DABO Law Firm

16/04/2026

Gentle reminder: leaving your wife for another woman can cost you your freedom. ⚖️

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.

19/03/2026

This Women’s Month, let us stand firm in defending the rights of women and children. Share this message. Speak up. Support survivors. The law is on their side—and so must we be.
🔗 Learn more about RA 9262 and how you can help.
📞 Reach out to legal advocates.
📢 Raise awareness in your community.

24/10/2025

Thanks to our clients' trust, we're expanding! ⚖️

📍Units 11 & 12, 2nd floor, Fil Cabahug Square, P. Burgos St., Centro, Mandaue City

24/10/2025

🤗

✨ QUOTE OF THE DAY ✨

“Always be kind. You never know what battles someone is fighting or how heavy their shoes are to walk in. 🌷”

22/10/2025

From paper trails to digital files 📂

The Supreme Court (SC) will shift to fully digital filing for cases by October 30, ending the "hybrid period" of accepting both digital and paper submissions.

21/10/2025

No more automatic appeals in annulment cases. ⏭️

Solicitor General Darlene Berberabe said the Office of the Solicitor General no longer automatically appeals annulment and declaration of nullity of marriage cases granted by regional trial courts, and conducts an assessment first to determine whether a ruling should be challenged.

20/10/2025

Fair pay for fair taking. 👌🏼⚖️

The has reiterated that just compensation in land expropriation cases must be based on all relevant factors, not just market value.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC’s Third Division remanded to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) the case between the City Government of Pasay (Pasay LGU) and Arellano University (University) to reassess the amount of just compensation owed to the latter.

The University filed a complaint before the RTC in 2015, claiming that the Pasay LGU took its 805-sq. m. parcel of land in Barangay San Isidro and turned it into a public road, now known as Menlo Street, without going through proper expropriation proceedings or paying just compensation. The parties subsequently referred the matter to a board of commissioners composed of Pasay LGU officials.

The board used a base value of PHP200/sq. m. based on the 1978 General Revision of the City Assessor’s Office, then added 6% annual interest from 1978, the year the street was discovered, up to 2017, resulting in a value of PHP2,060/sq. m.

The University disagreed and proposed a total compensation of PHP 5,793,664.63, arguing that the interest should be based on the rates published by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas.

The RTC adopted the board’s base value but applied a different interest rate, ordering Pasay LGU to pay PHP 161,000 plus 12% annual interest from 1978 to 2018.

The CA remanded the case to the RTC, ruling that the RTC relied solely on the 1978 assessment and ignored other relevant factors.

The SC upheld the CA, finding that the RTC’s decision was based on incomplete data.

Article III, Section 9 of the Constitution provides that private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation. The SC emphasized that just compensation must be real, substantial, full, and ample, and that determining this amount is a matter for the courts to decide.

The SC clarified that although local government assessors provide appraisals, these are not controlling in expropriation cases. Such appraisals often cover broad areas and do not account for specific property differences. They rely on general descriptions and may be inaccurate. And while tax values can serve as a guideline, they cannot substitute for a comprehensive assessment of just compensation.

Thus, courts must use a “totality of circumstances” approach, considering all facts about the property’s condition, surroundings, existing improvements, and capabilities. These include the zonal valuation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, acquisition cost, tax declarations, size, shape, location, and the current value of similar properties.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=153762

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=153692

Read the Separate Opinion of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=153737

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

14/10/2025

Love wins (legally)! 💍 SC rules that a marriage stays valid even if the officiant wasn’t authorized — as long as one spouse believed in good faith that the ceremony was legit.

SUPREME COURT: MARRIAGE SOLEMNIZED BY UNAUTHORIZED OFFICER REMAINS VALID IF ONE SPOUSE ACTED IN GOOD FAITH

| The Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed the validity of a marriage of a couple even though the one who solemnized the ceremony was an unauthorized officer, saying they acted in good faith and believed the officer had the legal authority.

In a 10-page ruling penned by Associate Justice Mario Lopez (retired), the SC's Second Division upheld the validity of the marriage contracted by Eloisa Maliwat-Melad and Amancio Melad as it junked the petition filed by the former to declare their marriage void on the ground that the officiant was not a judge, as she had believed at the time of the ceremony.

In March 1993, Eloisa and Amancio got married at the Tarlac City Hall. Their marriage contract showed that the marriage was solemnized by Judge Condrado De Gracia. They were blessed with three children.

