Atty. Glaiza M. Vicente-delos Reyes- Notary Public

28/09/2025

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/17VAXmCrDc/

SUPREME COURT: NOTARY PUBLIC CAN'T PERFORM NOTARIAL ACT WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF SIGNATORY

| The Supreme Court (SC) has suspended a lawyer for being commissioned as a notary public for six months after he notarized a document without requiring one of the signatories thereto to personally appear before him.

In an 11-page ruling penned by Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo, the SC's First Division has found Atty. Arnulfo Manigos guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and he was barred from being commissioned as a notary public for six months.

The administrative complaint stemmed from the disbarment cases filed by Macario Mina against Attys. Arnulfo Manigos, Florencio Anchuvas, and Roberto Arca on the ground that they committed falsehood and have intentionally misled the Court.

Mina alleged that Atty. Manigos notarized an instrument without requiring one of the authors thereto to personally appear before him. He claimed that the signatory could not have appeared before Atty. Manigos on the day the document was notarized because the former travelled to the United States.

As regards Atty. Arca and Atty. Anchuvas, Mina contended that they conspired in the notarization of the subject documents. In response, Atty. Manigos admitted that he notarized the document in the absence of the signatory therein. However, he claimed that he notarized the document only after he was convinced by his personal examination of the document that the signatory in fact executed and signed the same.

Meanwhile, Atty. Arca vehemently denied the accusations, and Atty. Anchuvas failed to submit a response on the complaint. In its report and recommendation, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors found Attys. Manigos and Arca liable for violation of Rule 4, Section 2 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (Notarial Rules), but absolved Atty. Anchuvas.

The high court upheld and adopted the findings and conclusion of the IBP Board of Governors with respect to Atty. Manigos. It found that the act of Atty. Manigos notarizing a document even though the signatory thereto did not personally appear before him is a violation of notarial rules.

It cited the 2004 Notarial Rules, which provide that a notary public shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory (1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the notarization and (2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these rules.

“The requirement of personal appearance is the most effective way of ascertaining the authenticity of the document or instrument presented for notarization because the very person who executed or signed the same personally assures the notary public of their actual participation therein and of the authenticity of their signature,” the Supreme Court said.

On the other hand, as to the complaints against Attys. Arca and Anchuvas, it dismissed the same due to the failure of the complainant to substantiate his claims.

18/09/2025

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1LWVwgoTrL/?mibextid=wwXIfr

| The Supreme Court (SC) ruled that being irresponsible in doing household chores and taking care of children may be considered evidence of psychological incapacity to comply with marital obligations, a ground for nullification of marriage.

In a 13-page decision authored by Associate Justice Samuel Gaerlan, the SC's Third Division has declared void from the beginning the marriage between Arnold Alfonso and Michelle Pamintuan-Alfonso on the ground of the latter's psychological incapacity as provided under Article 36 of the Family Code.

Arnold and Michelle were high school classmates. In 1997, or eight years after their graduation, they unexpectedly met. Since then, they have become close and regularly exchanged phone calls.

Despite being in a relationship with another man, Michelle often visited Arnold's apartment. Later on Michelle and Arnold spent the night at the latter's apartment, where the two engaged in unprotected sexual in*******se that resulted in Michelle's unexpected and unwanted pregnancy.

At first, Michelle was contemplating aborting the child, but Arnold convinced her otherwise and offered marriage. After the wedding, Michelle and Arnold resided at the parental house. They were blessed with three children.

A year later their relationship turned sour. Arnold noticed the changes in Michelle's behavior. Michelle would be verbally aggressive towards him, crying loudly to gain sympathy from their neighbors. She also refused to do household chores or care for their children, instead relying on her mother to fulfill her domestic responsibilities.

Arnold also observed that Michelle has a luxurious lifestyle, which caused her to obtain looming debts from various people. It reached the extent that Arnold's father paid Michelle's debt to save her from being sued.

