COMPILATIONOFNATURALLAWREPORTS

PEOPLEv.GENOSA
FACTS:
OnautomaticreviewbeforetheSupremeCourt,appellantfiledanURGENTOMNIBUSMOTIONprayingthattheHonorableCourtallow(1)theexhumationofBenGenosa
andthereexaminationofthecauseofhisdeath(2)theexaminationofMarivicGenosabyqualifiedpsychologistsandpsychiatriststodetermineherstateofmindatthetimeshekilled
herhusbandandfinally,(3)theinclusionofthesaidexpertsreportsintherecordsofthecaseforpurposesoftheautomaticreviewor,inthealternative,apartialreopeningofthe
caseaquototakethetestimonyofsaidpsychologistsandpsychiatrists.
TheSupremeCourtpartlygrantedtheURGENTOMNIBUSMOTIONoftheappellant.Itremandedthecasetothetrialcourtforreceptionofexpertpsychologicaland/orpsychiatric
opiniononthebatteredwomansyndromeplea.Testimoniesoftwoexpertwitnessesonthebatteredwomansyndrome,Dra.DayanandDr.Pajarillo,werepresentedandadmitted
bythetrialcourtandsubsequentlysubmittedtotheSupremeCourtaspartoftherecords.
ISSUE:
1.

Whetherornotappellanthereincanvalidlyinvokethebatteredwomansyndromeasconstitutingselfdefense.

2.

WhetherornottreacheryattendedthekillingofBenGenosa.

Ruling:
1.

TheCourtruledinthenegativeasappellantfailedtoprovethatsheisafflictedwiththebatteredwomansyndrome.

Abatteredwomanhasbeendefinedasawomanwhoisrepeatedlysubjectedtoanyforcefulphysicalorpsychologicalbehaviorbyamaninordertocoercehertodosomethinghe
wantshertodowithoutconcernforherrights.
Batteredwomenincludewivesorwomeninanyformofintimaterelationshipwithmen.Furthermore,inordertobeclassifiedasabatteredwoman,thecouplemustgothroughthe
batteringcycleatleasttwice.Anywomanmayfindherselfinanabusiverelationshipwithamanonce.Ifitoccursasecondtime,andsheremainsinthesituation,sheisdefinedasa
batteredwoman.
Moregraphically,thebatteredwomansyndromeischaracterizedbythesocalledcycleofviolence,whichhasthreephases:
(1)
thetensionbuildingphase
(2)
theacutebattering
incidentand
(3)
thetranquil,loving(or,atleast,nonviolent)phase.
TheCourt,however,isnotdiscountingthepossibilityofselfdefensearisingfromthebatteredwomansyndrome.First,eachofthephasesofthecycleofviolencemustbeprovento
havecharacterizedatleasttwobatteringepisodesbetweentheappellantandherintimatepartner.Second,thefinalacutebatteringepisodeprecedingthekillingofthebatterermust
haveproducedinthebatteredpersonsmindanactualfearofanimminentharmfromherbattererandanhonestbeliefthatsheneededtouseforceinordertosaveherlife.
Third,atthetimeofthekilling,thebatterermusthaveposedprobablenotnecessarilyimmediateandactualgraveharmtotheaccused,basedonthehistoryofviolenceperpetrated
bytheformeragainstthelatter.Takenaltogether,thesecircumstancescouldsatisfytherequisitesofselfdefense.Undertheexistingfactsofthepresentcase,however,notallofthese
elementsweredulyestablished.
ThedefensefellshortofprovingallthreephasesofthecycleofviolencesupposedlycharacterizingtherelationshipofBenandMarivicGenosa.Nodoubttherewereacutebattering
incidentsbutappellantfailedtoprovethatinatleastanotherbatteringepisodeinthepast,shehadgonethroughasimilarpattern.Neitherdidappellantproffersufficientevidencein
regardtothethirdphaseofthecycle.

Inanyevent,theexistenceofthesyndromeinarelationshipdoesnotinitselfestablishthelegalrightofthewomantokillherabusivepartner.Evidencemuststillbeconsideredinthe
contextofselfdefense.Settledinourjurisprudence,istherulethattheonewhoresortstoselfdefensemustfacearealthreatononeslifeandtheperilsoughttobeavoidedmustbe
imminentandactual,notmerelyimaginary.
Thus,theRevisedPenalCodeprovidesthatthefollowingrequisitesofselfdefensemustconcur:
(1)
Unlawfulaggression
(2)
Reasonablenecessityofthemeansemployedtoprevent
orrepelitand
(3)
Lackofsufficientprovocationonthepartofthepersondefendinghimself.
Unlawfulaggressionisthemostessentialelementofselfdefense.Itpresupposesactual,suddenandunexpectedattackoranimminentdangerthereofonthelifeorsafetyofa
person.Inthepresentcase,however,accordingtothetestimonyofMarivicherself,therewasasufficienttimeintervalbetweentheunlawfulaggressionofBenandherfatalattack
uponhim.Shehadalreadybeenabletowithdrawfromhisviolentbehaviorandescapetotheirchildrensbedroom.
Duringthattime,heapparentlyceasedhisattackandwenttobed.Therealityoreventheimminenceofthedangerheposedhadendedaltogether.Hewasnolongerinapositionthat
presentedanactualthreatonherlifeorsafety.
Themitigatingfactorsofpsychologicalparalysisandpassionandobfuscationwere,however,takeninfavorofappellant.Itshouldbeclarifiedthatthesetwocircumstances
psychologicalparalysisaswellaspassionandobfuscationdidnotarisefromthesamesetoffacts.
Thefirstcircumstancearosefromthecyclicalnatureandtheseverityofthebatteryinflictedbythebattererspouseuponappellant.Thatis,therepeatedbeatingsoveraperiodoftime
resultedinherpsychologicalparalysis,whichwasanalogoustoanillnessdiminishingtheexerciseofherwillpowerwithoutdeprivingherofconsciousnessofheracts.
Astotheextenuatingcircumstanceofhavingacteduponanimpulsesopowerfulastohavenaturallyproducedpassionandobfuscation,ithasbeenheldthatthisstateofmindis
presentwhenacrimeiscommittedasaresultofanuncontrollableburstofpassionprovokedbypriorunjustorimproperactsorbyalegitimatestimulussopowerfulastoovercome
reason.
2.

WhetherornottreacheryattendedthekillingofBenGenosa.

NO.Becauseofthegravityoftheresultingoffense,treacherymustbeprovedasconclusivelyasthekillingitself.Besides,equallyaxiomaticistherulethatwhenakillingispreceded
byanargumentoraquarrel,treacherycannotbeappreciatedasaqualifyingcircumstance,becausethedeceasedmaybesaidtohavebeenforewarnedandtohaveanticipated
aggressionfromtheassailant.
Moreover,inordertoappreciatealevosia,themethodofassaultadoptedbytheaggressormusthavebeenconsciouslyanddeliberatelychosenforthespecificpurposeofaccomplishing
theunlawfulactwithoutriskfromanydefensethatmightbeputupbythepartyattacked.
Theappellantacteduponanimpulsesopowerfulastohavenaturallyproducedpassionorobfuscation.Theacutebatteringshesufferedthatfatalnightinthehandsofher
battererspouse,inspiteofthefactthatshewaseight(8)monthspregnantwiththeirchild,overwhelmedherandputherintheaforesaidemotionalandmentalstate,whichovercame
herreasonandimpelledhertovindicateherlifeandthatofherunbornchild.
TheSupremeCourtaffirmedtheconvictionofappellantforparricide.However,consideringthepresenceoftwo(2)mitigatingcircumstancesandwithoutanyaggravating
circumstance,thepenaltyisreducedtosix(6)yearsandone(1)dayofprisionmayorasminimumto14years8monthsand1dayofreclusiontemporalasmaximum.
PRECEPTSOFNATURALLAW:
JusticeandEquality.
USESOFNATURALLAW:

JustificatoryUseTowarrantsomelegalinnovation,asthisisthefirstcaseinthePhilippineswhereBWSwastakenintoconsiderationasajustifyingcircumstance(consideredonlyas
amitigatingcircumstanceinthiscase).
InterpretativeUseTobroadenthemeaningofselfdefenseandnotconstrueitstrictlyaccordingtothewordsdefiningit,buttothespiritandintentofthelaw.

ALEJANDROESTRADAvs.SOLEDADS.ESCRITOR
FACTS:
SoledadEscritorisacourtinterpretersince1999intheRTCofLasPinasCity.

AlejandroEstrada,thecomplainant,wrotetoJudgeJoseF.Caoibes,presidingjudgeofBranch253,RTCofLasPinasCity,requestingforaninvestigationofrumorsthat
EscritorhasbeenlivingwithLucianoQuilapioJr.,amannotherhusband,andhadeventuallybegottenason.Escritorshusband,whohadlivedwithanotherwoman,dieda
yearbeforesheenteredintothejudiciary.

Ontheotherhand,Quilapioisstilllegallymarriedtoanotherwoman.EstradaisnotrelatedtoeitherEscritororQuilapioandisnotaresidentofLasPinasbutofBacoor,
Cavite.

Consequently,respondentwaschargedwithcommitting"disgracefulandimmoralconduct"underBookV,TitleI,ChapterVI,Sec.46(b)(5)oftheRevisedAdministrative
Code.

EscritorisamemberofthereligioussectknownastheJehovahsWitnessesandtheWatchTowerandBibleTractSocietywhereherconjugalarrangementwithQuilapioisin
conformitywiththeirreligiousbeliefs.

