the act of infidelity, as the act is inherently immoral and depraved.

It gave credence to the psychiatric evaluation, which revealed that the wife suffered emotional anguish as a result of the breakdown of her marriage. She had sleep disturbances, constant self-pity, feelings of hopelessness and worthlessness, palpitations, social withdrawal, and depression.

"At any rate, the law does not require proof that the victim became psychologically ill due to the psychological violence done by her abuser. The law only requires emotional anguish and mental suffering to be proven. To establish emotional anguish or mental suffering, jurisprudence only requires that the testimony of the victim be presented in court since such experiences are personal to this party," the Supreme Court said.

"To be sure, whatever ###'s intention was when he chose another woman over his wife is immaterial. For his leaving their conjugal home and building a family with his mistress are acts that were done by him consciously and deliberately. He could not feign innocence by hiding behind good intentions-may they be excuses that he remained civil with AAA or he constantly supported his legitimate son, BBB. The incontrovertible fact remains: he was unfaithful to his wife, and this caused her irreparable mental and emotional hurt." it added.

Aside from imprisonment, he is also ordered to pay a fine of Php100,000.

Address

The Forum Building, Archbishop Reyes Avenue
Cebu City

Opening Hours

Monday 9am - 6pm
Tuesday 9am - 6pm
Wednesday 9am - 6pm
Thursday 9am - 6pm
Friday 9am - 6pm
Saturday 9am - 6pm

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Larino Cardenas & Partners Law Offices posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Share