Over time, Arnold felt Michelle's growing coldness towards him. Michelle disavowed fulfilling his sexual needs by making excuses that she is tired and not in the mood.

Sometime in 2010, Michelle informed Arnold that she had secured a job that required deployment to Bicol for one month. However, to his surprise, Arnold later learned that Michelle was having an affair with another man. Since then, Michelle has refused to communicate with him and their children.

This paved the way for Arnold to file a petition for nullification of their marriage on the ground of Michelle's psychological incapacity to fulfill her marital obligations.

Initially, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the petition and nullified their marriage, but it was later reversed by the Court of Appeals. This prompted Arnold to elevate the case before the Supreme Court.

In granting Arnold's petition, the high court held that he was able to illustrate that the incapacity of Michelle was so grave or serious that it already impaired her from carrying out the required ordinary marital duties. It gave credence to the psychological report, which diagnosed Michelle with histrionic personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder.

The SC also emphasized that the incapacity of Michelle was incurable, as the pattern of persistent failure to assume her essential marital obligations was proven. It also took into account the instance where Michelle entered into an illicit affair with another man.

“In every marriage lies the vinculum juris—the juridical bond that unites the spouses in a legally and morally binding union governed by law. This vinculum juris imposes upon each spouse the essential marital obligations of mutual love, respect, fidelity, and support,” the Supreme Court said.

“Thus, in the present case, we hold that Michelle's psychological incapacity existed prior to and during the celebration of the marriage; the vinculum juris is deemed never to have validly arisen,” it added.

11/06/2025

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/15YDaf8rcw/?mibextid=wwXIfr

WAGE HIKE BILL IS DEAD

JUST IN: The House and Senate adjourned sine die without ratifying the wage hike bill.

Neither chambers conceded to adopt the other's version of the bill or hold a bicam.

Not a P200 or P100 increase to the daily minimum wage.

The wage hike bill is dead for this Congress. | via Dominique Flores

29/05/2025

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1FvB65fZk8/?mibextid=wwXIfr

𝗡𝗕𝗜 𝗔𝗥𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗦 𝗧𝗛𝗥𝗘𝗘 (𝟯) 𝗙𝗢𝗥 𝗜𝗟𝗟𝗘𝗚𝗔𝗟 𝗡𝗢𝗧𝗔𝗥𝗜𝗔𝗟 𝗣𝗥𝗔𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗖𝗘 𝗜𝗡 𝗣𝗔𝗦𝗔𝗬 𝗖𝗜𝗧𝗬

The National Bureau of Investigation – Special Task Force (STF) and Cybercrime Division (CCD), under the leadership of Director JUDGE JAIME B. SANTIAGO (Ret.), arrested three (3) individuals for violation of Article 172 (Falsification by Private Individuals) in relation to Article 171(1) and Article 171(2), Article 176 (Possession of Instruments or Implements for Falsification), Article 177 (Usurpation of Authority or Official Functions), and Article 315 par. 2(a) (Estafa by means of Deceit) of the Revised Penal Code.

On 27 May 2025, the STF and CCD received a request to verify and conduct appropriate actions on the illegal notarial activities of a group of persons in the vicinity of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) in Pasay City, particularly the notarizing of documents using the Complainant’s name and details as Notary Public without his knowledge, authority, and consent. Acting on the request, NBI agents conducted covert inquiries and verifications in the target area on the same date. An entrapment operation was hatched subsequently.

Upon arrival in the target area, two (2) offices offering Notarial Services were sighted. Simultaneous entrapment operations on both offices were conducted, resulting in the arrest of Subjects IRENE CATUBAY y PABORADA, VIOLETA A. TUGADO, and EVETH A. BUENAVENTURA, and the seizure of instruments and implements used in the illegal notarial practice.

The Subjects were brought to the STF/CCD Office for standard booking and arrest procedures and placed under temporary custody and detention. Thereafter, the arrested Subjects were presented for inquest before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasay City for the abovementioned violations.

