Prohealthlaw

5:09 PM

There is no exact definition for psychological incapacity, but it was defined by the Supreme Court as “no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage.” The intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of "psychological incapacity" to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. (Santos v. CA, G.R. No. 112019, Jan. 4, 1995)

The requisites of psychological incapacity are as follows:

1. Juridical antecedence – must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although overt manifestations may arise only after such marriage.

2. Gravity – grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essental marital obligations.

3. Permanence or incurability – must be incurable. If curable, the cure should be beyond the means of the parties involved.

Following are some instances where allegations of psychological incapicity were not sustained:

1. Mere showing of irreconcilable differences and personalities. conflicting (Carating‐Siayngco v. Siayngco, G.R. No. 158896, Oct, 27. 2004)

2. Mere sexual infidelity or perversion, do not by themselves constitute psychological incapacity, as well as immaturity and irresponsibility.

Note: It must be shown that these acts are manifestations of a disordered personality which would make respondent completely unable to discharge the essential obligations of a marital state, not merely youth, immaturity or sexual promiscuity. (Dedel vs CA, G.R. no. 151867, Jan.29, 2004)

3. Disagreements regarding money matters. (Tongol v. Tongol, G.R. No. 157610, Oct. 19, 2007)

4. Mere abandonment.

Note: There must be proof of natal or supervening disabling element in the personality factor that effectively incapacitates a person from accepting and complying with the Essential Marital obligations of Marriage. (Republic v. Quintero‐Hamano, G.R. No. 149498, May 20, 2004)

5. Sexual infidelity (Republic v. Dagdag, GR No. 109975, February 9, 2001).

In the case of Santos v. CA (240 SCRA 20, 1995), the Supreme Court held that being of unsound mind, drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, lesbianism or homosexuality may be indicia of psychological incapacity, depending on the degree of severity of the disorder. However, the concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, lesbianism or homosexuality is a ground of annulment of marriage.

DISCLAIMER: The author is not lawyer nor an authority on this topic. It is a product of humble research and study of law. It should not be used as sole basis in filing a case, instead, consult your lawyer for proper legal advice.

4:14 PM

God is Great

6:12 AM

Plea Bargaining’s Innocence Problem | Thought Paper

A research was conducted which discusses the fact that guilty students/participants are more likely than innocent students/participants to accept plea bargain.

Plea Bargain are ways to ensure a favorable disposition of a case and is also an agreement to allow someone accused of a crime to admit being guilty of a less serious crime in order to be given a less severe punishment.

In the experiments conducted by different researchers, participants who are found guilty are more likely to accept a plea for they knew that the cost of a trial is worth the risk, and the reward from the plea bargain was not large enough to offset it. The Innocent participants on the other hand, who fears conviction , chose the option that offers the most rewards at the least cost which is accepting a plea deal and avoid a potentially lengthy prison term. Participants weighing plea bargains may consider substantive fairness and comparative fairness when deciding whether to accept or reject such plea. In the study conducted, plea bargaining was addressed to the participants without the presence of a defense lawyer and that could have add another dimension in the discussion.

The main purpose of this thought paper is to affirm that Innocent people/participants who accepts plea bargaining are more potentially at risk. Innocent participants refusal to accept plea bargain and to plead guilty made them believed that they could not be wrongfully convicted for committing such crime. Unlike those participants who are guilty indeed, they bargain for much lesser sanctions. In contrast, those innocent participants who don’t want to undergo trial or run the risk of being imprisoned when convicted, choose optimizing a strategy which basically offers the most rewards of less cost which is to accept plea bargains, especially so if the deal contains probation to avoid potentially lengthy imprisonment or prison term.

In the article of Russell D. Covey, entitled “Signaling and Plea Bargaining’s Innocence Problem” " Plea bargaining’s innocence problem is, at bottom, the result of a signaling defect. Innocent defendants lacking verifiable innocence claims are pooled together with guilty defendants who falsely proclaim innocence. As a result, both groups of defendants are treated similarly at trial and in plea bargaining.” It is emphasized in this article that the innocent participants undergo the same process or trial with those who are really guilty of committing an offense. The person might plead innocent but because of the fact that he or she is already charged, there is no option left but to less likely plead guilty in which it is so unfair and degrading on his part. Those who are truly guilty thereof should deserve the punishment for an offense but then again, they still have the privilege for plea bargaining. Accepting a lesser plea helps minimize cost for the innocent participants but then there are factors that must be considered and one of these is the agreement between the prosecution and the defense lawyer. The prosecution protects the public interest and the defense protects the interest of the defendants. Even if the participant is factually innocent of the offense, this information cannot affect the plea prices if it will not be discussed to the prosecution or jury which basically means that they are still convicted for said offense.

