Atty Jill Bahian-Nebria

Atty Jill Bahian-Nebria Associate Lawyer at CRA Law Office. Located at 2/F Javaved Building, Balangasan District, Pagadian City. Kindly make an appointment here: (0916)1170243

Mirisi!โš–๏ธ๐Ÿ’œ
24/05/2026

Mirisi!โš–๏ธ๐Ÿ’œ

SUPREME COURT SLAPS QUACK DOCTOR WITH UP TO 98 YEARS JAIL TERM FOR RA**NG MINOR PATIENT

The Supreme Court (SC) has convicted a quack doctor, or โ€œalbularyo,โ€ of four counts of r**e for sexually abusing his 15-year-old patient during the course of treatment, sentencing him to a total prison term of up to 98 years.

In a 20-page decision penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez, the SCโ€™s Second Division affirmed the accusedโ€™s conviction for two counts of r**e through sexual in*******se and two counts of r**e by sexual assault.

The accused was a well-known albularyo (quack doctor) in his community. The private complainant was a 15-year-old minor who suffered from what she believed to be a hernia (almuranas/loslos).

On October 13, 2010, the accused went to the victimโ€™s house to treat her. Under the guise of a medical healing session inside a bedroom, he ordered her to undress. He applied oil to her va**na and inserted his fingers. He then told her that her illness was severe and that he needed to push up the hernia with his p***s, subsequently ra**ng her. On October 16, 2010, he returned for a follow-up check-up and repeated the same acts (finger insertion followed by pe**le pe*******on), claiming it was the final session to close the hernia.

Out of fear, the victim never mentioned her ordeal. However, she drastically felt pain, and her va**na bled due to pe*******on. The following day, she confided the incident to her sister, who immediately told their grandmother. They accompanied the victim to report the incident to the police. A medical examination revealed healed hymenal lacerations consistent with sexual abuse.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found the accused guilty of two counts of r**e through sexual in*******se and two counts of r**e by sexual assault. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction with modifications to the penalties and damages. This prompted the accused to elevate the case before the Supreme Court.

In affirming his conviction, the high court ruled that the victimโ€™s testimony was direct, candid, affirmative, and highly credible. It noted that the defenseโ€™s arguments regarding minor inconsistencies in the testimonies and the supposed lack of physical resistance by the victim were dismissed.

It gave great credence to the medical findings of healed hymenal lacerations, and the victim's immediate emotional/physical distress (bleeding and pain) fully corroborated the occurrence of pe**le and finger pe*******on. Thus, all elements of organ r**e and sexual assault under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (as amended by R.A. No. 8353) were proven.

The SC explained that r**e is not exclusively committed through force, threat, and intimidation. It found that the accused exploits a position of trust. influence, or spiritual authority, being an albularyo to deceive a vulnerable or minor victim into submitting to sexual acts under the false pretense that it is a necessary medical or spiritual healing process.

"Contrary to the accused-appellant's claim, resistance is not necessary to establish r**e, especially when the victim is manipulated... This Court ruled that when a person becomes a victim of fraudulent machination or manipulation, she does not have full control over her decisions," the Supreme Court said.

It added that the victim's passive submission does not equate to lawful consent, as the same is vitiated by fraud or fraudulent machination, an element of r**e.

"The accused-appellant consciously took advantage of his standing in the community as an albularyo when he persistently portrayed his sexual acts as indispensable to her treatment and misled AAA278240 into believing that he had the capacity to cure her illness," it added.

The SC reiterated that full pe*******on is not necessary for r**e to be consummated. It explained that r**e is considered committed once the p***s penetrates the cleft of the l***a majora, also known as the vulval or pudendal cleft, or the fleshy outer lips of the va**na, even to the slightest degree.

The high court meted out the penalty of double reclusion perpetua against the accused for two counts of r**e through sexual in*******se. He is likewise ordered to pay PHP 75,000 as civil indemnity, PHP 75,000 as moral damages, and PHP 75,000 as exemplary damages for each count.

Meanwhile, as for two counts of r**e by sexual assault, the accused is sentenced to suffer four to nine years' imprisonment for each count. He is likewise ordered to pay PHP 30,000 as civil indemnity, PHP 30,000 as moral damages, and PHP 30,000 as exemplary damages for each count.

