𝗔𝗰𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗮 𝗙𝗿𝗲𝗲-𝗼𝗳-𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗴𝗲 𝗩𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗲𝗱 𝗕𝗮𝗱𝗴𝗲 𝗡𝗼𝘄.

14/02/2026

♥️♥️♥️

03/01/2026

The has laid down guideposts for proving who owns or controls a social media account in criminal cases.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, the SC’s First Division affirmed the conviction of an individual (###) for committing psychological violence under Section 5 (i) of the 𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘝𝘪𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘈𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘞𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘯 (𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘝𝘈𝘞𝘊) 𝘈𝘤𝘵 against his ex-girlfriend (AAA) by posting derogatory statements about her on 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬.

The SC sentenced ### to up to eight years in prison, imposed a PHP 100,000 fine, and ordered ### to undergo psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment.

The SC stressed that in criminal cases, the prosecution must prove not only the elements of the crime but also the identity of the offender.

It explained that for crimes committed through social media, the basic features of the platform such as 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬, must be considered.

Noting that 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬 is widely used in the Philippines, the SC held that a 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬 account can easily be created by anyone claiming to be at least 13 years old with an email address or mobile number.

Once an account is created, the user can add friends, exchange private messages, and post statements, photos, or videos visible to others depending on the user’s privacy settings. Fake or dummy accounts can easily spread, enabling disinformation, identity theft, or crimes.

Given this, the SC ruled that guideposts are necessary to establish who owns or controls a social media account. It said the following must be shown to prove ownership or access:

1. Admission of ownership or authorship;
2. Being seen accessing the account or composing the post;
3. Containing information known only to the offender or a few people;
4. Language consistent with the offender’s characteristics;
5. Records from the internet service provider, telecommunications company, or social media site, and results from device forensic analysis showing geolocation features, and other attributes linking the account to the offender;
6. Acts consistent with previous posts; or
7. Other instances showing ownership, access, or authorship.

Applying these, the SC found that several factors proved ### wrote the 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬 post. The account name bore his full name, and the profile photo showed him with his child from his current live-in partner.

AAA’s sister had also received messages from the same account for years.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=158535.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=158446.

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.

Credit to Supreme Court

03/01/2026

MARRIAGE IS VOID DUE TO WIFE'S CONTROLLING CONDUCT
- Tee Ten v. Tee Ten, August 8, 2025

In a 14 page Decision penned bu Justice Henri Jean Paul Inting, the SC's Third Division has declared void from the beginning the marriage between W***y Tee Ten and Nellie Chan Tee Ten on the ground of the latter's psychological incapacity as provided under Article 36 of the Family Code.

W***y and Nellie were married on January 22, 1995. They had no antenuptial agreement, and their property relations are governed by the regime of absolute community of property.

W***y narrated that even prior to the wedding, the psychological incapacity of Nellie, whose childhood was marked with overindulgence at a time when her pathogenic family was still wealthy, was demonstrated by her domineering attitude coupled with her lazy and poor study habits.

He added that after the wedding, Nellie's incapacity to perform her marital obligations supposedly became more apparent given that she continued to be domineering and controlling as she required W***y to always update her of his whereabouts. She also displayed an arrogant and haughty attitude, especially towards W***y's mother.

More than these, W***y also claimed that Nellie psychologically abused their children when she physically attacked W***y in the presence of their kids while he was holding their daughter, and reached the point when she sneaked in the house of W***y's mother to take the kids home without telling anyone. This paved the way for W***y to file a petition for nullification of marriage.

A clinical psychologist testified that Nellie suffered from Narcissistic Personality Disorder with paranoid features, which is categorized as grave, incurable, and with antecedents. The expert recommended the nullification of their marriage.

In her defense, Nellie countered that it was W***y who abused their children, not only psychologically but also sexually. She averred that in times of disagreement, W***y also physically and verbally abused her.

The Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals (CA) granted W***y's petition and declared void ab initio his marriage with Nellie. The CA gave much weight to the psychological reports, which showed that Nellie's psychological incapacity is grave and incurable. Aggrieved Nellie elevated the case before the Supreme Court.

In denying her appeal, the high court found no valid reason to overturn the consistent findings and conclusions of the RTC and the CA, which are supported by the evidence on record.

It cited the landmark case of Tan-Andal vs. Andal, which requires that in order to grant the nullification of marriage due to psychological incapacity, the same must be grave enough to cause the couple's inability, not mere refusal, neglect, or difficulty, to perform the essential marital obligations.

It must also be shown that the psychological incapacity existed prior to or at the time of the celebration of the marriage, and it must be proven that the spouse, by reason of his or her psychological incapacity, persistently fails to comply with the essential marital obligations.

The SC agreed to the CA finding that the evidence presented by W***y is sufficient to establish that Nellie suffered from a narcissistic personality disorder with paranoid features through the accounts of his witnesses, corroborated by the psychological report and testimony of the clinical psychologist.

It also emphasized that the nature of Nellie's psychological incapacity is severe and pervasive, citing the psychological reports that revealed it affects all areas of her life, to the point that she is unable to perform her essential marital obligations to W***y.

