PEOPLE v. SANTIAGO NO.

27972 October 27, 1927 Plaintiff and appellant: people of the Philippines Defendant and Appellant: Felipe Santiago Nature of the Case: Appeal from a judgment of the CFI of Nueva Ecija Ponente: Street, J. Facts: 1) Felipe Santiago found guilty of rape and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for 14 years, 8 mos and 1 day (reclusion temporal) with the accessories prescribed by law, endow offended party (Felicita Masilang) in the amount of P500 and recognize and maintain at P15 the offspring if the should be any (CFI Nueva Ecija) 2) Felicita Masilang (18 years old)- niece by marriage of the accused 3) Residents of Gapan, NE 4) Nov 23, 1926- defendant asked Felicita to go with him across the river on some errandwent to municipality of San Leonardo 5) About 20 paces from the highwaydesire to have sexual intercourse but girl refused to give consentnothwithstanding resistance, accomplished his purpose by force and against her will 6) After the act, defendant went to house of uncle, AGapito Santiago with the girl 7) 11 am a protestant minster camewent through a ceremony of marrying the couple 8) Gave few pesos to the plaintiff CFI: found the offense of rape had been committed Marriage ceremony was a mere ruse by which the appellant hoped to escape from the criminal offense; he had no bona fide intention of making her as his wifeceremony cannot be considered binding on her because of duress Marriage was therefore void for lack of essential consentsupplies no impediment to the prosecution of the wrongdoer Attorney-general suggested look into the aggravating circumstance on deciding for penalty unoccupied house, food procured from Florentina Cuizon lived not far away Doctrine: aggravating circumstance must be as clearly proved as any other element in the crime SC: judgment appealed from is in accordance with law and will be AFFIRMED. Costs against appellant BUCCAT vs. MANGONON No. 47101 Abril 25, 1941 Plaintiff/ Appellant: Godofredo Buccat Defendant/ Appellee: Luida Mangonon de BUccat Nature of the Case: Appeal of the decision of the CFI of Baguio Issue: Ponente: Horrilleno, M. Facts: 1) March 20, 1939: 2) CFI decided in favor of the

Aranes vs. Occiano AM no. MTJ- 02-1390 April 11, 2002 Petitioner: Mercedita Mata Aranes Respondent: Judge Salvador M. Occiano Nature of the case: Administrative matter in the SC. Gross Ignorance of the Law Issue: Ponente: Puno, J Facts: 1) May 23, 2001: complaint filed by petitioner 2) Respondent is the presiding judge of MTC of Balatan, Camarines Sur

