Ting v.

Velez-Ting FACTS: On October 21, 1993, after being marri ed for more than 18 years to petitioner and while their youngest child was only two years old, Carmen filed a verified petition before the RTC of Cebu City praying for the declaration of nullity of their marriage based on Article36 of the Family Code. She claimed that Benjamin suffered from psychological incapacity even at the time of the celebration of their marriage, which, however, only became manifest thereafter. On January 9, 1998, the lower court rendered its decision declaring the marriage between petitioner and respondent null and void. The RTC gave credence toD r . O a t e s f i n d i n g s a n d t h e a dmissions made by Benjamin in the cou r s e o f his deposition, and found him to be psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage. On October 19, 2000, the petitioner appealed to the CA, reversing the trial courts ruling .ISSUE: W h e t h e r o r n o t t h e C A c o r r e c t l y ruled t h a t t h e r e q u i r e m e n t o f p r o o f of psychological incapacity for the declaration of absolute nullity of marriage based on Article 36 of the Family Code has been liberalized. HELD: No, by the very nature of cases involving the application of Article 36, it is logical and understandable to give weight to the expert opinions furnished by psychologists regarding the psychological ltemperament of parties in order todetermine the root cause, juridical antecedence, gravity and incurability of thepsychological incapacit y. However, such opinions, while highly advis able, arenotconditions sine qua non in granting petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage. At best, courts must treat such opinions as decisive but not indispensable evidence in determining the merits of a given case. In fact, if the totality of evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity, then actual medical or psychological examination of the person concerned need not be resorted to. The trial court, as in any other given case presented before it, must always base its decision not solely on the expert opinions furnished by the parties but also on the totality of evidence adduced in the course of the proceedings. But where, as in this case, the parties had the full opportunity to present professional and expert opinions of psychiatrists tracing the root cause, gravity and incurability of a partys alleged psychological incapacity, then such expert opinion should be presented and, accordingly, be weighed by the court in deciding whether to grant a petition for

nullity of marriage The petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED. Adasa vs. Abalos

G.R. No. 168617 February 19, 2007 Facts: Respondent Cecille Abalos alleged in the

complaints-affidavits that petitioner Bernadette Adasa, through deceit, received and encashed two checks issued in the name of respondent without respondents knowledge and consent and that despite repeated demands by the latter, petitioner failed and refused to pay the proceeds of the checks. A resolution was issued by the Office of the City Prosecutor of Iligan City finding probable cause against petitioner and ordering the filing of two separate Informations for Estafa Thru Falsification of Commercial Document by a Private Individual, under Article 315 in relation to Articles 171 and 172 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. Dissatisfied with the finding of the Office of the City Prosecutor of Iligan City, petitioner later filed a Petition for Review before the DOJ. In a Resolution, the DOJ reversed and set aside the resolution of the Office of the City Prosecutor of Iligan City and directed the said office to withdraw the Information for Estafa against petitioner. The said DOJ resolution prompted the Office of the City Prosecutor of Iligan City to file a Motion to Withdraw Information.

Respondent

Abalos

thereafter

filed

motion

for

reconsideration of said resolution of the DOJ arguing that the DOJ should have dismissed outright the petition for review since Section 7 of DOJ Circular No. 70 mandates that when an accused has already been arraigned and the aggrieved party files a petition for review before the DOJ, the Secretary of Justice cannot, and should not take cognizance of the petition, or even give due course thereto, but instead deny it outright. Respondent claimed Section 12

thereof mentions arraignment as one of the grounds for the dismissal of the petition for review before the DOJ.

other mandatory provisions Sections 3, 5, 6 and 7, nugatory.

In another resolution, the DOJ denied the Motion for Reconsideration opining that under Section 12, in relation to Section 7, of DOJ Circular No. 70, the Secretary of Justice is not precluded from entertaining any appeal taken to him even where the accused has already been arraigned in court. This is due to the permissive language may utilized in Section 12 whereby the Secretary has the discretion to entertain an appealed resolution

CASE DIGEST ON PEOPLE V. PINUILA [55 O.G. 23 p. 4228 (1958)] Where accused who were charged with murder, filed a motion to quash on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, which the lower court granted, and the government, following, the doctrine of People v. Salico which held that an appeal by the government does not place accused in double jeopardy, this interpretation, though later abandoned, must be held applicable to accused, and they cannot invoke the defense of double jeopardy. People v Salico has long become final and conclusive and has become the law of the case. It may be erroneous, judged by the law on double jeopardy as recently interpreted by the SC. Even so, it may not be disturbed and modified. The SC's recent interpretation of the law may be applied to new cases, but certainly not to an old one finally and conclusively determined. "Law of the case has been defined as the opinion delivered on a former appeal. More specifically, it means that whatever is once irrevocably established as the controlling legal rule of decision between the same parties in the same case continues to be the law of the case, WHETHER CORRECT ON GENERAL PRINCIPLES OR NOT, so long as the facts on which such decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the court." [21 C.J.S. 330] "It may be stated that as a rule of general application, where the evidence on a second or succeeding appeal is substantially the same as that on the first or preceding appeal, all matters, questions, points or issues adjudicated on the prior appeal are the law of the case on all subsequent appeals and will not be reconsidered or readjudicated therein." The rule is founded on the policy of ending litigation, and to be necessary to enable an appellate court to perform its duties satisfactorily and effectively.

notwithstanding the fact that the accused has been arraigned.

Issue: Is the over-all language of Sections 7 and 12 of Department Circular No. 70 permissive and directory such that the Secretary of Justice may entertain an appeal despite the fact that the accused had been arraigned? Held: No. When an accused has already been arraigned, the DOJ must not give the appeal or petition for review due course and must dismiss the same. If the intent of Department Circular No. 70 were to give the Secretary of Justice a discretionary power to dismiss or to entertain a petition for review despite its being out rightly dismissible, such as when the accused has already been arraigned, or where the crime the accused is being charged with has already prescribed, or there is no reversible error that has been committed, or that there are legal or factual grounds warranting dismissal, the result would not only be incongruous but also irrational and even unjust. For then, the action of the Secretary of Justice of giving due course to the petition would serve no purpose and would only allow a great waste of time. Moreover, to give the second sentence of Section 12 in relation to its paragraph (e) a directory application would not only subvert the avowed objectives of the Circular, that is, for the expeditious and efficient administration of justice, but would also render its