EstradabelievesthatEscritoriscommittinganimmoralactthattarnishestheimageofthecourt,thussheshouldnotbeallowedtoremainemployedthereinasit
mightappearthatthecourtcondonesheract.

Aftertenyearsoflivingtogether,sheexecutedonJuly28,1991aDeclarationofPledgingFaithfulnesswhichwasapprovedbythecongregation.

Suchdeclarationiseffectivewhenlegalimpedimentsrenderitimpossibleforacoupletolegalizetheirunion.ForJehovahsWitnesses,theDeclarationallowsmembersof
thecongregationwhohavebeenabandonedbytheirspousestoenterintomaritalrelations.

Gregorio,Salazar,apresidingministersince1985andhasbeenamemberoftheJehovahsWitnesses1919,testifiedandexplainedtheimportofandproceduresforexecuting
thedeclarationwhichwascompletelyexecutedbyEscritorandQuilapiosinAtimonan,QuezonandwassignedbythreewitnessesandrecordedinWatchTowerCentral
Office.

Insum,therefore,insofarasthecongregationisconcerned,thereisnothingimmoralabouttheconjugalarrangementbetweenEscritorandQuilapioandtheyremainmembers
ingoodstandinginthecongregation.

Byinvokingthereligiousbeliefs,practicesandmoralstandardsofhercongregation,inassertingthatherconjugalarrangementdoesnotconstitutedisgracefulandimmoral
conductforwhichsheshouldbeheldadministrativelyliable,theCourthadtodeterminethecontoursofreligiousfreedomunderArticleIII,Section5oftheConstitution,
whichprovides,viz:

Sec.5.Nolawshallbemaderespectinganestablishmentofreligion,orprohibitingthefreeexercisethereof.Thefreeexerciseandenjoymentofreligiousprofessionand
worship,withoutdiscriminationorpreference,shallforeverbeallowed.Noreligioustestshallberequiredfortheexerciseofcivilorpoliticalrights.

ISSUE:

Whetherornotrespondentshouldbefoundguiltyoftheadministrativechargeofgrossandimmoralconduct.

HELD:
REVIEWOFTHEOLDWORLDANTECEDENTSOFRELIGION

Itascertainedtwosalientfeaturesinthereviewofreligioushistory:

1.

Withminorexceptions,thehistoryofchurchstaterelationshipswascharacterizedbypersecution,oppression,hatred,bloodshed,andwar,allinthenameoftheGodofLove
andofthePrinceofPeace.

2.

Likewisewithminorexceptions,thishistorywitnessedtheunscrupuloususeofreligionbysecularpowerstopromotesecularpurposesandpolicies,andthewilling
acceptanceofthatrolebythevanguardsofreligioninexchangeforthefavorsandmundanebenefitsconferredbyambitiousprincesandemperorsinexchangeforreligions
invaluableservice

ThiswasthecontextinwhichtheuniqueexperimentoftheprincipleofreligiousfreedomandseparationofchurchandstatesawitsbirthinAmericanconstitutional
democracyandinhumanhistory.
FreeExerciseClause
prohibitsgovernmentfrominhibitingreligiousbeliefswithpenaltiesforreligiousbeliefsandpractice
Whilethe
EstablishmentClause
prohibitsgovernmentfrominhibitingreligiousbeliefwithrewardsforreligiousbeliefsandpractices.
Itshowsthemovementofestablishmentofreligionasanenginetopromotestateinterests,tothe
principleofnonestablishment
toallowthefreeexerciseofreligion.
ThiswasthecontextinwhichtheuniqueexperimentoftheprincipleofreligiousfreedomandseparationofchurchandstatesawitsbirthinAmericanconstitutional
democracyandinhumanhistory.

TheCourtthenturnedtothereligionclausesinterpretationandconstructionintheUnitedStatesbecausetheU.S.religionclausesaretheprecursorstothePhilippinereligion
clauses.

A.STRICTSEPARATIONANDSTRICTNEUTRALITY/SEPARATION

Onlythecompleteseparationofreligionfrompoliticswouldeliminatetheformalinfluenceofreligiousinstitutionsandprovideforafreechoiceamongpoliticalviews,thusa
strict"wallofseparation"isnecessary.
Thestrictneutralityorseparationistview,isstrictinholdingthatreligionmaynotbeusedasabasisforclassificationforpurposesofgovernmentalaction,whetherthe
actionconfersrightsorprivilegesorimposesdutiesorobligations.

B.BENEVOLENTNEUTRALITY/ACCOMMODATION

thewallismeanttoprotectthechurchfromthestate.
Itrecognizesthatreligionplaysanimportantroleinthepubliclife.Religiousfreedomisseenasasubstantiverightandnotmerelyaprivilegeagainstdiscriminatory
legislation.

TheCourtstatesthatourConstitutionadheresthebenevolentneutralityapproachthatgivesroomforaccommodationofreligiousexercisesasrequiredbytheFreeExercise
Clause.
Thisbenevolentneutralitycouldallowforaccommodationofmoralitybasedonreligion,provideditdoesnotoffendcompellingstateinterests.
Thestatesinterestisthepreservationoftheintegrityofthejudiciarybymaintainingamongitsranksahighstandardofmoralityanddecency.
ThereisnothingintheOCAs(OfficeoftheCourtAdministrator)memorandumtotheCourtthatdemonstrateshowthisinterestissocompellingthatitshouldoverride
respondentspleaofreligiousfreedom.Indeed,itisinappropriateforthecomplainant,aprivateperson,topresentevidenceonthecompellinginterestofthestate.
TheburdenofevidenceshouldbedischargedbytheproperagencyofthegovernmentwhichistheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral.

ThesolicitorgeneralsofficerepresentstheGovernmentincasesbeforetheSupremeCourtandsupervisesthehandlingoflitigationonbehalfofthegovernmentinall
appellatecourts.

Inordertoproperlysettlethecaseatbar,itisessentialthatthegovernmentbegivenanopportunitytodemonstratethecompellingstateinterestitseekstoupholdinopposing
therespondentspositionthatherconjugalarrangementisnotimmoralandpunishableasitiswithinthescopeoffreeexerciseprotection.

TheCourtcouldnotprohibitandpunishherconductwheretheFreeExerciseClauseprotectsit,sincethiswouldbeanunconstitutionalencroachmentofherrighttoreligious
freedom.Furthermore,thecourtcannotsimplytakeapassinglookatrespondentsclaimofreligiousfreedombutmustalsoapplytheCOMPELLINGSTATEINTEREST
TEST.

TheSolicitorGeneralisorderedtointerveneinthecasewhereitwillbegiventheopportunity
(a)toexaminethesincerityandcentralityofrespondent'sclaimedreligiousbeliefandpractice
(b)topresentevidenceonthestate's"compellinginterest"tooverriderespondent'sreligiousbeliefandpracticeand
(c)toshowthatthemeansthestateadoptsinpursuingitsinterestistheleastrestrictivetorespondent'sreligiousfreedom.

Thus,wefindthatinthisparticularcaseandunderthesedistinctcircumstances,respondentESCRITORSCONJUGALARRANGEMENTCANNOTBEPENALIZEDas
shehasmadeoutacaseforexemptionfromthelawbasedonherFUNDAMENTALRIGHTTOFREEDOMOFRELIGION.

TheCourtrecognizesthatstateinterestsmustbeupheldinorderthatfreedomsincludingreligiousfreedommaybeenjoyed.

Intheabsenceofashowingthatsuchstateinterestexists,manmustbeallowedtosubscribetotheInfinite.

THEPETITIONWASDISMISSED.

USEOFNATURALLAW:
Theinterpretativeuseofnaturallaw
isbeingusedinthecaseofEstradavsEscritor.Theinterpretativeuseofnaturallawisexplainedthatitinvolvesitsutilizationasan
interpretativealembicordevisetoexpressorputintoeffectthelegislativeintention.

Inthiscase,FreedomofReligionortheFreeExerciseCauseisbeingusedasadefenseagainsttheallegationthatthecohabitationofEscritortoQuilapo,althoughmorallywrong,is
beingacceptedtotheirreligionwhichistheJehovahsWitness.ThecohabitationofthedefendantwithQuilapoisnotconsideredasaviolationintheSeperationoftheChurchandthe
Statedoctrine,duetothefactthattherewasnousurpationonthefunctionofthegovernment.
PRECEPTOFNATURALLAW.
Fairness
isthepreceptofnaturallawembodiedinthiscasesincethepetitionwasdismissduetothereasonthatthecomplainant,Estrada,isnottheproperpersonthatshouldfilethe
complaintsinceEstradaisnotbeinginjuredintheactofthedefendantandherpartner.Andthereisfairnessbecause,eventhoughtheactofEscritorandherpartnerisnotmorally
accepted,therulingwasfavoredtothembecauseoftheFreeExerciseClauseandFreedomofReligion.Anditwasnotactuallyconsideredasabigamybecausethedefendantand
Quilapoisnotmarriedbutjustcohabitingaccordingtothelawsacceptedintheirreligion.