Throughout their union, Eloisa and Amancio encountered various marital problems. In 2017, Eloisa consulted a lawyer regarding the possibility of filing a legal separation case against her husband. Eloisa showed their marriage contract to her lawyer, who said he knew Judge De Gracia, the solemnizing officer of Eloisa and Amancio's marriage.

Eloisa also presented pictures of the marriage ceremony to her lawyer, who noticed that Judge De Gracia was not in the picture. The lawyer found out that it seemed Judge De Gracia was not the solemnizing officer, but Rosalio Florendo, whom he knew as a fellow member of the Tarlac City Rotary Club.

This prompted Eloisa to file a petition to nullify their marriage due to lack of authority of the solemnizing officer. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied the petition, citing insufficient evidence to establish the identities of Judge De Gracia and Florendo.

The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s ruling, emphasizing that the marriage contract, being a public document, serves as prima facie, or initial, proof of the marriage and its details. Aggrieved, Eloisa elevated the case before the Supreme Court.

In affirming the lower court's ruling, the SC clarified that while a marriage officiated by someone without legal authority is generally void, it has an exemption: if one or both spouses genuinely believed that the person had the authority to solemnize the marriage.

The high court cited Articles 3 and 4 of the Family Code, which provide that one of the formal requirements of a valid marriage is the authority of the solemnizing officer. It likewise mentioned Article 35(2), which states that a marriage is void if the officiant lacks authority—unless one or both parties believe in good faith that the officiant is authorized.

The SC explained that Eloisa failed to prove that the officiant lacked authority, as it found that the marriage certificate showed that Judge De Gracia was then an incumbent judge within the jurisdiction of Tarlac City and had legal authority to officiate the marriage under the Family Code.

It stressed that the legal presumption in favor of the marriage contract stating the solemnizing officer’s authority must be respected in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.

The highest bench stressed out that Eloisa and Amancio's marriage falls under the exception in Article 35(2) of the Family Code and remains valid.

Meanwhile, Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen dissented from the decision, saying even if the solemnizing officer’s lack of authority falls under the exception, the absence of a personal declaration by the spouses during the ceremony—where they publicly take each other as husband and wife—renders the marriage void.

Leonen added that irregularities in the ceremony and the officiant’s authority raise reasonable doubt about the marriage’s validity.

20/09/2025

🚨 JUSTICE SERVED 🚨
| The Supreme Court has affirmed the life imprisonment sentence and ₱2 million fine against Ryan “Bakla” De Castro for qualified human trafficking—peddling three minors for s*x in exchange for ₱500 each.

S*X PREDATOR SLAPPED WITH LIFE IMPRISONMENT SENTENCE

| The Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of PhP2 million for a man found guilty of qualified human trafficking for peddling three minors for s*x in exchange for money.

In a 13-page ruling written by Associate Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier, the SC's Second Division has denied the appeal of Ryan De Castro, a.k.a. “Bakla,” and affirmed the rulings of the Court of Appeals (CA) and the Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicting him of qualified human trafficking under Section 4(e), in relation to Section 6(c), of Republic Act No. (RA) 9208 Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003, as amended by RA 10364 Expanded Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2012.

In 2018 an entrapment and rescue operation was then conducted by the Anti-Human Trafficking Division of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), where De Castro was arrested. The two police officers served poser customers and made a transaction with De Castro. The accused offered four minor girls in exchange for PHP500.

De Castro said the customers could have s*x with the girls. One of the victims testified that De Castro was selling her and the other victims for s*xual activities at PHP 500.00 each. Meanwhile, De Castro denied the allegations, saying he was framed.

The RTC and CA convicted him for qualified human trafficking. This paved the way for him to elevate the case before the Supreme Court.

In sustaining the lower courts’ conviction of De Castro, the high court held that the commission of qualified human trafficking, specifically the trafficking of children for the purpose of prostitution, as defined under Section 4(e), in relation to 6(c), of RA 9208, as amended, was established by the prosecution.

It explained that the elements of the crime charged are proven by the prosecution namely: (1) the act, which can be the “recruitment, obtaining, hiring, providing, offering, transportation, transfer, maintaining, harboring, or receipt of persons with or without the victim’s consent or knowledge, within or across national borders”; (2) “[t]he means used,” which include “threat, or use of force, or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the person, or, the giving or receiving of payment or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person”; (3) “[t]he purpose of trafficking,” which is prostitution; and (4) the victim’s age, which should be below 18 years.