In this situation, both innocent and guilty participants are given equal rights to plea bargain, may the punishment be lenient or harsh. The participants knowledge of innocence or guilt affects the bargaining process. Participants who perceives themselves guilty of the offense are more likely to discount their chances of trial or acquittal while those participants who perceives themselves innocent, believes they will be acquitted and that is the reason why most of them wanted to go for trial for it is through the court proceedings, their claim of innocence will be justified.

Indeed, innocent participants who accepts plea bargain as sanction to an offense or crime not committed puts them at risk. Pleading guilty for an offense, for they are left with no choice, despite the fact that their conscience is clear makes it so unfair for the person. While those who are guilty indeed are still given the opportunity to plea bargain for much lesser punishment. Innocent participants take the risk of undergoing the rigors of tedious and lengthy trials which would basically hamper their studies, other personal obligations and responsibilities.

REFERENCES

Covey, Russell D. “Signaling and Plea Bargaining’s” http://law2.wlu.edu/deptimages/Law%20Review/66-1CoveyPublished.pdf

Photosource: www.ncfm.org

7:24 PM

Good Life

11:24 PM

Wait On The Lord

11:23 PM

How To Master Self-Discipline For Success

6:25 AM

Ask And It Will Be Given

6:18 AM

FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION

6:17 AM

Be Joyful

12:39 AM

TOTALITY RULE

12:38 AM

All Things Are Possible With God

8:53 PM

DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS

8:39 PM

You Will Not Be Shaken

8:34 PM

DOCTRINE OF STATE IMMUNITY

Under this doctrine, the State cannot be sued without its consent. (Sec. 3, Art. XVI, 1987 Constitution). It reflects nothing less than recognition of the sovereign character of the State and an express affirmation of the unwritten rule effectively insulating it from the jurisdiction of courts. It is based on the very essence of sovereignty. (Department of Agriculture v. NLRC, G.R. No. 104269, November 11, 1993)

There can be no legal right against the authority which makes the law on which the right depends (Republic vs. Villasor, GRN L‐30671, November 28, 1973). However, it may be sued if it gives consent, whether express or implied.

Express consent of the State may be manifested through general or special law. Solicitor General cannot validly waive immunity from suit. Only the Congress can (Republic v. Purisima, G.R. No. L‐36084, Aug.31, 1977).

Implied consent is given when the State itself commences litigation or when it enters into a contract. There is an implied consent when the state enters into a business contract. (US v. Ruiz, G.R. No. L‐35645 May 22, 1985). However, this rule is not absolute.

Not all contracts entered into by the government operate as a waiver of its nonsuability. Distinction must still be made between one which is executed in the exercise of its sovereign function and another which is done in its proprietary capacity. A State may be said to have descended to the level of an individual and can this be deemed to have actually given its consent to be sued only when it enters into business contracts. It does not apply where the contract relates to the exercise of its sovereign functions. (Department of Agriculture vs. NLRC G.R. No. 104269, November 11, 1993)

A suit considered as suit against the State under the following instances:

1. When the Republic is sued by name;

2. When the suit is against an unincorporated government agency;

3. When the suit is on its face against a government officer but the case is such.

While the doctrine appears to prohibit only suits against the state without its consent, it is also applicable to complaints filed against officials of the state for acts allegedly performed by them in the discharge of their duties. The rule is that if the judgment against such officials will require the state itself to perform an affirmative act to satisfy the same, such as the appropriation of the amount needed to pay the damages awarded against them, the suit must be regarded as against the state itself, although it has not been formally impleaded.

It is a different matter where the public official is made to account in his capacity as such for acts contrary to law and injurious to the rights of plaintiff. Inasmuch as the State authorizes only legal acts by its officers, unauthorized acts of govt. officials or officers are not acts of the State, and an action against the officials or officers by one whose rights have been invaded or violated by such acts, for the protection of his rights, is not a suit against the State within the rule of immunity of the State from suit. The doctrine of state immunity cannot be used as an instrument for perpetrating an injustice.

The cloak of immunity is removed from the moment the public official is sued in his individual capacity such as where he acts without authority or in excess of the powers vested in him. A public official may be liable in his personal capacity for whatever damage he may have caused by his act done with malice and in bad faith, or beyond the scope of his authority or jurisdiction. In this case, the officers are liable for damages.