T
HEPEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,vs.LAURENCIOLASPARDAS
FACTS
areview
enconsulta
ofthejudgmentoftheCourtofFirstInstanceofLanaodelSur.
convictingLaurencioLaspardasofrapewithhomicide,sentencinghimtodeathandorderinghimtopaytheheirsofthevictims,thesistersElizabethArriesgadoandJosephine
ArriesgadothesumofP24,000asindemnity.
PETITIONER
ConstabularysergeantfiledonDecember17,1976againstLaurencioLaspardasinthemunicipalcourtofWao,LanaodelSuracomplaintfordoublemurder
ItwasallegedthereinthatonDecember1,1976inSitioSanRoque,BarrioPagalongan,Wao,Laspardas,withtreacheryandpremeditation,inflictedtwelvewoundsuponElizabeth
ArriesgadoandJosephineArriesgadotherebycausingtheirdeath

ListedaswitnessesinthecomplaintwereBibianaArriesgado,VicenteMagdaloyo,ArmandoOrtanillas,andSolomonManzano.

Attachedtotherecordarethefollowing:

(1)photographsofthebodiesofthevictims
(2)sketchoftheplacewheretheirbodieswerefoundand
(3)twodeathcertificates.Thecertificatesofdeathshowthatthetwovictimsweretwelveandeightyearsold.
BenjaminCatalan,thebarriocaptain

Laspardas,aliasLaurel,wasthelastpersonwhosawthetwovictims,thatthecrimeswerecommittedintheeveningofDecember1,thatoneofthevictimswasraped,that
theskirtofElizabethwasraisedaboveherwaist,thezipperofhershortpantswasopenandtornandherlegswerespreadapart,thattherewasbloodonhergenitals,andthat
Laspardasfledfromthebarrio.

BibianaTarrozaArriesgado

declaredthatLaspardaswasaguestatherhouseandthatonthedayofthekillingandrapesheentrustedtohimherchildrenwhensheleftherhouse.

VicenteMagdaloy,atwentysixyearoldfarmer

residesatSitioSanRoque

Declaredthatthekillingandrapewereperpetratedinthevictims'houseandthatattwoo'clockinthemorningofDecember2,1976(orlessthantwentyfourhoursafterthe
unusualincident)

LaspardasappearedinhishouseandaskedforpaymentoftheamountwhichMagdaloyoowedhim.

ArmandoOrtanillasatwentytwoyearoldfarmerandaneighborofthevictims

declaredthatLaspardaskilledtheArriesgadosisters.

HesawLaspardaswiththevictimsintheafternoonofDecember1,1976.

ThemunicipalcourtissuedawarrantforthearrestofLaspardas.HewasarrestedatCabadbaran,AgusanonDecember10,1976.

AConstabularysergeanttooktheextrajudicialconfessionofLaspardaswhichwassworntobeforethemunicipaljudgeofWao,LaspardaswasinterrogatedintheCebuano
dialect

UponarraignmentintheCourtofFirstInstance,Laspardas,withtheassistanceofcounsel
deoficio
,againpleadedguiltyaftertheinformationwastranslatedtohiminthe
Cebuanodialectwhichhespeaks.

Heansweredintheaffirmativewhenthetrialjudgeaskedhimifheunderstoodthecharge.

Theaccusedadmittedtohiscounselthathehadexecutedanextrajudicialconfession.

InviewofLaspardasadmissioninhisconfessionthatherapedElizabeth,thecomplaintwasamendedsoastoaddrapetothechargeofdoublemurder.

Uponarraignmentinthemunicipalcourt,Laspardaspleadedguilty.

ThecasewaselevatedtotheCourtofFirstInstancewhereafiscalfiledaninformationforthoseoffensesaggravatedbytreachery,evidentpremeditation,anddwelling.

Afterthearraignment,Laspardaswasplacedonthewitnessstand.

HetestifiedthatthecontentsofhisconfessionwereexplainedtohimintheCebuanodialect

Heaffixedhisthumbmarktheretoandthatitwastrue,asstatedinhisconfession,thathekilledthetwogirlsbecausehewasmadattheirparents

thathisorgantouchedthelips(labia)ofthevaginaofElizabethArriesgadowhowasstillalive,whenhetriedtohavesexualintercoursewithherand

thatheusedhisboloinwoundingthetwovictims.

ThethirtyeightyearoldaccuseddeclaredthatheworkedfortwoyearsasafarmhandoftheArriesgadospouses,plowingtheirfarmandharvestingtheircorn.Becausehe
hadnotbeenpaidhisaccumulatedwagesamountingtomorethanfourhundredsixtypesos,hewasveryangrywiththesaidspouses.

WhenonDecember1,1976thesaidspousesleftthehouseandhefoundhimselfalonewiththeirtwodaughters,heconceivedtheIdeaofkillingthem.Heperpetratedthe
killingintheeveningofthatday.Hecouldnotstatetheexacttimebecausehehadnowatch.

Astheelderdaughter,Elizabeth,wasdying,hewassexuallyarousedandhehadcarnalintercoursewithher.Abouthalfaninchofhispenispenetratedhervagina.

Counsel
deoficio,
assignedtodefendtheaccusedinthisCourt,contendsthattheaccusedmadeanimprovidentpleaofguilty.

Heinvokestherulingthatinacapitaloffense,speciallywheretheaccusedhaslittleornoeducation,theproperandprudentcoursetofollowistotakesuchevidenceasis
availableandnecessaryinsupportofthematerialallegationsoftheinformation,includingtheaggravatingcircumstancesthereinenumerated,notonlyforthesatisfactionof
thetrialjudgehimselfbutalsotoaidthisCourtindeterminingwhethertheaccusedreallyandtrulyunderstoodtheconsequencesofhisplea

Counsel
deoficio
advertstothetrialcourt'sfailuretorequiretheprosecutiontopresentevidence.

Therecorditselfshowswhythetrialcourtdidnotdoso,Itdisclosesthatthereisnotascintillaofdoubtastotheguiltoftheaccused.

Insuchasituation.thetrialcourtdoesnotabuseitsdiscretioninnotrequiringtheprosecutiontopresentitsevidence

Anothercontentionofcounsel
deoficio
isthatthetrialcourterredinconvictingtheaccusedofrapewithhomicidealthoughintheinformationthreedistinctoffenses,namely,
rapeandtwomurders,werecharged.

Thefiscalcharacterizedthemas"doublemurderwithrape."Heallegedintheindictmentthattherapewascommittedontheoccasionofthemurders.

Rapewithhomicidewascommittedwhere:

(1) therapist,whowassufferingfromgonorrheainfectedthevictimand,asaresultoftheinfection,shediedofperitonitis(Peoplevs.Acosta)
(2) theaccuseddraggedawomantoacanefield,struckher,renderedherunconscious,hadsexualintercoursewithherandthenkilledherthereafter(Peoplevs.Lopez)
(3) theaccusedhadsexualintercoursewithagirlbelowtwelveyearsofageandthenstrangledher(Peoplevs.Yu)
WhetherornotLaurencioLaspardasshouldbeconvictedofrapewithhomicide,sentencinghimtodeathandorderinghimtopaytheheirsofthevictims.

The
corpusdelicti
,orthefactofthecommissionofthetwomurders,isindubitablyshownintherecord.Byhispleaofguilty,hehimselfsuppliedthenecessaryproofastohis
culpability

WHEREFOREthetrialcourt'sjudgmentisaffirmedwiththemodificationthattheaccusedisfoundguiltyoftwoseparatemurdersandissentencedtotwodeath
penalties.
Costsdeoficio
.

Thosedecidedcasesaredifferentfromtheinstantcase.

Sincethevictimhereinwasalreadyatthethresholdofdeathwhenshewasravished,thatbestialitymayberegardedeitherasaformof
ignominy
causingdisgraceorasaform
of
cruelty
whichaggravatedthemurderbecauseitwasunnecessarytothecommissionthereofandwasamanifestoutrageonthevictim'sperson

wheretherapewastreatedasanaggravatingcircumstanceinrobberywithhomicide.

Article335oftheRevisedPenalCode,asamended,imposesthedeathpenalty"whenbyreasonorontheoccasionoftherape,ahomicideiscommitted."

Theinstantcasepresentsanovel,reversesituation(analogoustorapeaccompanyingarobbery)wheretherapewascommittedontheoccasionofthemurder,thatistosay,
whenthefemalevictimofamurderousassaultwasatdeath'sdoor,shewasraped.

Agreedwithcounsel
deoficio
thatthespecialcomplexcrimeofrapewithhomicidewasnotcommittedinthiscaseandthattwoseparatemurderswereperpetrated.

Themurderswerequalifiedbytreacheryandaggravatedbyevidentpremeditationandabuseofconfidence,twocircumstanceswhicharededuciblefromthetestimonyofthe
accused.

Premeditation
wasevidentbecausetherewasasufficientintervaloftimebetweentheplanningofthemurdersandtheexecutionthereoftoallowtheconscienceofthe
accusedtoovercometheresolutionofhiswillhadhedesiredtohearkentoitswarnings.

Therewas
abuseofconfidence
because,accordingtotheaccused,hehadstayedfortwoyearswiththefamilyofhistwoyoungandtrustingvictimswhointheirimmaturity
andinnocenceneverhadaninklingthathehadhomicidalintentionstowardsthem

Presumably,theylookeduponhimastheirprotectorandguardianintheirparents'absenceandnotastheiraggressorandassassin.

Dwelling
isnotaggravatingbecausethehouseofthevictimswasalsotheresidenceoftheaccused.

PassionandObfuscation
andlackofinstructionshouldbetakenintoaccountcannotbesustainedbecausetheaccusedactedinaspiritoflawlessness.

