Ortiz Law Office

17/08/2026

The has acquitted a woman of bigamy, ruling that a prior marriage that was void from the beginning (𝘷𝘰𝘪𝘥 𝘢𝘣 𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰) may be raised as a defense even without a prior judicial declaration of nullity.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, the SC’s Third Division reversed the ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Pampanga and the Court of Appeals (CA), which had found Ma. Fe Imelda Lapira guilty of bigamy.

Lapira faced a bigamy charge under Article 349 of the 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘗𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 for marrying Jimmy Fariscal while still married to Takahiko Sato as evidenced by a marriage certificate from the Office of the Civil Registrar General.

During trial, Lapira argued that her marriage to Sato was void because no ceremony took place and no marriage license had been issued, both of which were required for validity. The Local Civil Registrar confirmed that there was no record of the application for a marriage license for Lapira and Sato.

In acquitting Lapira, the SC applied its ruling in the 2021 case of 𝘗𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘥𝘰 𝘷. 𝘗𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦, which held that an accused in a bigamy case may directly argue that a previous marriage is void as a defense, even without a prior court declaration.

The SC explained that one of the essential elements of bigamy is the existence of a valid prior marriage. If the first marriage was void from the beginning, that element is absent.

In this case, the certification from the Local Civil Registrar sufficiently proved that no marriage license was issued to Lapira and Sato. This certification was enough to counter the presumption of the marriage certificate’s validity.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=171178.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=165698.

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

15/08/2026

SUPREME COURT: CYBER LIBEL PRESCRIBES IN ONE YEAR, NOT 15 YEARS

The Supreme Court has ruled that cyber libel prescribes in one year, rejecting the argument that the offense should be subject to the 15-year prescriptive period applicable to crimes punishable by other afflictive penalties.

In its En Banc Resolution¹ dated April 8, 2026, the Court explained that cyber libel is not an entirely new crime created by the Cybercrime Prevention Act. Rather, it is libel as defined under Article 353, in relation to Article 355, of the Revised Penal Code, committed through a computer system or information and communications technology (ICT).

The Court noted that Section 4(c)(4) of Republic Act No. 10175, or the Cybercrime Prevention Act, expressly refers to libel under the Revised Penal Code. Section 6 of the same law merely provides for a penalty one degree higher when crimes under the Revised Penal Code or special laws are committed through ICT. Thus, the use of a computer system constitutes a qualifying circumstance that increases the penalty; it does not transform cyber libel into an entirely different offense for purposes of prescription.

The Court therefore applied Article 90, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code, which specifically provides that “libel or other similar offenses” prescribe in one year. The fact that cyber libel carries a heavier penalty does not, by itself, place it under the 15-year prescriptive period in Article 90, paragraph 2.

The Court further emphasized that the Legislature has historically treated libel differently from other offenses carrying comparable penalties. Republic Act No. 4661 shortened the prescriptive period for libel to one year, in part to synchronize it with the one-year period for civil actions involving defamation under Article 1147 of the Civil Code.

Applying the principle that penal laws on prescription must be construed in favor of the accused, the Court held that the one-year period under Article 90, paragraph 4 governs cyber libel.

Thus, while cyber libel carries a penalty one degree higher because it is committed through ICT, the prescriptive period remains one year. The Court denied the motions for partial reconsideration with finality.

FOOTNOTES

1 Causing v. People, SC En Banc, (2026) Per Inting, J. [https://dlsurf.com/l/f0a673e]

05/08/2026

30/07/2026

⚠️ Trigger Warning: This post discusses allegations involving the s3xu@l exploitation of a minor and contains references to child s3xu@l abuse material. Reader discretion is advised.

Facebook Chats Found by Parent Admissible, Says SC

The Supreme Court (SC) En Banc ruled that the constitutional right to privacy protects individuals against government intrusion, not against the acts of private persons. Thus, Facebook Messenger conversations and photographs obtained by a parent from a child's account are not rendered inadmissible under the Bill of Rights.

The case involved a 24-year-old man who induced his 14-year-old girlfriend through Facebook Messenger to send him n*de photographs of her br3@sts and v@gin@.

Read the full text of the SC En Banc decision here:
[https://dlsurf.com/.1006/facebook-chats-found-by-parent-admissible-says-sc]

28/07/2026

24/07/2026

The (SC) has ruled that a sale of land remains valid even if the deed of sale designates a different lot number from what was actually sold, as long as the parties’ true agreement can be clearly shown. The deed may then be corrected to match what the parties actually agreed to.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC’s Third Division upheld the sale of a 491-square-meter parcel of land in Cebu City between buyers Genara and Felipe Abay, Sr. (the Abays) and sellers Crispin Caballes and the heirs of Trinidad Caballes-Gallardo (the Gallardos), despite the mistake in the designation of the lot number in the deed of sale.

The property formed part of the estate of Margarita Lopez, who had nine children, including Crispin and Trinidad.

The Abays visited the site with Crispin and Tomas Gallardo, one of Trinidad’s heirs before buying the property. During the visit, they were showed them the land’s boundaries. Tomas even helped the Abays build a concrete fence around it.

The Abays openly occupied the property for about 20 years until their possession was disrupted when workers of spouses Jacinto and Chiok Ngo Lim Young (the Youngs), who are claiming ownership over the property, entered it, destroyed the fence, and built their own posts.

The Abays discovered that a title over the property had been issued in the Youngs’ name. This prompted them to file a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to cancel the title.