22/05/2025

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/16i7ZBzmdp/

15/05/2025

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1C2dC4KKWo/?mibextid=wwXIfr

𝗦𝗖: 𝗚𝗲𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝗥𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗲 𝗔𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗺𝗽𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗥𝗮𝗽𝗲

In the landmark case of People vs. ###, G.R. No. 262846, promulgated on February 18, 2025, and penned by Justice Antonio Kho, Jr., the Supreme Court ruled that ge***al contact is not required to establish the crime of attempted r**e by carnal knowledge.

This ruling stemmed from a disturbing case involving a father and his own daughter, where lower courts convicted him of r**e in an incident and only unjust vexation for this particular incident—downgrading what the prosecution argued should’ve been attempted r**e. The RTC and CA ruled that because the daughter was able to knee her father before any ge***al contact occurred, no attempted r**e had taken place.

But the SC en banc reversed this and emphasized:
What matters in attempted r**e is the clear commencement of the act. The moment the offender starts performing acts directly aimed at accomplishing r**e—but is prevented due to external causes—it can be classified as attempted r**e, even without ge***al contact.

Why is this important?

This decision affirms that victims do not need to suffer ge***al contact before the law offers them full protection. It also overturns the precedent in People v. Balunsat, where the accused’s appeal was seen as protected by double jeopardy. Now, the Court clarifies: when an accused appeals, the entire case is fair game—including the possibility of a higher penalty.

The father in this case was thus convicted of r**e (40 years) and attempted r**e (12 years).

Legal takeaway:

- Attempted r**e does not require ge***al contact.
- Appeals open the door for full review—including higher penalties.
- The Court prioritizes justice for victims over technicalities.

WANT TO BE UPDATED WITH NEW JURISPUDENCE?

Check out Digest.PH — your one-stop legal research platform with over 80,000 case digests, statutes, issuances, and more!

📚 Use code 𝗥𝗔𝗖𝗘𝗗𝗜𝗚𝗘𝗦𝗧 to get 20% off on all subscription plans. Perfect for law students, bar takers, and legal professionals.

09/05/2025

Read more..

09/05/2025

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/16UJzSkVmp/?

The (SC) has ruled that a duplicate or photocopy of original documents, whether in paper or electronic form, can be admitted as evidence in court, provided there is no genuine question regarding the original’s authenticity or fairness in using the copy.

In a Decision written by Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo, the SC’s First Division upheld the conviction of Ybo Lastimosa (Lastimosa) for the murder of Ildefonso Vega, Jr. (Vega) in a case involving the use of a photocopy of Vega’s death certificate as key evidence.

Witnesses testified during trial that Lastimosa shot Vega in the head outside a cockpit in Cebu City. Vega’s wife also testified that Vega was already dead when she found him at the hospital. To support her testimony, the prosecution presented a photocopy of Vega’s death certificate, which confirmed that he died from gunshot wounds.

Convicted by the trial court of homicide and by the Court of Appeals of murder, Lastimosa argued before the SC that the prosecution failed to prove that the crime was committed because the original death certificate was not presented. He claimed that a photocopy, without comparison to the original for authentication, should not have been admitted as evidence.

The SC affirmed the Court of Appeals, sentencing Lastimoso to reclusion perpetua and ordered him to pay PHP 275,000 in civil indemnity and damages. It explained that under Rule 130, Section 4(c) of the 2019 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘙𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘌𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦, a duplicate is admissible as the original unless there is a genuine question about the original’s authenticity or it would be unfair to use the duplicate.

This rule applies to both paper-based and electronic documents, reflecting the modern reality where duplicates are often as reliable as originals.

However, the SC emphasized that while a photocopy may be admissible, its weight or value depends on how well it corroborates or supports other available evidence.

In this case, the photocopy of the death certificate, combined with the testimonies of Vega’s wife and other eyewitnesses, sufficiently established that Vega died from gunshot wounds and that Lastimosa was responsible.