Lackofinstruction
isnotmitigatingbecausetheilliterateaccused,asaChristian,cannotpossiblybeignorantofthefifthcommandment(youshallnotkill)orthatitis
contrarytonaturallawtocommitmurder

PleaofGuilty
,theonlymitigatingorextenuatingcircumstancethatcanbeappreciatedinhisfavor,canoffsetonlyoneofthetwoaggravatingcircumstances.

IgnominyorCruelty,
theadditionalaggravatingcircumstanceastothekillingofElizabeth

Twodeathpenaltiesshouldbeimposedontheaccused

Twomurders
werespecificallyallegedintheinformation.Theaccusedcannotcomplainthathewasnotdulyinformedofthenatureandcauseoftheaccusationagainsthim.

Althoughhisextrajudicialconfessionwasusedasabasisbythetrialcourtininterrogatinghim,itwasnotformallypresentedinevidence.

Evenwithouthisextrajudicialconfession,his
pleaofguilty
and
testimony
establishhis
guiltbeyondreasonabledoubt

RIGHTEOUSNESS

FirstpreceptofNaturallaw

Thatgoodistobedoneandpursued,andevilistobeavoided.

Thisisinaccordancewiththevirtueofdoingwhatisright.

Thelackofinstructionisnotmitigatingbecausetheilliterateaccused,asaChristian,cannotpossiblybeignorantofthefifthcommandment(youshallnotkill).

Theactofcommittingmurderisevilbynature.Itisnotagoodactwhichisinaccordwiththenatureofman.

PRESERVELIFEANDWARDOFFITSOBSTACLES
SecondPreceptofNaturalLaw

Itmeansnaturalinclinationwhichmanshareswithallsubstances.

Itisthepreservationofitsownbeingaccordingtoitsnature.Meaning,fromthenaturalinclinationsthatweandallotheranimalshavetopreserveourownexistence,we
caninferthatlifeisgood,thatwehaveanobligationtopromoteourownhealth,andthatwehavetherightofselfdefense.

Negatively,thisinclinationimpliesthatmurderandsuicidearewrong.Wherelifeisvalued,murderistaboo.

JUSTICE
ThirdPreceptofNaturalLaw

Justiceisgivingtosomeonewhatisduetohim.

Thelawpunishingmurderisbasedonthemoralideasthatinnocentbloodshouldnotbeshed,thatprivateindividualsshouldnottakethelawintotheirownhands,andthat
individualsshouldbeheldresponsiblefortheirdeeds.

Thetrespassersofnaturallawshouldbegivenpunishmentwhichisduetothem.

TheinnocentElizabethandhersistermustbegivenjusticeandmakeLaspardasresponsibleforthemurderandrape.

Thejudgmentsentencingtwodeathpenaltiesconstitutethepunishmentforthedeathofthetwosisters.

JUSTIFICATORYUSE

NaturallawwasusedbyJohnLockeasbasisofdoctrineofnaturalrightswhichaccordingtohimareinherentandinalienablesuchastherighttolifeandhumandignity.

SupportstheconceptofcrimesagainsthumanityandtheUniversalDecalrationofHumanRightsoftheUnitedNations

Laspardasactofvengeanceontheparentsnonpaymentofhissalarycannotbeequatedoverthevictimsdeaths.Thisdoesnotgivehimtherighttoresolvesuchmatteronhis
ownbytakingthelifeoftheinnocentchildren.Moreover,LaspardasshouldbeaccountedforhismaliciousactofdegradingElizabethwhileshewasbeingtakenadvantaged
ofatthevergeofdeath.


GRISWOLDV.CONNECTICUT

RighttoPrivacy
notexplicitlystatedintheUSBillofRightsbutfoundinthepenumbrasofotherconstitutionalprotections
InthiscasetheRighttoPrivacyofHusbandandWife
FACTS:
Appellants, the ExecutiveDirector of the Planned ParenthoodLeagueofConnecticut(Estelle Griswold),anditsmedicaldirector(C.LeeBuxton),alicensed physician,wereconvicted
as accessories for givingmarried persons information and medical advice onhowto prevent conceptionand,followingexamination,prescribinga contraceptivedeviceormaterialfor
the wife's use.A Connecticutstatute makes it a crime forany person to useanydrugorarticletopreventconception.Appellants claimedthattheaccessorystatuteasappliedviolated
theFourteenthAmendment.AnintermediateappellatecourtandtheState'shighestcourtaffirmedthejudgment.

Held:

1. Appellantshavestandingtoasserttheconstitutionalrightsofthemarriedpeople
.
Theappellantshavestandingtoraisetheconstitutionalrightsofthemarriedpeoplewithwhomtheyhadaprofessionalrelationship.
Theaccessoryshouldhavestandingtoassertthattheoffensewhichheischargedwithassistingisnot,orcannotconstitutionallybe,acrime.
Therightsofhusbandandwife,pressedhere,arelikelytobedilutedoradverselyaffectedunlessthoserightsareconsideredinasuitinvolvingthosewhohavethiskindof
confidentialrelationtothem

2. The Connecticut statute forbidding use of contraceptives violates the right of marital privacy which is within the penumbra of specificguarantees of the Bill of
Rights.
Pp.481486.
a. Thepresentcaseconcernsarelationshiplyingwithinthe
zoneofprivacy
createdbyseveralfundamentalconstitutionalguarantees.
b.

Itconcernsalawwhich,in
forbiddingtheuseofcontraceptives
ratherthanregulatingtheirmanufactureorsale,seekstoachieveitsgoalsbymeanshavinga
maximumdestructiveimpactuponthatrelationship.

c.

WedealwitharightofprivacyolderthantheBillofRightsolderthanourpoliticalparties,olderthanourschoolsystem.Marriageisacomingtogetherforbetteror
forworse,hopefullyenduring,andintimatetothedegreeofbeing
sacred
.

PRECEPTSOFNATURALLAW
JUSTICE

givingtosomeonewhatisduetothem.Theyrecognizetherightofhusbandandwifefortheirrighttoprivacy

EQUALITY
Impartialintheirdecision,thateveryoneisequalintheeyesofthelawandequalprotectionofrights.

USEOFNATURALLAW

INTERPRETATIVEUSE

TherecognitionoftheexistenceofthepenumbraoftheUSConstitution,specificallyintheBillofRights
ExpandthemeaningofeachstatutetocovertherighttoprivacyandtoreflectthetrueintentionsoftheframersoftheUSConstitution

OPPOSITIVEUSE

RefusingtoobeythestrictadoptionofComstockLawintheStateofConnecticutforcompletelyforbiddingtheuseofcontraceptives.Inthiscasetoprotecttheprivacyof
husbandandwifeinthecomfortoftheirhomesandintheirfamilyplanning.

JUSTIFICATORYUSE
Usetowarrantsomelegalinnovation.InthiscasethecognizanceofthepenumbraofspecificguaranteeoftheBillofRightsandtheimpliedexistenceoftherightof
privacybetweenhusbandandwife.

BriefFactSummary.
AConnecticutprovisionoutlawingthecounselingofotherstousecontraception,aswellastheuseofcontraception,wasfoundunconstitutionalunderstrict
scrutinybecauseitviolatedtheDueProcessClause.

SynopsisofRuleofLaw.
TherightofmaritalprivacylieswithinthepenumbraoftheBillofRights.Therefore,itisafundamentalrightandstrictscrutinyisthestandardofjudicial
review.

Facts.

Appellant,Ms.Griswold,wastheExecutiveDirectorofthePlannedParenthoodLeagueofConnecticut(League).AppellantandtheMedicalDirectorfortheLeaguegave
informationandinstructionandmedicaladvicetomarriedcouplesaboutbirthcontrol.AppellantandhercolleaguewereconvictedunderaConnecticutlawwhichcriminalized
counseling,andothermedicaltreatmenttomarriedpersonsforpurposesofpreventingconception.Appellantswerefoundguiltyasaccessoriesandfined$100each.Thestateappellate
courtsaffirmed.

Issue.

WhethertheConstitutionprotectstherightofmaritalprivacyagainststaterestrictionsonacouplesabilitytobecounseledintheuseofcontraceptives?

Held.
Yes.Judgmentofthestateappellatecourtaffirmed.TheBillofRightshasapenumbraexpandingtherightofprivacy.Thepresentcaseconcernsarelationshiplyingwithinthe
zoneofprivacycreatedbyseveralfundamentalconstitutionalguarantees.Italsoconcernsalawthat,inforbiddingtheuseofcontraceptivesratherthanregulatingtheirmanufactureor
sale,seekstoachieveitsgoalsbymeanshavingamaximumdestructiveimpactuponthatrelationship.Suchalawcannotstandinlightofthefamiliarprinciplethatagovernmental
purposetocontrolorpreventactivitiesconstitutionallysubjecttostateregulationmaynotbeachievedbymeanswhichsweepunnecessarilybroadlyandtherebyinvadetheareaof
protectedfreedoms.Thus,theConnecticutstatuteconflictswiththeexerciseofthisrightandisthereforenullandvoid.