โš–๏ธ๐Ÿ’œ
24/05/2026

โš–๏ธ๐Ÿ’œ

SUPREME COURT NULLIFIES MARRIAGE OVER HUSBANDโ€™S ABUSIVE, IRRESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOR

The Supreme Court (SC) has upheld the ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA) declaring a marriage void on the ground of the husbandโ€™s psychological incapacity, citing his abusive and possessive behavior toward his wife, coupled with his lack of direction and ambition in life.

In a 29-page decision authored by Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh, the SC's Third Division has declared void from the beginning the marriage of a couple on the ground of the husband's psychological incapacity as provided under Article 36 of the Family Code.

The couple first met in 2010, when the husband obtained the wifeโ€™s cellphone number and began courting her through text messages the following day. At first, the wife did not take his messages seriously, but his persistent personal visits eventually led to them officially becoming a couple four months later.

After a month of dating, the wife observed that the husband lacked direction and ambition. He spent most of his time with peers, indulging in various vices. Despite having practical skills in electricity, he resisted seeking employment in his early twenties, claiming that work would interfere with his social life.

Additionally, he began requesting money from the wife to support his habits. Further, he was highly jealous and possessive, forbidding the wife from interacting with anyone, including female friends. He stalked her and threatened to harm anyone who interfered with their relationship.

Due to these reasons, the wife attempted to break up with him, but he threatened su***de if she ended the relationship. Fearing for her well-being, the wife reluctantly stayed. The wife eventually came to love the husband and became pregnant. Upon learning of the pregnancy, the husband reacted angrily and insisted on abortion. The wife opposed the idea and sought the support of their parents, who convinced him to marry her.

They eventually get married in 2012. Three weeks after the wedding, the husband disappeared for three days. When he returned, the wife asked where he had been and expressed concern for his well-being. Instead of apologizing, he told her not to worry if he was with his friends, as they were more important than her. He further claimed that she had forced him into marriage and that she alone wanted the child.

The husband's behavior persisted throughout the marriage. He frequently went on drinking binges with peers, leaving the wife behind without financial support or knowledge of his whereabouts. When criticized, he responded violently, even throwing kitchenware during one argument. His addictions to cockfighting, alcohol, and gambling further strained the relationship.

Three months into the marriage, the wife discovered that the husband had rekindled a relationship with his ex-girlfriend. When confronted, he admitted the affair, claiming the ex-girlfriend provided joy that the wife could not. This led to their separation, but with parental intervention, they reconciled, and the husband promised to change.

The wife gave birth to their son, but despite this, the husband became more apathetic and indifferent, remaining insensitive to his family's needs. When she urged him to find work due to their growing financial pressures, he responded with anger.

Consequently, the wife took on the sole responsibility of supporting the family. She was eventually forced to quit after the husband publicly slapped her for refusing to give him money for his vices, subjecting her to public humiliation.

The wife later went to Hong Kong in 2013 to work as a domestic helper, leaving their child in the care of her mother. During this time, the husband neither visited their child nor provided any support. Eventually, the wife learned that the husband was cohabiting with another woman and had fathered an illegitimate child.

This prompted her to file a petition for nullification of marriage on the ground of the husband's inability to fulfill his essential marital duties and her inability to tolerate his abusive behavior any longer.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed her petition, noting that she presented no supporting evidence pertaining to the portrayed behavior of the husband as a drunkard, womanizer, gambler, physical and sexual abuser, drug addict, and drug pusher.

It noted that these allegations appear to be exaggerated in casting all sorts of vices and bad behavior upon the husband, none of which was substantiated by clear and convincing evidence other than the bare allegations of the persons who, obviously, are in favor of the dissolution of the couple's marriage.

The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the RTC and declared their marriage void ab initio. The Office of the Solicitor General representing the Republic eventually elevated the case before the Supreme Court.

In affirming the appellate court's ruling, the high court rejected the arguments of the OSG, saying there was collusion that existed between the parties due to the husband's knowledge that his father had served as a witness to the wife's petition.

The SC held that there is no evidence of collusion between the wife and husband. It noted that the testimonies of the husband's father and cousin, who witnessed his childhood, should be given credence in determining his psychological incapacity.

"The husband's father and cousin testified that the breakdown of the marriage between the wife and husband stemmed from his long-standing behavioral issues and vices, which had been evident long before he ever met the wife," the Supreme Court said.