3) Feb 17, 2000- respondent judge solemnized her marriage to late groom Dominador B. Orobia without the requisite marriage license and at Nabua Camarines Sur which is outside his territorial jurisdiction 4) Husband passed away; marriage was a nullitypetitioners right to inherit vas properties left by orobia was not recognized 5) She was deprived of receiving pensions of Orobia, a retired commodore of the Phil navy 6) Prays sanctions be imposed to respondent judge: causing hardships, embarrassment and sufferings to her 7) May 28, 2001: -- referred to Office of the Chief Justice (Court Admin. Zenaida N. Elapano) 8) June 8, 2001: respondent filed comment; July 5, 2001: requested by Juan arroyo on February 15, 2000 to solemnize a marriage (feb 17, 2000) Assured that all the documents of marriage were complete: agreed to solemnize marriage in his sala at the MTC of Balatan, Cam Sur 17 Feb: arroyo informed him that Orobia had difficulty in walkingso he solemnized marriage in Nabua When he discovered that the arties did not possess the requisite marriage license, he refused to solemnized the marriage and suggested resetting it to another day Due to earnest pleas of the parties and influx of visitorshe proceeded with solemnization of the marriagebut reiterated the necessity for the marriage license and admonished the parties that their failure to get one would make the marriage void Parties failed to comply 9) Sep 12, 2001petitioner filed affidavit of desistance dated Aug 28, 2001 with Court of Court Administrator 10) It appears that petitioner Orobia filed their application for Marriage license on Jan 5, 2000, stamped that it will be issued on Jan 17, 200 but neither of the petitioners claimed it 11) Appeared that Civil registrar General issued certification that is has no record of the marriage that took place on feb 17, 2000 12) Office of Local Civil Registrar of Nabua issued another certification dated May 7, 2001 that it cannot issue true copy of the marriage contract since it has no record of that marriage OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATOR: Nov 15, 2000 found the respondent guilty of solemnizing a marriage without a duly issued marriage license and for doing so outside his territorial jurisdiction. Fine of P5,000 was recommended to be imposed on respondent judge SC: Agreed. Respondent Judge Salvador Occiano, Presiding Judge of MTC Balatan, Cam Sur is fined P5000 with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense in the future will be dealt with more severely - Judiciary reorganization Act of 1980 (BP 129), the authority of the RTC judges and judges of inferior courts to solemnize marriages is confied to their territorial jurisdictionlimited to Balatan, Cam Sur - Constitutes grave ignorance of lawsolemnizing marriage without marriage license which will give him the authority to solemnize that marriage Judge cannot be exculpated despite the Affidavit of Desistance filed by petitioner withdrawal of the complaint does not necessarily have legal effect on exonerating respondent from disciplinary action BORJA MANZANO vs. TAN AM NO MTJ- 00-1329, March 8, 2001 Petitioner: Heminia Borja-Manzano Respondent: Judge Roque R. Sanchez MTC Infanta, Pangasinan Nature of the Case: Administrative matter. Gross Ignorance of the Law Issue: Ponente: Davide, Jr. J Facts: 1) Solemnization of marriage between two contracting parties who were both bound by a prior existing marriage is the bone of contention 2) May 12, 1999- complaint filed 3) Herminia Borjawife of the late David Manzano 4) Married: May 21, 1966 in San Gabriel Archangel parish, Araneta Avenue Caloocan City

5) March 22, 1993: husband contracted another marriage with LUzviminda Payao before respondent Judge 6) Judge knew that marriage was void and bigamous as the marriage contract clearly stated that both contracting parties wereSeparated RESPONDENTs CLAIMS: 1) When he officiated marriage he did not know that MAnzano was legally married 2) What he knew is that the two had been living together for seven years already without the benefit of marriage as manifested in their joint affidavit 3) If he knew, he would advise the latter not to marry again 4) Prayed that case be dismissed for lack of merit and for being designed merely to harass him CoURT ADMINISTRATOR: recommended that respondent judge be found guilty of gross ignorance of the law and be ordered to pay the fine of P2000 with a warning that repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt with more severely 7) Respondent invites attention of court to the two separate affidavits of Manzano and Payao stated that they were married to Herminia Borja and Domingo Relosbut left their partners and had never cohabited or communicated with their spouses anymore 8) Respondent judge alleges that on the basis of those affidavits, he agreed to solemnize the marriage in question in accordance with ART 34 of the Family Code SC: Merit in the Complaint The recommendation of the Court Adminsitrator is hereby ADOPTED with the MODIFICATION that the amount of fine to be imposed upon the respondent judge Roque Sanchez be increased to P20,000. For legal ratification of marital cohabitation to apply the following requisites must concur: a) Man and woman must have been living together as husband and wife for atleast 5 years before their marriage b) Parties must have no legal impediment to marry each other c) Fact of absence of legal impediment between the parties must be present at the time of marriage d) Parties must execute an affidavit stating that they have lived together for at least 5 years and are without legal impediment to marry each other and e) The solemnizing officer must execute a sworn statement that he had ascertained the qualifications of the parties and that he had found no legal impediment to their marriage REASONS; 1) Not all of these requirements are present in this case 2) In the marriage contract presented by parties both of them were separated 3) Respondent judge knew or ought to knew that a subsisting previous marriage is a diriment impediment make the new marriage null and void 4) The fact that Manzano and Payao had been living apart from their respective spouses for a long time already is immaterial (art 63(1) of the FC allows spouses w have obtained a decree of legal separation to live separately from ach other but in such case the marriage bonds are not severed 5) Legal separation does not dissolve the marriage and does not authorize the parties to remarrymuch so if the separation is merely a de facto separation as in this case 6) Marital cohabitation for a long period of time between 2 individuals who are legally capacitated to marry each other is merely a ground for exemption from marriage licenses but could not serve as justification for a respondent judge to solemnize a subsequent marriage vitiated by the impediment prior existing marriage NAVARRO vs. CEREZO AM NO. P-05-1962 February 17, 2005 Complainant: Jun Navarro Respondents: Clerk of Court Benny L. Cerezo, Cashier Villamor D. Bautista, and Process Server Rex Aspiras MTCC, Santiago City Nature of the Case: Administrative Matter. Usurpation of Authority and Grave Misconduct Issue: POnente: Chico-Nazario, J Facts: 1) Feb 13, 2003: narrated that relatives Leonard Anthony Domingo and Charlotte Kay N. Matterig were married on Feb 8, 2003