OPOSAV.FACTORAN

FACTS

ThispetitionbearsupontherightofFilipinostoabalancedandhealthfulecologywiththetwinconceptsof"intergenerationalresponsibility"and"intergenerationaljustice.
Theyrepresenttheirgenerationaswellasgenerationsyetunborn.
Thecontinueddeforestationhavecausedadistortionanddisturbanceoftheecologicalbalancewhichresultedinenvironmentaltragedies
Petitionerallegedthattheyareentitledtothefullbenefit,useandenjoymentofthenaturalresourcetreasurethatisthecountrystropicalforest.
PlaintiffshaveaclearandconstitutionalrighttoabalancedandhealthfulecologyandareentitledtoprotectionbytheStateinitscapacityastheparenspatriae.
Plaintiffhaveexhaustedalladministrativeremedieswiththedefendant'soffice.
Defendant,however,failsandrefusestocanceltheexistingTLA'stothecontinuingseriousdamageandextremeprejudiceofplaintiffs.
ThecontinuedfailureandrefusalbydefendanttocanceltheTLA'sisanactviolativeoftherightsofplaintiffs,especiallyplaintiffminorswhomaybeleftwithacountrythat
isdesertified,bare,barrenanddevoidofthewonderfulflora,faunaandindigenouscultureswhichthePhilippineshadbeenabundantlyblessedwith.
Defendant'sactiscontrarytothehighestlawofhumankindthenaturallawandviolativeofplaintiffs'righttoselfpreservationandperpetuation.

 PrayedforcancellationofallexistingTimberLicenseAgreementandceaseanddesistfromreceiving,accepting,processing,renewingorapprovingnewagreements.
Defendantfiledamotiontodismissviz
Complainthadnocauseofactionagainstthedefendent
Raisespoliticalquestion.
Lowercourtdismissedthecase,ifgrantingthereliefprayedforwouldresultintheimpairmentofcontractwhichisprohibitedbytheConstitution.
PlaintiffsthusfiledtheinstantspecialcivilactionforcertiorariandasktheCourttorescindandsetasidethedismissalorderonthegroundthattherespondentJudgegravely
abusedhisdiscretionindismissingtheaction

ISSUES
(1)Whetherornottheplaintiffshaveacauseofaction.
(2)Whetherornotthecomplaintraisesapoliticalissue.
(3)Whetherornottheoriginalprayeroftheplaintiffsresultintheimpairmentofcontracts.

RULING
OntheCauseofAction
ThecomplaintfocusesononefundamentallegalrighttherighttoabalancedandhealthfulecologywhichisincorporatedinSection16ArticleIIoftheConstitution.
Adenialorviolationofthatrightbytheotherwhohasthecorrelativedutyorobligationtorespectorprotectorrespectthesamegivesrisetoacauseofaction.

OnPoliticalIssue
Secondparagraph,Section1ofArticleVIIIoftheconstitutionprovidesfortheexpandedjurisdictionvestedupontheSupremeCourt.

Onviolationofnonimpairmentclause
Notacontract
TimberLicenseAgreementisaninstrumentbywhichthestateregulatestheutilizationanddispositionofforestresourcestotheendthatpublicwelfareispromoted.
theconstitutionalguaranteeofnonimpairmentofobligationsofcontractislimitedbytheexercisebythepolicepoweroftheState

DISPOSITIVERESOLUTION
WHEREFORE,beingimpressedwithmerit,theinstantPetitionisherebyGRANTED,andthechallengedOrderofrespondentJudgeof18July1991dismissingCivilCase
No.90777isherebysetaside.Thepetitionersmaythereforeamendtheircomplainttoimpleadasdefendantstheholdersorgranteesofthequestionedtimberlicense
agreements.

USEOFNATURALLAW
righttoselfpreservationandperpetuation
JustificatoryUseofNaturalLaw
IntergenerationalResponsibilityandJustice
RegulatoryUseofNaturalLaw
Selfexecuting

ROYALL.RUTTERvs.PLACIDOJ.ESTEBAN


ThisisanappealfiledbyRoyalL.RutteroftherulingoftheCourtofFirstInstanceonhisactionforrecoveryofthebalancedue,againstPlacidoJ.Estebanfortheremaining
paymentforthesaleoftwoparcelsoflandsoldbyRuttertothelatter.
FACTS
OnAugust20,1941,RoyalL.RuttersoldtoPlacidoJ.EstebantwoparcelsoflandforthesumofP9,600.OftheP9,600,P4,800waspaidoutright,andthebalanceofP4,800
wasmadepayableintwoinstallmentsofP2,400onAugust1942andanotherP2,400onAugust1943,withinterestattherateof7percentperannum.
TosecurethepaymentofsaidbalanceofP4,800,afirstmortgageoverthesameparcelsoflandhasbeenconstitutedinfavoroftheplaintiff.Thedeedofsalehavingbeen
registered,anewtitlewasissuedinfavorofEstebanwithamortgagedulyannotatedonthebackthereof.
Then,theJapanesecameandinvadedthePhilippinesonDecember8,1941.Afterthewar,RutterfiledanactiontoclaimtorecoverthebalanceduetohimagainstEsteban.On
August2,1949,RutterfiledwiththeCourtofFirstInstance(CFI)ofManilaanactionforrecoveryofthebalancedue,theinterestduethereon,andtheattorney'sfees
stipulatedinthecontract.Estebanadmittedtheallegationsofthecomplaint.However,hesetupthedefenseofmoratoriumclauseembodiedinRepublicActNo.342,
otherwiseknownastheDebtMoratoriumLaw,specificallySection2thereof,whichreadsinpart:
Section2.AlldebtsandothermonetaryobligationspayablebyprivatepartieswithinthePhilippinesoriginallyincurredorcontractedbeforeDecember8,1941,andstill
remainingunpaid,xxxshallnotbedueanddemandableforaperiodofeight(8)yearsfromandaftersettlementofthewardamageclaimofthedebtorbytheUnitedStates
PhilippineWarDamageCommission,xxx.
TheCFIdismissedthecaseupholdingthemoratoriumof8yearshadnotyetlapsed.InRuttersmotion,heraisedtheconstitutionalityissueforthefirsttime,butsaidmotion
wasdenied.Hence,RuttersappealwiththeSupremeCourt.
ISSUE
WhetherornotRepublicActNo.342isunconstitutionalbeingviolativeoftheconstitutionalprovisionforbiddingtheimpairmentoftheobligationofcontracts(ArticleIII,
Section1,ConstitutionofthePhilippines).

RULING
Wherefore,thedecisionappealedfromwillbereversed,withoutpronouncementastocosts.
JudgmentisherebyrenderedorderingthedefendanttopaytheplaintiffthesumofP4,800withinterestthereonattherateof7percentannumfromAugust27,1942,untilits
fullpayment,plus12percentasattorney'sfees.Failuretopaythisjudgmentasstated,thepropertiesmortgagedwillbesoldatpublicauctionandtheproceedsappliedtoits
paymentinaccordancewithlaw.Soordered.
USEOFNATURALLAW
Regulatory
Inthefaceoftheforegoingobservations,andconsistentwithwhatwebelievetobeastheonlycoursedictatedbyjustice,fairnessandrighteousness,wefeelthattheonlyway
opentousunderthepresentcircumstancesistodeclarethatthecontinuedoperationandenforcementofRepublicActNo.342atthepresenttimeisunreasonableand
oppressive,andshouldnotbeprolongedaminutelonger,and,therefore,thesameshouldbedeclarednullandvoidandwithouteffect.
Indeposingoftheissueofwhetheraretroactivestatutemaybeheldvoideveniftherearenoconstitutionalprohibitionagainstsuchkindofstatute,CJHomersaid:Iwould
consideritaviolationofthesocialcompactandwithinthecontrolofthejudiciary

NLdevoteessustaintheirargumentsthatCourtscanholdstatutesnullandvoidevenwhentheyarenotcontrarytotheConstitutionwhenthepeoplethemselvesmayhave
expressedtheirpreferenceforthepreceptsofnaturallawintheirconstitution.
CHUAQUAV.CLAVE
FACTS:

EVELYNCHUA30yearsofage,hadbeenemployedinTAYTUNGHIGHSCHOOL,INC.(BacolodCity)asateachersince1963and,in1976andclassadviserinthesixth
grade.

BobbyQua16yearsold,studentwhomEVELYNCHUAfellinlovewith

December24,1975petitionerandBobbyQuagotmarriedinacivilceremonysolemnizedinIloiloCitybyHon.CornelioG.Lazaro,CityJudgeofIloilo

January10,1976marriagewasratifiedinaccordancewiththeritesoftheirreligioninachurchweddingsolemnizedbyFr.NickMelicoratBacolodCity

OnFebruary4,1976,privaterespondentfiledwiththesubregionalofficeoftheDepartmentofLaboratBacolodCityanapplicationforclearanceto
terminate
theemploymentof
petitioneronthefollowingground:
Forabusiveandunethicalconductunbecomingofadignifiedschoolteacherandthathercontinuedemploymentisinimicaltothebestinterest,andwoulddowngradethe
highmoralvalues,oftheschool.

Petitionerwasplacedunder
suspensionwithoutpay
onMarch12,1976.

Affidavitsweresubmittedbyprivaterespondenttobolsteritscontentionthatpetitioner,defyingallstandardsofdecency,
recklesslytookadvantageofherpositionasschool
teacher,luredaGradeVIboyunderheradvisorysectionand15yearsherjuniorintoanamorousrelation
.

Morespecifically,privaterespondentraisedissuesonthefactthatpetitioner
stayed

alonewithBobbyQuaintheclassroomafterschool
hourswheneverybodyhadgonehome,
withonedoorallegedlylockedandtheotherslightlyopen.