It emphasized that the concept of juridical antecedence necessary for nullification of marriage includes the ordinary experiences of the spouses not only prior to the marriage itself but, more importantly, during their "lived conjugal life." Here, the wife testified that he was a jealous and possessive partner who stalked her and threatened to kill anyone who came between them. He lacked direction, spent most of his time drinking with friends, and showed no improvement after marriage.

It also gave credence to the Psychological Evaluation Report, which revealed that the husband is suffering from three personality disorders: (1) Narcissistic Personality Disorder; (2) Antisocial Personality Disorder; and (3) Histrionic Personality Disorder.

The highest bench underscored that the gravity of the husband's incapacity was proven as the he consistently failed to provide the wife with any form of emotional support or affection. He demonstrated persistent financial irresponsibility, prioritizing personal vices over the welfare of his family.

24/05/2026

โš–๏ธ๐Ÿ’œ

โš–๏ธ๐Ÿ’œ
24/05/2026

โš–๏ธ๐Ÿ’œ

"MARRIAGE, IN ITS TRUEST FORM, MUST BE A SANCTUARY, A SPACE OF MUTUAL LOVE, RESPECT, CARE, AND EMOTIONAL SAFETY"

The Supreme Court (SC), speaking through Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh, stressed that while marriage remains the foundation of the family and an inviolable social institution that the State is duty-bound to protect, courts cannot ignore the realities faced by individuals trapped in unions with psychologically incapacitated spouses.

This came after the SC Third Division declared a marriage null and void on the ground of the husband's psychological incapacity, citing his abusive and possessive behavior toward his wife, coupled with his lack of direction and ambition in life.

The highest bench underscored that marriage, in its truest form, must serve as a sanctuary marked by mutual respect, care, and emotional safety. It emphasized that marriage should never become a chain that binds a person to a relationship that is fundamentally flawed and emotionally damaging.

While recognizing that the ideal is for individuals to choose wisely in love and commitment, the Court acknowledged that human beings are not infallible and can make mistakes in choosing their life partners.

Actual speaking + intent to intimidate (must be proven)= grave threats.โš–๏ธ๐Ÿ’œ
21/05/2026

Actual speaking + intent to intimidate (must be proven)= grave threats.โš–๏ธ๐Ÿ’œ

The has ruled that non-verbal threatening gestures with criminal intent may be considered grave threats under the ๐˜™๐˜ฆ๐˜ท๐˜ช๐˜ด๐˜ฆ๐˜ฅ ๐˜—๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ๐˜ข๐˜ญ ๐˜Š๐˜ฐ๐˜ฅ๐˜ฆ (๐˜™๐˜—๐˜Š).

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, the SCโ€™s Third Division acquitted Gregory Israel of grave threats after finding no criminal intent in his gesture of pretending to shoot and behead two individuals.

But it clarified that the crime of grave threats may be committed through non-verbal gestures and not only through spoken or written words.

Israel, who claimed to be a Belgian architect allowed to practice his profession in the Philippines, was hired by Belgian business partners Christine Helena Amanda Navez and Olivier Edmund Denonville for the construction of their building. After Israel refused to correct the construction defects in the said building, Navez and Denonville filed a case for damages against him.

Sometime in 2017, while Navez and Denonville were on their way home from the airport, they nearly collided with Israelโ€™s motorcycle. The latter then allegedly made two overt gestures: pointing his fingers at Navezโ€™s head as if pulling a gun trigger and drawing his fingers across his neck as if threatening to behead Navez.

Israel was convicted of grave threats. When his conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, he sought relief from the SC, arguing that he had no criminal intent when he performed the acts, and that Article 282 of the ๐˜™๐˜—๐˜Š does not cover pure non-verbal gestures.

The SC acquitted Israel after finding that criminal intent was not proven. But it disagreed with his other argument, ruling that non-verbal gestures may be considered grave threats.

To convict for grave threats, the ๐˜™๐˜—๐˜Š requires two elements: the ๐—ฎ๐—ฐ๐˜๐˜‚๐—ฎ๐—น ๐˜€๐—ฝ๐—ฒ๐—ฎ๐—ธ๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด ๐—ผ๐—ฟ ๐˜‚๐˜๐˜๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด ๐—ผ๐—ณ ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐—ฎ๐˜๐˜€ and the ๐—ถ๐—ป๐˜๐—ฒ๐—ป๐˜ ๐˜๐—ผ ๐—ถ๐—ป๐˜๐—ถ๐—บ๐—ถ๐—ฑ๐—ฎ๐˜๐—ฒ.