The SC said that the actions of De Castro, particularly (a) approaching the poseur customers and (b) summoning the victims upon the instruction of his co-accused, clearly prove the existence of intent and action to offer the victims for s*xual exploitation.

“Trafficking in persons is a deplorable crime.The gravamen of the offense is not so much the offer of a woman or a child; it is the act of recruiting or using, with or without consent, a fellow human being for s*xual exploitation.Though it may be committed against anyone, it is more frequently targeted at women and children—sectors of our society that are more susceptible to abuse,” it added.

The high court also emphasized that De Castro took advantage of the victims' underprivileged status, which amounts to the vulnerability contemplated by Republic Act No. 9208. It stressed that no one would willingly part with their honor and dignity for a measly sum of PHP 500 in the absence of dire necessity.

The SC held that De Castro committed trafficking on a large scale, as there were three victims involved. Aside from life imprisonment and a PHP 2,000,000 fine, he is likewise ordered to pay each of the victims PHP 500,000 as moral damages and PHP 100,000 as exemplary damages.

20/09/2025

⚖️ | The Supreme Court has made it clear: s*xist language and victim-blaming have no place in the judiciary.

| The Supreme Court (SC) has imposed a P101,000 fine against an RTC judge for uttering “inappropriate” remarks in open court about the domestic violence case that a fellow magistrate filed against her former partner, which perpetuate harmful stereotypes that portray women as inferior or weak.

In a 17-page ruling written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul Inting, the SC's Third Division found Presiding Judge Arlene Lirag-Palabrica of Tagum City Regional Trial Court (RTC) branch 31 guilty of simple misconduct filed by her fellow Judge Carmel Gil Grado.

Judge Grado is the private complainant in a case involving two counts of violation of Republic Act No. 9262, the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004, against her husband.

At the time the complaints were filed, Judge Grado was still a lawyer at the Public Attorney's Office (PAO). The cases were initially archived as the accused evaded arrest.

In November 2020, the cases were then reinstated after the accused was arrested. By this time, Judge Grado was already an RTC judge. Following the retirement of the judge who was designated to handle the case, the respondent, Judge Palabrica, took over the case.

During the hearing, Judge Palabrica, in open court and in the presence of court employees, a lawyer from the PAO, and the handling prosecutor, uttered demeaning and degrading remarks against Judge Grado, telling the latter, “Babae lang talaga tayo na niloloko ng mga lalaki. Yan ang masakit na katotohanan kahit pa sabihin women empowerment. Ikaw ang kawawa dito kasi you get to be blamed.”

In her response, Judge Palabrica argued that her candid and blunt words were not malicious but rather an expression of her dismay and frustration with Judge Grado, who said that she would not be ashamed if her relationship was publicly scrutinized and that she would only agree to a settlement if the accused paid her P50,000 and returned her gun.

The Judicial Integrity Board (JIB)-Office of the Executive Director found Judge Palabrica guilty of simple misconduct under Section 15(a) of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court and recommended the penalty of a fine in the amount of PHP 36,000.

In finding Judge Palabrica guilty of simple misconduct, the high court held that her comments belittled Judge Grado as a woman and undermined her character for pursuing the complaint against her former partner.

It denounced Judge Palabrica's remarks, saying they run counter to the judiciary’s commitment to foster an environment free from s*xist language and gender discrimination.

“Indeed, Judge Palabrica’s utterances, which perpetuate harmful stereotypes that portray women as inferior or weak, have no place in any judicial forum,” the Supreme Court said.

“Judge Palabrica’s behavior demonstrated insensitivity and even bias against a complainant before her sala, a lapse of rational judgment, and an authoritarian demeanor, all in an effort to preserve a misguided perception of judicial authority,” it added.

The high court noted that Judge Palabrica violated Canon 6, Section 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, which mandates judges to "maintain order and decorum in all proceedings before the court."

“The court will not condone victim-blaming narratives and s*xist language. Judges, as stewards of the law, must lead by example, fostering inclusivity and eliminating discrimination both in and out of the courts,” the Supreme Court stressed.

Meanwhile, Judge Palabrica was exonerated for the gross ignorance of the law complaint, as Judge Grado failed to provide substantial evidence that Judge Palabrica acted with bad faith, dishonesty, fraud, or corruption.

She likewise cannot be held liable for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability because there is no indication that her misconduct compromised her moral fitness to remain a member of the Bar.

Considering that Judge Palabrica was also held administratively liable in an earlier case, the SC slapped her with a P101,000 fine as a penalty and a warning that a repetition of the same offense shall be dealt with severely.