2) He alleged that marriage ceremony was recorded using video camera and thereafter the pictures were developed. He and his relatives were surprised to see respondents Villamor Bautista and Rex Aspiras solemnizing the marriage 3) They witnessed the respondents solemnize the marriage of Indian couple (Singh- De la Vega Nuptial) 4) Judge Maxwell Rosete could not solemnize marriage as the latter is in Manila and being a Saturday 5) He said his family almost spent P50000 for the marriage which turned out to be null and void 6) He asked court to investigate Aspiras and Bautista for solemnizing marriage w/o authority to do so and Clerk of court Cerezo for allowing the former to use her office 7) Feb 12, 2004: Office of the Court Administrator required Mrs. Benny L. Cerezo, Rex Aspiras and Villamor Bautista-file comment w/in 10 days from receipt thereof RESPONDENTS CLAIMS a) Joint comment (Bautista and Villamor) : mArch 8, 2004 : denied the allegations of the complaint and stated that they merely assisted the parties in affixing their signatures on the marriage contract after a brief ceremony by Judge mAxwell Rosete b) Denied allegations that marriage was fakeduly registered with the office of the Local Civil Registrar of Santiago City c) Attached joint affidavit of Anthony Domingo and Matterig which stated inter alia that complainant Jun Navarro is non existent, a mere creation of one who sought vengeance against the employees of MTCC of Santiago City d) Benny Cerezo comment: she is innocent, she was not in the office on Feb 8, 2003; she did not allow anybody to solemnize marriages of domingo and matterig as well as Singh-de la Vega and of Jacela-Santos October 8, 2004: OCA submitted report recommending dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit SC: we agree. In view of the foregoing, the complaint is DISMISSED for lack of merit Reasons: 1) Complainant miserably failed to adduce the quantum of evidencesubstantial evidence required to make respondents liable 2) Absence of any evidence showing that respondents acted culpably reduces the charges against them into mere indictment. 3) No records to indicate that respondents committed grave misconduct and abuse of authority 4) Complainant submitted photocopies of the marriage certificates of Leoardo Anthony Domingo and Charlotte Kay matterigcertified true copiesbut instead proved the fact that the marriages took place but not as alleged by complainantsignatures of Judge Maxwell Rosete as solemnizing officer 5) Couple involved disavowed any knowledge of the complainants existence 6) No credence could be given to mere suspicion and speculation 7) Administrative charges against respondents is utterly devoid of factual and legal basis unfounded imputations against respondents is malicious and offends the dignity of the entire judiciary

PROVISIONS ASec 1-4 Art XV Constitution Sec 1: The State recognizes the family as the foundation of the nation. Accordingly,