The doctrine is also available to foreign States insofar as they are sought to be sued in the courts of the local State. The added basis in this case is the principle of the sovereign equality of States, under w/c one State cannot assert jurisdiction over another in violation of the maxim par in parem non habet imperium. To do so would "unduly vex the peace of nations."

The author takes no responsibility for the validity, correctness and result of this work. The information provided is not a legal advice and it should not be used as a substitute for a competent legal advice from a licensed lawyer. See the disclaimer

8:17 PM

Wear Love Everywhere You Go

8:09 PM

ARCHIPELAGIC DOCTRINE

It is defined as all waters, around between and connecting different islands belonging to the Philippine Archipelago, irrespective of their width or dimension, are necessary appurtenances of its land territory, forming an integral part of the national or inland waters, subject to the exclusive sovereignty of the Philippines. It is found in the 2nd sentence of Article 1 of the 1987 Constitution.

It emphasizes the unity of the land and waters by defining an archipelago as group of islands surrounded by waters or a body of waters studded with islands.

To emphasize unity, an imaginary single baseline is drawn around the islands by joining appropriate points of the outermost islands of the archipelago with straight lines and all islands and waters enclosed within the baseline form part of its territory.

The main purpose of the archipelagic doctrine is to protect the territorial interests of an archipelago, that is, the territorial integrity of the archipelago. Without it, there would be “pockets of high seas” between some of our islands and islets, thus foreign vessels would be able to pass through these “pockets of seas” and would have no jurisdiction over them. Accordingly, if we follow the old rule of international law, it is possible that between islands, e.g. Bohol and Siquijor, due to the more than 24 mile distance between the 2 islands, there may be high seas. Thus, foreign vessels may just enter anytime at will, posing danger to the security of the State. However, applying the doctrine, even these bodies of water within the baseline, regardless of breadth, form part of the archipelago and are thus considered as internal waters.

Following the Archipelagic Doctrine, the Spratlys Group of Islands is not part of Philippine archipelago. It is too far to be included within the archipelagic lines encircling the internal waters of Philippine Archipelago. However, the SGI is part of the Philippine territory because it was discovered by a Filipino seaman in the name of Vice‐Admiral Cloma who later renounced his claim over it in favor of the Republic of the Philippines. Subsequently, then Pres. Marcos issued a Presidential Decree constituting SGI as part of the Philippine territory and sending some of our armed forces to protect said island and maintain our sovereignty over it.

Moreover, Spratlys group of Islands is considered as part of our National Territory. Article I of the Constitution provides: “The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, x x x, and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, x x x.” The Spratlys Group of islands falls under the second phrase “and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction”. It is part of our national territory because Philippines exercise sovereignty (through election of public officials) over Spratlys Group of Islands

7:23 PM

God Promises To Get You Out Of The Storms

7:56 AM

Be Generous

7:48 AM

DOCTRINE OF NON-INTERFERENCE OR DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL STABILITY

7:17 AM

Don't Be Anxious

5:12 AM

PRINCIPLE OF JUDICIAL HIERARCHY

A higher court will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts.

This is an ordained sequence of recourse to courts vested with concurrent jurisdiction, beginning from the lowest, on to the next highest, and ultimately to the highest. This hierarchy is determinative of the venue of appeals, and is likewise determinative of the proper forum for petitions for extraordinary writs. This is an established policy necessary to avoid inordinate demands upon the Court‘s time and attention which are better devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to preclude the further clogging of the Court‘s docket.

The SC is a court of last resort. It cannot and should not be burdened with the task of deciding cases in the first instances. Its jurisdiction to issue extraordinary writs should be exercised only where absolutely necessary or where serious and important reasons exist.

Petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level courts should be filed with the RTC and those against the latter with the CA. A direct invocation of the SC‘s original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only where there are special and important reasons therefore, clearly and specifically set out in the petition.

The doctrine of hierarchy of courts may be disregarded if warranted by the nature and importance of the issues raised in the interest of speedy justice and to avoid future litigations, or in cases of national interest and of serious implications.

Sec. 9[1], BP 129; Sec. 5[1], Art. VIII, Constitution of the Philippines, By “hierarchy of courts” is meant that while the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, and the Regional Trial Courts have concurrent original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto and habeas corpus, such occurrence does not accord litigants unrestrained freedom of choice of the court to which application therefore maybe directed. The application should be filed with the court of lower level unless the importance of the issue involved deserves the action of the court of higher level. (Uy vs. Contreras, 237 SCRA 167)