The high court also took into consideration that it is quite apparent that Nellie's psychological incapacity, as shown by the behavioral manifestations of her personality disorder, existed even before their marriage, as the same is rooted in her childhood and carried over into her adulthood.

It ruled that since their marriage was declared void, the rules on co-ownership, in relation to Article 14 of the Family Code, govern the liquidation, partition, and distribution of their common properties.

Hence, the highest bench deemed it proper to remand the case back to the trial court, as it appears that W***y and Nellie have raised issues regarding their property relations in their respective pleadings.

ctto

21/12/2025

PERSONALITY DISORDER LEADING TO VIOLENT TENDENCIES GROUNDS FOR NULLIFYING MARRIAGE—SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court (SC) ruled that having violent tendencies that lead to inflicting physical and emotional abuse on one's spouse may be considered evidence of psychological incapacity to comply with marital obligations, a ground for nullification of marriage.

In a 14-page decision authored by Associate Justice Japar Dimaampao, the SC's Third Division has declared void from the beginning the marriage between Marie Anne Grace Chua-Mascariñas and Martin Mascariñas, Jr., on the ground of latter's psychological incapacity as provided under Article 36 of the Family Code.

Marie and Martin were former schoolmates. During college, despite already being in a relationship, Martin courted Marie. They became intimate with each other.

Later, they decided to live under the same roof, where Marie began to notice Martin's violent tendencies. There even came a time when Martin threw food on her face. Worse, he regularly had carnal knowledge of Marie while intoxicated, leading to her unexpected pregnancy, and they were eventually compelled to get married.

After they got married, Martin's physical and emotional abuse worsened. At one point, in a fit of rage, Martin shoved Marie to the floor, causing her to miscarry. In 2010, Marie noticed that Martin had become distant and no longer wanted to sleep in the same bed. Martin later confessed that he was having an affair with two other women.

Marie then decided to leave their house and eventually filed a petition for nullification of marriage on the ground of their respective psychological incapacities. Despite receipt of summons, Martin did not file an answer.

During the trial, a clinical psychologist testified and presented a psychological evaluation report, which revealed that Marie was suffering from a dependent personality disorder with passive-aggressive traits.

On the other hand, Martin was diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder coexisting with antisocial and dependent personality disorders. The expert said that these diagnoses rendered both of them psychologically incapacitated to assume and properly discharge their roles and obligations in the marriage.

The Regional Trial Court granted the petition and declared that their marriage is null and void. But the Court of Appeals reversed the said ruling, prompting Marie to elevate the case before the Supreme Court.

In granting the petition, the high court found that Marie had sufficiently overcome the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, the nullity of her marriage with Martin on the ground of the latter's psychological incapacity.

It noted that the incapacity of Martin has sufficiently been characterized as (1) incurable, as there is a persistent failure on the part of Martin to love, respect, and render support to Marie; (2) grave, as it is not merely a mood swing or occasional emotional outburst; and (3) judicially antecedent, as it was already existent even prior to their marriage.

"It is pertinent that the Psychological Report was never controverted by contrary evidence. There is likewise no finding of collusion between the parties by the public prosecutor. As such, there is nothing on record that would negate its legitimacy," the Supreme Court said.

It emphasized that since Martin's psychological incapacity to fulfill marital obligations was successfully established, there is no necessity to delve into Marie's psychological incapacity, as the nullification of a marriage may be based on the psychological incapacity of either spouse.

ctto

04/11/2025

When the Supreme Court issues a Status Quo Ante Order after COMELEC has disqualified a candidate and the successor has already taken the oath and been recognized by the DILG, the legal effects of the successor’s assumption are suspended.

The office must revert to the status before the disqualification and assumption, pending the Court’s final decision.

The DILG and all parties are bound to comply with the Supreme Court’s order, and any acts recognizing the successor are held in abeyance.

Fortunate for you Mayor..
😊

28/06/2025

SKL..😊

I am always asked by ordinary citizens.

1. IS IT ALLOWED FOR A PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS TO TAKE PHOTOS OR VIDEOS OF POLICE OFFICERS MAKING AN ARREST?

2. DO POLICE OFFICERS HAVE AN EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY DURING ARREST ?

3.. WOULD THERE BE A VIOLATION OF DATA PRIVACY ACT WHEN PHOTOS OR VIDEOS ARE TAKEN?

Here are my asnwers.

1. YES, IT IS ALLOWED.

In the Philippines, there is no law that categorically prohibits citizens from taking photos or videos of police officers performing their official functions in public. In fact, transparency and public oversight are generally encouraged to ensure accountability of law enforcement.

Relevant Laws

- The Rules on the Use of Body-Worn Cameras in Ex*****on of Warrants. Jurisprudence recognize that recordings of police operations are not Inherently private, and even require law enforcement to record such activities for transparency. While these rules apply to law enforcement, they reflect the principle that police action in public are subject to documentation.