The Gallardos challenged this, arguing that the documents the Abays presented referred to a different lot, Lot No. 6036-B, and not the lot they were occupying, which was Lot No. 7. While both lots were located in the same area, they were separate properties and were not beside each other. The Youngs supported the Gallardos’ position and maintained that they were buyers in good faith.

The RTC ruled in favor of the Abays which ruling was reversed by the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA held that the documents presented by the Abays showed that they purchased Lot No. 6036-B and not Lot No. 7, which they claimed to own and possess.

The SC disagreed and reiterated its pronouncements in previous cases upholding the validity of the sale and allowing the correction of a contract to reflect the parties’ true agreement in instances where the deed of sale failed to accurately describe the land intended by the parties.

The SC stressed that a person buys property based on what they see on the ground, such as its boundaries, landmarks, and improvements, and not by its technical lot number. Ordinary buyers cannot be expected to identify property based only on survey descriptions or legal documents.

Under the 𝘊𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦, a written document may be corrected when, because of a mistake, it does not express the parties’ actual agreement.

The SC explained that a contract may be reformed or corrected if: (1) the parties agreed on the transaction; (2) the written document does not express their true agreement; and (3) the error was caused by a mistake, fraud, accident, or unfair conduct.

In this case, all these requirements were present.

Thus, the Court declared deemed reformed the Deeds of Sale and Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale by changing the designation of the property sold from “Lot No. 6036-B” to “Lot 7” and the Abays as absolute owners of such property.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=169523

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/266298-spouses-genera-and-felipe-abay-sr-et-al-vs-spouses-jacinto-s-young-et-al/

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

03/07/2026

A DOSE OF LAW | Limits of rule-making

Published 3 July 2026, The Daily Tribune

May a government-owned and controlled corporation such as the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) expand the law through its implementing rules and regulations (IRR)?

In a recent decision penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the Supreme Court struck down a GSIS rule that effectively deprived secondary beneficiaries of survivorship benefits granted under the GSIS Act of 1997 (RA No. 8291).

Dean Nilo Divina writes about the case of Laroco vs. GSIS Committee on Claims (G.R. No. 267620, 24 February 2026).

Please check the comments for the link.

25/06/2026

𝗠𝗶𝗰𝗿𝗼 𝘁𝗮𝘅𝗽𝗮𝘆𝗲𝗿 𝗸𝗮 𝗯𝗮 𝗻𝗮 𝗺𝗮𝘆 𝗹𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗮𝘅 𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀, 𝗱𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗾𝘂𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝘀, 𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀, 𝗼 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗽-𝗳𝗶𝗹𝗲𝗿 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝘀𝗮 𝗕𝗜𝗥?

Hinihikayat ni Commissioner Charlito Martin R. Mendoza ang mga kwalipikadong micro taxpayers na samantalahin ang One-Time Tax Abatement Program. Ito na ang pagkakataon para ayusin ang inyong tax records, maresolba ang mga dating obligasyon sa BIR, at maisara ang mga nakabinbing kaso.

Maaaring mag-apply ang mga kwalipikadong micro taxpayers hanggang Disyembre 31, 2026.

Basahin ang buong Revenue Regulations No. 4-2026 dito:https://bir-cdn.bir.gov.ph/BIR/pdf/RR%20No.%204-2026_Redacted.pdf

25/06/2026

Poverty is not a crime—and neither is the mere inability to provide financial support.

In Acharon vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 224946 (11-09-2021), the Supreme Court (SC) clarified that the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children (Anti-VAWC) Act of 2004 (R.A. 9262) was not meant to make the partners of women criminals just because they fail or are unable to financially provide for them.

In this case, the husband was charged under Section 5(i) of R.A. 9262 for causing his wife emotional anguish and humiliation by withholding financial support.

After moving abroad for work via a loan, he failed to maintain regular remittances, leaving a balance that led the lender to contact his employer and embarrass the wife.

Worse, the wife suffered severe depression after learning from his colleagues that he was cohabiting with a paramour, which was compounded by a message from him stating he no longer cared for her because they were childless.

The husband denied the charges, claiming his financial shortfall was due to overseas hardships, including a lodging fire, a salary deduction, and out-of-pocket medical expenses from an accident. He asserted that his wife eventually told him to stop sending money.

While he denied cohabiting with another woman, he admitted discussing his alleged womanizing and their separation over social media, and acknowledged that he had encouraged his wife to find another man.

The RTC convicted the husband for his communication neglect, marital infidelity, and failure to provide financial support, sentencing him to prison, a fine, and psychological counseling—a conviction subsequently affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA).

On appeal, the SC acquitted the husband, holding that a mere failure or inability to provide support due to financial hardship is a civil, not criminal, matter. It also emphasized that liability under R.A. 9262 requires proof that the withholding of support was willful and intended to cause psychological harm.

Disclaimer: This summary is for informational purposes only and may omit important details. Please read the full court decision and seek legal advice before acting on this information.

08/05/2026

A DOSE OF LAW | When paternity becomes the threshold of criminal liability

Published 8 May 2026, The Daily Tribune

In a recent ruling that clarifies the limits of criminal liability under the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 (RA No. 9262), the Supreme Court held that paternity or filiation must first be established before a person may be convicted for economic abuse arising from the alleged refusal to provide financial support to a child.

Dean Nilo Divina talks about the case of ### v. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 262419, 3 November 2025).

Please check the comments for the link.