OnSeptember17,1976,ExecutiveLaborArbiterJoseY.Aguirre,Jr.,withoutconductinganyformalhearing,renderedanAwardinNLRCCaseNo.956infavorofprivate
respondentgrantingtheclearancetoterminatetheemploymentofpetitioner.

OnOctober7,1976,petitionerappealedtotheNationalLaborRelationsCommission.contendedthattherewasnothingimmoral,norwasitabusiveandunethicalconduct
unbecomingofadignifiedschoolteacher,forateachertoenterintolawfulwedlockwithherstudent.

OnDecember27,1976,theNationalLaborRelationsCommissionunanimously
reversed
theLaborArbitersdecisionandorderedpetitionersreinstatementwithbackwages,with
thefollowingspecificfindings:
AffiantMasellionesdeposedandsaidthathesawappellantandQuasittingonthestudentdeskinsideaclassroomafterclasses.ThedepositionsofaffiantsDespiandChiuare
ofthesametenor.Nostatementswhateverwereswornbythemthattheywereeyewitnessestoimmoralorscandalousacts.

March30,1977,ThecasewaselevatedbyprivaterespondenttotheMinisterofLaborwhoreversedthedecisionoftheNationalLaborRelationsCommission.Thepetitionerwas,
however,awardedsix(6)monthssalaryasfinancialassistance.

OnMay20,1977,petitionerappealedthesaiddecisiontotheOfficeofthePresidentofthePhilippines.

Afterthecorrespondingexchanges,onSeptember1,1978saidoffice,throughPresidentialExecutiveAssistantJacoboC.Clave,rendereditsdecisionreversingtheappealed
decision.Privaterespondentwasorderedtoreinstatepetitionertoherformerpositionwithoutlossofseniorityrightsandotherprivilegesandwithfullbackwagesfromthetime
shewasnotallowedtoworkuntilthedateofheractualreinstatement.

However,inaresolutiondatedDecember6,1978,publicrespondent,actingonamotionforreconsiderationofhereinprivaterespondentanddespiteoppositionthereto,
reconsideredandmodifiedtheaforesaiddecision,thistimegivingduecoursetotheapplicationofTayTungHighSchool,Inc.toterminatetheservicesofpetitionerasclassroom
teacherbutgivingherseparationpayequivalenttohersix(6)monthssalary.

ISSUES:

Isdismissalorterminationofpetitionersemploymentillegal?

Aretheresufficientproofstoshowthatpetitionercommittedseriousmisconductorbreachedthetrustreposedonherbyheremployerorcommittedanyoftheothergrounds
enumeratedinArticle283(NowArticle282)oftheLaborCodewhichwilljustifytheterminationofheremployment?

RULING:

Werulethatpublicrespondentactedwithgraveabuseofdiscretion.

Indeed,therecordsrelieduponbytheActingSecretaryofLaborinarrivingathisdecisionare
unbelievableandunworthyofcredit
,

Foronething,theaffidavitsrefertocertaintimesofthedayduringoffschoolhourswhenappellantandherstudentwerefoundtogetherinoneoftheclassroomsoftheschool.
Buttherecordsofthecasepresentareadyanswer:
appellantwasgivingremedialinstructiontoherstudentandtheschoolwasthemostconvenientplacetoservethe
purpose
.Whatisglaringintheaffidavitsis
thecompleteabsenceofspecificimmoralactsallegedlycommittedbyappellantandherstudent
.

Foranother,theallegedactscomplainedofinvariablyhappenedfromSeptembertoDecember,1975,butthedisciplinaryactionimposedbyappelleewassoughtonlyinFebruary,
1976,andwhatismore,theaffidavitswereexecuted,1onlyinAugust976andfromallindications,werepreparedbyappelleeoritscounsel.Theaffidavitsheavilyrelieduponby
appelleeare
clearlytheproductofafterthought

Whileadmittedly,noonedirectlysawEvelynChuaandBobbyQuadoingimmoralactsinsidetheclassroom,itseemsobviousandthisOfficeisconvincedthatsuchahappening
indeedtranspiredwithinthesolitudeoftheclassroomafterregularclasshours.
ThemarriagebetweenEvelynChuaandBobbyQuaisthebestproofwhichconfirmsthe
suspicionthatthetwoindulgedinamorousrelationsinthatplaceduringthosetimesoftheday.

Privaterespondentutterlyfailedtoshowthatpetitionertookadvantageofherpositiontocourtherstudent
.Ifthetwoeventuallyfellinlove,despitethedisparityin
theiragesandacademiclevels,thisonlylendssubstancetothetruismthatthehearthasreasonsofitsownwhichreasondoesnotknow.
But,definitely,yieldingtothisgentle
anduniversalemotionisnottobesocasuallyequatedwithimmorality.

Thedeviationofthecircumstancesoftheirmarriagefromtheusualsocietalpatterncannotbe
consideredasadefianceofcontemporarysocialmores.

Thechargeagainstpetitionernothavingbeensubstantiated,wedeclareherdismissalasunwarrantedandillegal.Itbeingapparent,however,thattherelationshipbetween
petitionerandprivaterespondenthasbeeninevitablyandseverelystrained,webelievethatitwouldneitherbetotheinterestofthepartiesnorwouldanyprudentpurposebe
servedbyorderingherreinstatement.

WHEREFORE,thepetitionforcertiorariisGRANTEDandtheresolutionofpublicrespondent,datedDecember6,1978isANNULLEDandSETASIDE.PrivaterespondentTay
TungHighSchool,Inc.isherebyORDEREDtopaypetitionerbackwagesequivalenttothree(3)years,withoutanydeductionorqualification,andseparationpayintheamountof
one(1)monthforeveryyearofservice.

 UsedPreceptsofnaturallaw
NaturalLawisaruleofreason.InstilledbyGodinmansnature,wherebymancandiscernhowheshouldact.
thatLOVEisoneoftheteachingsofGodandalreadypartofthenatureofman,thatlovingsomeonewhomyouhavefeelingsforisnotagainstwithanyoneelse.
ForSt.Paul,consciencemustnotbeguidedbycustomsandtraditionsbutbyloveandreason.
thatweshouldnotbesubjectiveingivingourjudgmenttootherpeople.Thatwemustlearntounderstandwhattheyarefightingforandnotbesorudebecausewhatisgoodtoyou
maynotbethatgoodtoothers.Therefore,wemustunderstanditwithfullcharityandbyfairjudgmentofreason.
TheselfevidentpreceptofnaturallawRIGHTEOUSNESS,thevirtueofdoingwhatisright.

Thatthespousesarejusthumanandasanaturalbeingtheyarealsodwellingonthepurposesofthisworld,andoneoftheseistoexperienceandtofeelloveandbeloved.
Thebasicinclinationsofmanincludes:
topreservehimselfinexistence,topreservethespecies,toliveincommunitywithothermenandtousehisintellectandwill,thatistoknowthetruthandmakehis/herdecisions.
FairnessandEqualitythatwearecreatedequalintheeyesofGod,aslongaswearenothurtingeachother,nooneistosufferandthereispeace.Therecanbeno
problem.
Theinterpretativeuseofnaturallaw
Thespiritofthelawisthemostimportantpartofit.Withoutknowingitsintentandpurpose,thelawwillceasetoexist.Inthecase,theSupremeCourtitself,doesnotliterallyused
otherdecidedcasesinordertorulebutratherinterpreteditwithwhatisreallythegoodthingtobedone.Thereisnoanyprovisionsofthelawthathindersloversnottolovebecauseof
agedisparityneitherlawthatprohibitsrelationshipamongteacherandstudents.Thereasonisveryclearandstrong.Eventhereasonsoflovehasitsowninterpretationthatonlyan
understandingheartandjudgmentcouldonlyunderstand.
TheJUSTIFICATORYUSEofnaturallaw
Ifthetwoeventuallyfellinlove,despitethedisparityintheiragesandacademiclevels,thisonlylendssubstancetothetruismthatthehearthasreasonsofitsownwhichreason
doesnotknow.
MEANINGTHATLOVEandtheREASONOFLOVEwasusedasJUSTIFICATIONtotherulingoftheSupremeCourt.
Theoppositiveuseofnaturallaw
ishoweverenoughforasaneandcrediblemindtoimagineandconcludewhattranspiredandtookplaceduringthesetimes

itisveryabsurdtorulethatbecauseyouareinproperstateofyourmindyoucannowassureandassertthatsomethinghappenswithoutproperevidencestoproveofcertain
immoralities.Naturallawopposesinstantandunduejudgmentandbelievesthateveryonemustbegivendueprocess.
theregulatoryuseofnaturallaw
BasedonthecaseandtherulingsoftheSupremeCourt,LOVEregulatestheunderstandingandtheintentionofthedecisionandsince,LoveisthegreatestgiftfromGod,itisalso
instilledinthenatureofmanthatLOVEconquersallforgood.

FLORESCAV.PHILEXMININGCORPORATION
FACTS
PerfectoFlorescaetalaretheheirsofthedeceasedemployeesofPhilexMiningCorporationwho,whileworkingatitscopperminesundergroundoperationsinTuba,BenguetonJune
28,1967,diedasaresultofthecaveinthatburiedtheminthetunnelsofthemine.TheircomplaintallegesthatPhilex,inviolationofgovernmentrulesandregulations,negligently
anddeliberatelyfailedtotaketherequiredprecautionsfortheprotectionofthelivesofitsmenworkingunderground.Florescaetalmovedtoclaimtheirbenefitspursuanttothe
WorkmensCompensationActbeforetheWorkmensCompensationCommission.TheyalsofiledaseparatecivilcaseagainstPhilexfordamages.
PhilexsoughtthedismissalofthecivilcaseasitinsistedthatFlorescaetalhavealreadyclaimedbenefitsundertheWorkmensCompensationAct.
ISSUE
WhetherornotPhilexiscorrect.
RULING
Yes.