2. NO, THEY DON'T HAVE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY DURING ARREST.

Police officers, when performing their official functions in public, have limited expectation of privacy. The Implementing Rules and Regulations of Data Privacy Act of 2016 clarify that information about government officers relating to their position or functions-including their action in the course of their employment is not protected in the same way as purely personal information.

Information about any individual who is or was an officer or employee of government that relates to his or her position or functions, including the fact that the individual is or was an officer or employee of the government, the title, office address and the office telephone number, and the responsibilities of the position held, is not protected in the same way as private information (IRR of Data Privacy Act)

3. NO, THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF DATA PRIVACY ACT WHEN PHOTOS OR VIDEOS ARE TAKEN DURING ARREST.

The Data Privacy Act of 2016 provides the processing of personal data is allowed if it is for journalistic, artistic, or literary purposes, or if it relates to the performance of official functions by the public officer. The law also requires adherence to the principle of transparency, legitimate purpose, and proportionality.

Personal information about government officers relating to their position or functions is generally not protected from disclosure, especially when such information is obtained in the course of their public duties. Furthermore, the processing of personal data is allowed subject to compliance with the requirements of the Act and other laws allowing disclosure of information to the public, and adherence to principles of transparency legitimate purpose and proportionality.

Note: Oh sa mga tropa sa serbisyo lalo na mga TATAK SPG POLICE OFFICERS, wag magagalit kapag pinipicturan or vinivideo ah..

26/06/2025

21/05/2025

The (SC) has reiterated that the children remain legitimate even if their parents’ marriage is later declared null and void due to psychological incapacity.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, the SC’s Second Division modified the ruling of a Regional Trial Court (RTC) that declared a child illegitimate following the nullity of her parents’ marriage.

The child was born several months before the couple got married. During the marriage, the wife experienced physical, emotional, and verbal abuse from her husband, who himself struggled with alcohol addiction, gambling, and infidelity.

This prompted the wife to file a petition to nullify their marriage, which the RTC granted, declaring the marriage void due to the husband’s psychological incapacity.
However, the RTC also declared their child illegitimate since she was born before their marriage, and her birth certificate did not show she had been legitimated.
The SC affirmed that the marriage was void, but ruled that the child remains legitimate.

The general rule is that when a marriage is nullified, the child is considered illegitimate from the time they were conceived.
However, the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 allows exceptions, such as when the marriage is nullified due to psychological incapacity. This applies whether the child was born before or during the marriage.

The SC emphasized that once a child is legitimated under the 𝘍𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦, there is no legal basis for changing their status back to illegitimate. Allowing this would go against the law’s intent to protect the child’s best interests.

Credit to Supreme Court's PIO

11/03/2025

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1NUgTBpdbD/

The has taken an important step towards modernizing legal processes by approving the Rules on Electronic Notarization (E-Notarization Rules) – a significant reform that leverages technology to make notarial services more accessible and efficient nationwide.

Under A.M. No. 24-10-14-SC, the Supreme Court En Banc approved the E-Notarization Rules and the Guidelines on the Accreditation of Electronic Notarization Facility Providers (Accreditation Guidelines). These rules introduce Electronic Notaries Public (ENPs), who are authorized to perform notarial acts for individuals located anywhere in the Philippines and, in certain cases, even abroad.

This expanded jurisdiction addresses a key limitation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (2004 Notarial Rules), where traditional notaries public were restricted to performing notarizations only within their territorial jurisdiction. By allowing ENPs to provide services across the country, the new rules ensure greater accessibility, particularly for those in remote or underserved areas.

The updated framework enables 3 forms of electronic notarization:
- In-Person Electronic Notarization (both principals and witnesses must be physically present)
- Remote Electronic Notarization (principals and witnesses may connect virtually to ENP via videoconferencing)
- Mixed In-Person and Remote

To enhance security, the E-Notarization Rules implements Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) such as facial recognition, biometrics, and one-time passwords, in compliance with regulations set by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. The integrity of the electronic notarial book, or the register showing the chronological record of electronic notarial acts, is also safeguarded against tampering. Additionally, all data stored in the ENFs are protected under the Data Privacy Act.

The E-Notarization Rules applies exclusively to electronic documents in Portable Document Format (PDF) or Portable Document Format Archival (PDF/A). Paper documents with handwritten signatures, notarial wills, and depositions will continue to follow the 2004 Notarial Rules.

A part of the Strategic Plan for Judicial Innovations 2022-2027 (SPJI), this initiative aligns with the Supreme Court’s commitment to innovation and expanded access to justice by allowing notarization for electronic documents, including remote notarization through accredited software applications. This reform supplements the traditional mode of notarization under the 2004 Notarial Rules and marks a key milestone in the Court’s ongoing digital transformation.

The E-Notarization Rules takes effect 15 days after its publication on March 9, 2025.

Read the press release in full at https://tinyurl.com/5e9e7h4a.

Read the full text of A.M. No. 24-10-14-SC, Rules on Electronic Notarization, at https://tinyurl.com/55zvmbrf.

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.

17/02/2025

The Supreme Court has ruled that “decades-long” absence from the marital home by an individual could be deemed as evidence to prove psychological incapacity in marital obligations.

👍👍👍