The SC held that Article 282 of the ๐˜™๐˜—๐˜Š does not differentiate between threats conveyed verbally and those expressed through non-verbal gestures. What matters is the communication of a threat intended to intimidate.

Although the second paragraph of the provision specifies that threats can be conveyed orally or in writing, it does not exclude threats conveyed through non-verbal means. Therefore, threats can be either verbal or non-verbal.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=166072.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=164941.

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

21/05/2026

Be informed.โš–๏ธ๐Ÿ’œ

Consent is needed.โš–๏ธ๐Ÿ’œ
21/05/2026

Consent is needed.โš–๏ธ๐Ÿ’œ

The has ruled that the unilateral imposition of reduced workdays and worker rotation scheme amounts to constructive dismissal.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, the SC En Banc found Fiber Textile Manufacturing Corp. (FMC) liable for constructively dismissing seven production workers after reducing their six-day workweek to only two to three days and implementing a work rotation plan without their consent, despite FMCโ€™s claim that the workers agreed to the temporary scheme during a meeting on the shortage of raw materials.

The workers filed a complaint for constructive dismissal, claiming that they were effectively dismissed when they were told not to return to work.

The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the workers, but the National Labor Relations Commission and the Court of Appeals upheld FMCโ€™s actions as a valid exercise of management prerogative.

The SC disagreed. It emphasized that while employers may adopt flexible work arrangements during economic difficulties or national emergencies, these arrangements must comply with the requirements set out in Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Department Advisory No. 2, Series of 2009.

The SC explained that employers must first consult affected employees and obtain the voluntary support of the majority of workers. Employers must also notify the DOLE before implementing the arrangement and prove that the company is suffering from actual or reasonably imminent economic difficulties.

In this case, the SC held that FMC failed to prove that the workers voluntarily agreed to the reduced workdays and worker rotation scheme. The Court ruled that informing employees of the arrangement does not equate to securing their consent.

FMC also failed to notify the DOLE before implementation and failed to prove that it was suffering from actual or imminent economic difficulties that would justify the reduction of workdays.

The SC emphasized that while employers may adopt flexible work arrangements to prevent business losses, such measures must be exercised in good faith and with due regard to the rights of workers.

FMCโ€™s unlawful reduction of workdays amounted to constructive dismissal because it resulted in diminished salaries, making continued employment unreasonable for the workers.

In his Concurring Opinion, Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen stressed that the requirement of mutual consent in flexible work arrangements originates from the consensual nature of employment contracts, such that employers cannot unilaterally alter work schedules in a manner that diminishes employeesโ€™ pay.

In his Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa agreed that FMC remained liable for constructive dismissal for failing to prove that the workers voluntarily agreed to the reduced workdays and work rotation plan. However, he emphasized that FMC had no raw materials to work with for several months, significantly affecting production operations. Thus, he stated that FMC faced a reasonably imminent economic difficulty that could justify the temporary adoption of flexible work arrangements.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=166287

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=166264

Read the full text of the Concurring Opinion at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=166269

Read the full text of the Concurring and Dissenting Opinion at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=166274

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

LODI for today! Hurray!๐Ÿ˜‡๐Ÿซถโš–๏ธ๐Ÿ’œServe the country, hail the IBP! ๐Ÿ’œ๐Ÿ™Ibp Zamboanga del Sur
19/05/2026

LODI for today! Hurray!๐Ÿ˜‡๐Ÿซถโš–๏ธ๐Ÿ’œ
Serve the country, hail the IBP! ๐Ÿ’œ๐Ÿ™

Ibp Zamboanga del Sur





16/05/2026

It's a wrap!
Thank you JHCSC- JD3!
We survived the final leg! โš–๏ธ๐Ÿ’œ






Late nights notaryo! โœ๏ธ๐Ÿ‘ฉโ€๐Ÿ’ปBring the kapee please! ๐Ÿค—โ˜•๏ธAt your service! โš–๏ธ๐Ÿ’œ
12/05/2026

Late nights notaryo! โœ๏ธ๐Ÿ‘ฉโ€๐Ÿ’ปBring the kapee please! ๐Ÿค—โ˜•๏ธ

At your service! โš–๏ธ๐Ÿ’œ






08/05/2026

Nepotism.โš–๏ธ๐Ÿ’œ

Address

2/F Javaved, Balangasan
Pagadian City
7016

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Atty Jill Bahian-Nebria posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Share