Underthelaw,Florescaetalcouldonlydoeitherone.IftheyfiledforbenefitsundertheWCAthentheywillbeestoppedfromproceedingwithacivilcasebeforetheregular
courts.Conversely,iftheysuedbeforethecivilcourtsthentheywouldalsobeestoppedfromclaimingbenefitsundertheWCA.
HOWEVER,theSupremeCourtruledthatFlorescaetalareexcusedfromthisdeficiencyduetoignoranceofthefact.Hadtheybeenawareofsuchthentheymayhavenotavailedof
sucharemedy.But,ifincasetheyllwininthelowercourtwhateverawardmaybegranted,theamountgiventothemundertheWCAshouldbededucted.TheSCemphasizedthatif
theywouldgostrictlybythebookinthiscasethenthepurposeofthelawmaybedefeated.Idolatrousreverencefortheletterofthelawsacrificesthehumanbeing.Thespiritofthe
lawinsuresmanssurvivalandennobleshim.AsShakespearesaid,theletterofthelawkillethbutitsspiritgivethlife.
USEofNaturalLaw:

InterpretativeUseofNaturalLaw

Involvesitsutilizationasaninterpretivealembicordevisetoexpressorputintoeffectthelegislativeintention

LUNAV.INTERMEDIATEAPPELLATECOURT

FACTS
PrivaterespondentMariaLourdesSantosisanillegitimatechildofthepetitionerHoracioLunawhoismarriedtohiscopetitionerLibertyHizonLuna.MariaLourdesSantosis
marriedtohercorrespondentSixtoSalumbides,andaretheparentsofShirleySantosSalumbides,alsoknownasShirleyLunaSalumbides,whoisthesubjectofthischildcustodycase.

ItappearsthattwoorfourmonthsafterthebirthofthesaidShirleySalumbidesonApril7,1975,herparentsgavehertothepetitioners,achildlesscouplewithconsiderablemeans,
whothereaftershoweredherwithloveandaffectionandbroughtherupastheirveryown.ThecoupledoteduponShirleywhocalledthem"Mama"and"Papa".Shecallshernatural
parents"Mommy"and"Daddy."WhenShirleyreachedtheageoffour(4)yearsin1979,shewasenrolledattheMaryknollCollegeinQuezonCity,wheresheisnowinGradeIII.
AfewmonthsbeforeSeptember,1980,her"Mama"and"Papa"decidedtotakeShirleyabroadandshowherDisneylandandotherplacesofinterestinAmerica.Shirleylooked
forwardtothistripandwasexcitedaboutit.However,whenthepetitionersaskedfortherespondents'writtenconsenttothechild'sapplicationforaU.S.visa,therespondentsrefused
togiveit,tothepetitioners'surpriseandchagrinShirleywasutterlydisappointed.Asaresult,thepetitionershadtoleavewithoutShirleywhomtheyleftwiththeprivaterespondents,
uponthelatter'srequest.Thepetitioners,however,leftinstructionswiththeirchauffeurtotakeandfetchShirleyfromMaryknollCollegeeveryschoolday.
WhenthepetitionersreturnedonOctober29,1980,theylearnedthattherespondentshadtransferredShirleytotheSt.ScholasticaCollege.Theprivaterespondentsalsorefusedto
returnShirleytothem.
ISSUE
Whetherornotproceduralrulesmoreparticularlythedutyoflowercourtstoenforceafinaldecisionofappellatecourtsinchildcustodycases,shouldprevailoverandabovethedesire
andpreferenceofthechild
RULING
Besides,inherletterstothemembersoftheCourt,Shirleydepictedherbiologicalparentsas
selfish
and
cruel
andwhobeatheroftenandthattheydonotloveher.And,aspointed
outbythechildpsychologist,Shirleyhasgrownmoreembiteredcautiousanddismissingofherbiologicalparents.Toreturnhertothecustodyoftheprivaterespondentstofacethe
sameemotionalenvironmentwhichsheisnowcomplainingofwouldbeindeed
traumatic
andcause
irreparabledamage
tothechild.Asrequestedbyher,letusnotdestroyher
future.Petitiongranted.
USEOFNATURALLAW
REGULATORY
Therightoftheparentstothecustodyoftheirminorchildrenisoneofthenaturalrightsincidenttoparenthood,arightsupportedbylawandsoundpublicpolicy.Therightisan
inherentone,whichisnotcreatedbythestateorbythedecisionsofthecourts,butderivesfromthenatureofparentalrelationship.Sincetherightsofparentstothecustodyoftheir
minorchildrenisbothanaturalandalegalright,thelawshouldnotdisturbtheparentchildrelationshipexceptforthestrongestreasons,andonlyuponaclearshowingofaparents
grossmisconductorunfitness,orofotherextraordinarycircumstancesaffectingthewelfareofthechild.
Themajoritydecisionrunscountertotheparentalpreferencerule.
Evidently,thepresentpetitionforcustodyofpetitionersrunscountertotheparentalpreferencerule.Underthesocalledparentalpreferencerule,anaturalparent,fatherormother,
asthecasemaybe,whoisofgoodcharacterandaproperpersontohavethecustodyofthechildandisreasonablyabletoprovideforsuchchild,ordinarilyisentitledtothecustodyas
againstallpersons.Accordingly,suchparentsareentitledtothecustodyoftheirchildrenasagainstfosterorprospectiveadoptiveparents.

REPUBLICOFTHEPHILIPPINESV.SANDIGANBAYAN,MAJORGENERALRAMAS,ELIZABETHDIMAANO

FACTS: AfteraraidexecutedbythePhilippineConstabularyunderthecommandofthePCGG,propertiesandunexplainedwealtharefoundownedbyMGenRamasandhisMistress
Dimaano.
ThePCGGdirectedtheirinvestigationtoMGenRamaswiththeassumptionthatheisasubordinateofPresMarcosduetothelattershighpositionintheAFP.However,in
Cruz,Jr.v.SandiganbayanandRepublicv.Migrino,theremustbeaclearrelationbetweenPres.MarcosandthepersoninvestigatedbeforethePCGGcanhavejurisdictiononthe
matter,unlessthePresidentinstructsthePCGGtoinvestigatethatspecificperson.
TheseizuredonebythePhilippineConstabularywasconductedfive(5)daysaftertheEDSArevolution.
Theequipment/itemsandcommunicationfacilitieswhichwerefoundinthepremisesofElizabethDimaanoandwereconfiscatedbyelementsofthePCCommandofBatangaswereall
coveredbyinvoicereceiptinthenameofCAPT.EFRENSALIDO,RSOCommandCoy,MSC,PA.TheseitemscouldnothavebeeninthepossessionofElizabethDimaanoifnot
givenforherusebyrespondentCommandingGeneralofthePhilippineArmy.
Asidefromthemilitaryequipment/itemsandcommunicationsequipment,theraidingteamwasalsoabletoconfiscatemoneyintheamountofP2,870,000.00and$50,000USDollars
inthehouseofElizabethDimaanoon3March1986.
ISSUE:
WhetherornotPCGGhavejurisdictiontoinvestigate.
HELD:
Thoughitisevidentthatthepropertiesinquestionareunproportionaltothesalariesoftherespondent,thereisnoprimafacierelationshipbetweenthepropertiesandthecorruption
donebytheMarcosregime.TheOmbudsmancouldhaveconductedapreliminaryinvestigationbutnotthePCGG.
ISSUE:
Whetherornotthebillofrightsofthe1973constitutionstilloperative
HELD:
Arevolutionarygovernmentisnotboundbyitsprevailingconstitution,however,itisstillboundbycustomaryinternationallaw.Asthedejuregovernment(1986),therevolutionary
governmentcouldnotescaperesponsibilityfortheStatesgoodfaithcompliancewithitstreatyobligationsunderinternationallaw(canbetheconnectiontoNaturalLaw).
UnderthisinternationallawsaretheCovenantandtheDeclarationwhichissimilartothe1973billofrights.(DeclarationArticle17(2)).Asadejuregovernmentandashumanbeings,
thePhilippinescannotdenounceitsobligationstotheDeclarationandtheCovenant.

ApplicationofNaturalLaw

Inthenaturallawpointofview,revolutionisaninherentrightofthepeopletocastouttheirrulers,changetheirpolicy,orreformtheirgovernment.Thisisoneissueofcommongood
versusgeneralwelfarewhatisinherentlybeneficialforhumanityversuswhatisfavourabletothemany.
Moreover,inthePhilippines,revolutionisnotillegal.Itisaproperexerciseofsovereignty.Thepowerisoriginallyandlegallylodgedinthepeopleandthegovernmentaretheir
representatives.Ifthepeople,thesovereign,choosestochangethewholemechanismofthestate,theyarelegallyandconstitutionallyentitledtodosobylawandbynature.

UseofNaturalLaw

JustificatoryuseWheretheSupremeCourtruledthattheitemsseizedbythePCshouldbereturnedtoDimaanoforsuchseizureisillegalandviolatestherightsofDimaano,even
thoughtthe1973Constitutionwasnotoperativeunderthedejuregovernmentin1986,andisrecognizeundertheDeclarationandtheCovenant.


