Problem 1:

Mia, a Filipino citizen, was working as an elite cybersecurity analyst in Qatar when she met and
fell in love with Gael, a Qatari metaverse expert. Under Qatari law, they got married through a
virtual proxy marriage, where their respective avatars represented them. After the wedding, they
went on a virtual honeymoon and lived together as husband and wife in the metaverse. Once her
project in Qatar was completed, Mia returned to the Philippines, while Gael remained in Qatar.

Back in her native Masbate, Mia started living in person with Carlos, a No. 1 Bar Topnotcher
who convinced her that her marriage with Gael was void. Gael, using his advanced technologies,
uncovered the sexual affair and decided to file an adultery case against Mia and Carlos in the
Philippines. Can Gael, a Qatari citizen, successfully file an adultery case against Mia and Carlos?

Answer:

Yes, Gael can successfully file an adultery case against Mia and Carlos in the Philippines
because the adulterous affair occurred within the Philippines.

Under Article 334 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, adultery is committed by any
married woman who has sexual intercourse with a man not her husband, and by the man who has
carnal knowledge of her, knowing her to be married, even if the marriage is subsequently
declared void.

Despite the unusual nature of their virtual proxy marriage in Qatar, it is recognized under Qatari
law. Hence, it is considered valid in the Philippines pursuant to the principle of lex loci
celebrationis, or law of the place of celebration, which respects the law of the place where the
marriage was celebrated. Since Mia is considered married to Gael under Philippine law, her
sexual relations with Carlos in the Philippines constitute adultery. Hence, as Mia’s legal
husband, Gael, regardless of his nationality, can initiate an adultery case in the Philippines.

Problem 2:

Manny, a wealthy business tycoon, was tormented by the thought of his wife's romantic
association with Floyd, a high-profile casino owner. Driven by jealousy, Manny hatched a plot to
kill Floyd.

On the fateful day, Manny armed himself with a high-tech plasma gun and went to Floyd’s
luxurious villa in Tagaytay. Upon seeing Floyd, Manny aimed his lethal weapon, but it failed to
fire because he had forgotten to load the plasma cartridges. His heart pounding with frustration
and fear, Manny resolved to strangle Floyd instead. However, as Manny braced himself to
strangle Floyd, Floyd suddenly suffered a fatal heart attack and died before Manny could even
lay a finger on him. Can Manny be held criminally liable for Floyd’s death?

Answer:
No, Manny cannot be held criminally liable for Floyd's death because the cause of death was a
heart attack, not Manny's actions.

In Criminal Law, a person cannot be held criminally liable for a crime unless his actions are both
the cause in fact and the proximate cause of the crime. This principle of causation, enshrined in
Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code, states, "Criminal liability shall be incurred by any person
committing a felony, even though the wrongful act done is different from what he intended."

In this case, while Manny certainly intended to harm Floyd, first by planning to shoot him and
then by resolving to strangle him, he neither successfully fired his weapon nor managed to
strangle Floyd. Floyd's death was ultimately caused by a heart attack, an efficient intervening
cause not directly connected to Manny's actions. Hence, Manny's actions were neither the actual
nor the proximate cause of Floyd's death.