Read the full text of the Press Release at
https://tinyurl.com/36r9m76u.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/mwe35fhe.

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

06/05/2025

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1EVUm5pWJj/?mibextid=wwXIfr

The (SC) has reiterated that courts are not bound by parental custody agreements when these do not serve the child’s best interest.

In a Decision written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the SC’s Second Division granted the petition filed by Jeffrey Rosacay Empuerto and his parents challenging a Court of Appeals ruling which upheld the validity of a compromise agreement between Jeffrey and Sheena Cabrillos, the mother of his child.

The SC sent the case back to the Family Court for determination of parental custody. It also gave custody to petitioners Jeffrey and his parents, who have actual care of the child, while the case remains pending.

Jeffrey and Sheena had a child in 2013. The couple eventually separated, with Sheena moving with their child to her parents’ home, and with Jeffrey exercising custody over the latter during long vacations.

In 2020, the child’s visit to Jeffrey was extended due to the COVID-19 lockdown, with Jeffrey refusing to return the child to Sheena even after restrictions were lifted. Sheena thus filed a complaint with the police and a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus with the Family Court.

The Family Court issued the writ and terminated the case. It adopted in an order the agreement between Jeffrey and Sheena that the latter would have custody of the child by July 2021. The Court of Appeals upheld this agreement as a provisional custody arrangement.

Petitioners then argued before the SC that the mere agreement between the parents before trial cannot determine the issue of a child’s custody.

Ruling in petitioners’ favor, the SC stressed that a petition for habeas corpus in custody cases is meant to determine who has rightful custody, not merely to secure a child’s appearance in court.

Trial courts must consider the totality of circumstances and grant custody only if:

- the petitioner has a legal right to custody;
- the child is being kept from them by the other party; and
- being with the petitioner is in the best interest of the child.

In this case, the SC found that the Family Court failed to evaluate these factors, relying solely on the parents’ agreement without conducting a case study or assessing parental fitness. It added that compromise agreements between parents as to a child’s custody are frowned upon. Courts should not simply approve custody agreements but must ensure that the child’s rights and welfare are protected.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/3p6v2cc2.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/52yna5zv.

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

30/04/2025

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1C13Vz5kgy/?mibextid=wwXIfr

The (SC) has reaffirmed that testimonies from a spouse’s family and friends can help prove psychological incapacity in cases seeking to nullify a marriage.

In a Decision written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the SC’s Second Division declared the marriage of Jeffery A. Green (Jeffery) and Rowena Manlutac Green (Rowena) null and void due to Rowena’s psychological incapacity.

Jeffery filed a petition to nullify their marriage, claiming that both he and Rowena were psychologically incapacitated. As evidence, Jeffery submitted a psychiatric evaluation report based on standard tests and interviews with himself, Rowena, a mutual friend, and Rowena’s mother.

According to the said report, Rowena frequently mismanaged their finances, accumulating debts of up to PHP 4 million. She was also accused of cheating on Jeffery and lying about the paternity of their child.

Ruling that Rowena was psychologically incapacitated to comply with her marital obligations, the SC emphasized that in nullity of marriage cases, psychological incapacity can be evaluated using statements from people other than the spouses, especially from those close to the allegedly incapacitated spouse. This approach helps avoid potential bias in favor of the spouse who filed the petition.

The SC also reiterated that so long as the totality of the evidence can prove a spouse’s psychological incapacity at the time the marriage was celebrated, the marriage can be nullified under Article 36 of the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦.

In this case, Jeffery presented documentary evidence on Rowena’s debt and gambling history, dishonesty, and infidelity, and the psychiatric evaluation report. All of these show Rowena suffers from continuing and incurable 𝘉𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘗𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘋𝘪𝘴𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳 and 𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘗𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘋𝘪𝘴𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳, which prevent her from performing her spousal obligations, justifying the dissolution of their marriage.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/36crdfhb.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/3c3t54b7.

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