OBERGEFFELLETAL.V.HODGES
TH
14
AMENDMENTDEFINITION

TheFourteenthAmendment(AmendmentXIV)totheUnitedStatesConstitutionwasadoptedonJuly9,1868,asoneoftheReconstructionAmendments.Theamendmentaddresses
citizenshiprightsandequalprotectionofthelaws,andwasproposedinresponsetoissuesrelatedtoformerslavesfollowingtheAmericanCivilWar.
Section1.
AllpersonsbornornaturalizedintheUnitedStates,andsubjecttothejurisdictionthereof,arecitizensoftheUnitedStatesandofthestatewhereintheyreside.Nostateshallmakeor
enforceanylawwhichshallabridgetheprivilegesorimmunitiesofcitizensoftheUnitedStatesnorshallanystatedepriveanypersonoflife,liberty,orproperty,withoutdueprocess
oflawnordenytoanypersonwithinitsjurisdictiontheequalprotectionofthelaws.
FACTS

ThePetitioners,14samesexcouplesandtwomenwhosesamesexpartnersaredeceased,filedsuitsinFederalDistrictCourtsintheirhomeStates,claimingthatrespondents
stateofficialsviolatetheFourteenthAmendmentbydenyingthemtherighttomarryortohavemarriageslawfullyperformedinanotherStategivenfullyrecognition.Each
DistrictCourtruledinpetitionersfavor,buttheSixthCircuit
(TheUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheSixthCircuit(incasecitations,6thCir.)isafederalcourtwith
appellatejurisdictionoverthedistrictcourtsinthefollowingdistricts:EasternDistrictofKentucky,WesternDistrictofKentucky,EasternDistrictofMichigan,Western
DistrictofMichigan,NorthernDistrictofOhio,SouthernDistrictofOhio,EasternDistrictofTennessee,MiddleDistrictofTennessee,WesternDistrictofTennessee)
consolidatedthecasesandreversed.

RESPONDENTS

>RichardHodges,OhioDept.ofHealth,etal.

>BillHaslam,GovernorofTenessee

>Rick,GovernorofMichigan

>SteveBeshair,GovernorofKentucky

A.JamesObergefellPLAINTIFFfromOHIOCase

JamesandJohnArthurMettwodecadesago,fellinloveandstartedalifetogether,establishingalasting,committedrelation.

In2011,ArthurwasdiagnosedwithAmyotrophicLateralSclerosis,orALS,adebilitatingdiseaseswithprogressivenatureandnoknowncuresofar.

Twoyearsago,JamesandArthurdecidedtomarryeachother.

TheytravelledfromOhiotoMaryland,wheresamesexmarriageisrecognizedandlegal

SinceitwasdifficultforArthurtomove,theywerewedinsideamedicaltransportplaneasitremainedinthetarmacofBaltimore.Threemonthslater,Arnolddied.

OhiolawdoesnotpermitObergefelltobelistedasthesurvivingspouseonArthursdeathcertificate.

B.AprilDeBoerandJayneRowseCOPLAINTIFFSfromMichigan

Theycelebratedacommitmentceremonytohonortheirpermanentrelationin2007

Botharenurses,DeBoerinneonatalunitandRowseinanemergencyunit.

In2009,DeBoerandRowsefosteredandeventuallyadoptedababyboy.

Laterthatsameyear,theywelcomedanothersonintheirfamily.Thenewbabywasbornprematurelyandrequiresroundtheclockcare.

In2010,theyadoptedababygirlwithspecialneeds.

Michigan,however,permitsonlyoppositesexmarriageorsingleindividualstoadopt,soeachchildcanonlyhaveonewomanashisorherlegalparent.

Ifanemergencyweretoarise,schoolsandhospitalsmaytreatthethreechildrenasiftheyonlyhadoneparent.

IftragedybefalleitherDeBoerorRowse,theotherwillhavenolegalrightsoverthechildrenshehadnotbeenpermittedtoadopt.

C.ArmyReservedSgt.FirstClassIjpeDeKoeandThomasKosturaCOPLAINTIFFSfromTennessee

In2011,DeKoereceivedordersofhisdeploymenttoAfghanistan.

Beforeleaving,heandKosturagotmarriedinNewYork.

Aweekaftertheirmarriage,DeKoebeganhisdeploymentwhichlastedforoneyear.

WhenDeKoereturned,theysettledinTennesseewhereheworksfulltimefortheArmyReserve

TheirlawfulmarriageisstrippedfromthemwhenevertheyresideinTennessee,returninganddisappearingwhenevertheytravelstatelines

ISSUE
a.

Thefirstissue,presentedbythecasesfromMichiganandKentucky,iswhethertheFourteenthAmendmentrequiresaStatetolicenseamarriagebetweentwopeopleofthesame
sex.

b.

Thesecondissue,presentedbythecasesfromOhio,Tennessee,andKentucky,iswhetherornottheFourteenthAmendmentrequiresaStatetorecognizeasamesexmarriage
licensedandperformedinaStatewhichdoesgrantthatright.

RULING
1.

ThefundamentallibertiesprotectedbytheFourteenthAmendmentsDueProcessClauseextendtocertainpersonalchoicescentraltoindividualdignityandautonomy,
includingintimatechoicesdefiningpersonalidentityandbeliefs

CourtsmustexercisereasonedjudgementinidentifyinginterestsofthepersonsofundamentalthattheStatemustaccordthemitsrespect
Historyandtraditionguideanddisciplinetheinquirybutdonotsetitsouterboundaries
WhennewinsightrevealsdiscordbetweentheConstitutionscentralprotectionsandareceivedlegalstructure,aclaimtolibertymustbeaddressed.

2.FourprinciplesandtraditionsdemonstratethatthereasonsmarriageisfundamentalundertheConstitutionapplywithequalforcetosamesexcouples.
(a)

ThefirstpremiseofthisCourtsrelevantprecedentsisthattherighttopersonalchoiceregardingmarriageisinherentintheconceptofindividualautonomy.

(b)
AsecondprincipleinthisCourtsjurisprudenceisthattherighttomarryisfundamentalbecauseitsupportsatwopersonunionunlikeanyotherinitsimportancetothe
committedindividuals.TheintimateassociationprotectedbythisrightwascentraltoGriswoldv.Connecticut,whichheldtheConstitutionprotectstherightofmarriedcouplestouse
contraception.
(c)

Athirdbasisforprotectingtherighttomarryisthatitsafeguardschildrenandfamiliesandthusdrawsmeaningfromrelatedrightsofchildrearing,procreation,andeducation.

(d)
Finally,thisCourtscasesandtheNationstraditionsmakeclearthatmarriageisakeystoneoftheNationssocialorder.Stateshavecontributedtothefundamentalcharacterof
marriagebyplacingitatthecenterofmanyfacetsofthelegalandsocialorder.Thereisnodifferencebetweensameandoppositesexcoupleswithrespecttothisprinciple,yet
samesexcouplesaredeniedtheconstellationofbenefitsthattheStateshavelinkedtomarriageandareconsignedtoaninstabilitymanyoppositesexcoupleswouldfindintolerable.It
isdemeaningtolocksamesexcouplesoutofacentralinstitutionoftheNationssociety,fortheytoomayaspiretothetranscendentpurposesofmarriage.
Thelimitationofmarriagetooppositesexcouplesmaylonghaveseemednaturalandjust,butitsinconsistencywiththecentralmeaningofthefundamentalrighttomarryisnow
manifest.
3.TherightofsamesexcouplestomarryisalsoderivedfromtheFourteenthAmendmentsguaranteeofequalprotection.TheDueProcessClauseandtheEqualProtection
Clauseareconnectedinaprofoundway.Rightsimplicitinlibertyandrightssecuredbyequalprotectionmayrestondifferentpreceptsandarenotalwayscoextensive,yeteach
maybeinstructiveastothemeaningandreachoftheother.
4.Therighttomarryisafundamentalrightinherentinthelibertyoftheperson,andundertheDueProcessandEqualProtectionClausesoftheFourteenthAmendmentcouplesof
thesamesexmaynotbedeprivedofthatrightandthatliberty.Samesexcouplesmayexercisethefundamentalrighttomarry.
5.WhiletheConstitutioncontemplatesthatdemocracyistheappropriateprocessforchange,individualswhoareharmedneednotawaitlegislativeactionbeforeassertinga
fundamentalright.
TheFourteenthAmendmentrequiresStatestorecognizesamesexmarriagesvalidlyperformedoutofState.Sincesamesexcouplesmaynowexercisethefundamentalrighttomarry
inallStates,thereisnolawfulbasisforaStatetorefusetorecognizealawfulsamesexmarriageperformedinanotherStateonthegroundofitssamesexcharacter.
USEOFNATURALLAW
JustificatoryuseofNaturalLaw

>TheUSSupremeCourtusedtheFourteenthAmendmenttojustifyandvindicatesamesexmarriage.

>TheConstitutionpromiseslibertytoallwithinitsreach,alibertythatincludescertainspecificrightsthatallowpersons,withinalawfulrealm,todefineandexpresstheir
identity.
InterpretativeuseofNaturalLaw

TheUSSupremeCourtinterpretedtheFourteenthAmendmenttotheextentofmakingsamesexmarriageconstitutional.
Theparticularsituationsamesexmarriageisnotapparentlywithinthewordsofthestatute,butisnonethelesswithintheessenceandpurpose