Legal separation and annulment in the philippines

in order to understand the different kind of freedom from respective spouses we should know the difference between the three modes of "escape". i.e. Legal Separation; Annulment; and Nullity of marriage.

Legal Separation in layman's term is separation in bed. spouses are meant to be separated only by board and bed including property regime. properties will be liquidated and partitioned more favorably to the aggrieved spouse or to the children. the grounds for legal separation are;

(1) Repeated physical violence or grossly abusive conduct directed against the petitioner, a common child, or a child of the petitioner;
(2) Physical violence or moral pressure to compel the petitioner to change religious or political affiliation;
(3) Attempt of respondent to corrupt or induce the petitioner, a common child, or a child of the petitioner, to engage in prostitution, or connivance in such corruption or inducement;
(4) Final judgment sentencing the respondent to imprisonment of more than six years, even if pardoned;
(5) Drug addiction or habitual alcoholism of the respondent;
(6) Lesbianism or homosexuality of the respondent;
(7) Contracting by the respondent of a subsequent bigamous marriage, whether in the Philippines or abroad;
(8) Sexual infidelity or perversion;
(9) Attempt by the respondent against the life of the petitioner; or
(10) Abandonment of petitioner by respondent without justifiable cause for more than one year.

Annulment on the other hand is a marriage that is valid except for some infirmity that can make it invalid. this kind as differentiated from NULLITY is that the grounds from annulment will become unavailable or can no longer be used after a lapse of a period it will prescribe so to speak. if the spouses do not annul their marriage in a specific period they can no longer annul their marriage. they are forever barred. the grounds for annulment are;

(1) That the party in whose behalf it is sought to have the marriage annulled was eighteen years of age or over but below twenty-one, and the marriage was solemnized without the consent of the parents, guardian or person having substitute parental authority over the party, in that order, unless after attaining the age of twenty-one, such party freely cohabited with the other and both lived together as husband and wife;
(2) That either party was of unsound mind, unless such party after coming to reason, freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife;
(3) That the consent of either party was obtained by fraud, unless such party afterwards, with full knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud, freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife;
(4) That the consent of either party was obtained by force, intimidation or undue influence, unless the same having disappeared or ceased, such party thereafter freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife;
(5) That either party was physically incapable of consummating the marriage with the other, and such incapacity continues and appears to be incurable; or
(6) That either party was afflicted with a sexually-transmissible disease found to be serious and appears to be incurable.

The term Annulment is usually used by mistake in lieu of Nullity of marriage. even lawyers use the term annulment where in truth the TRUE term should be NULLITY of marriage.

NULLITY on the other hand are VOID or INVALID marriages from the start. it is as if no marriage existed so the grounds do not prescribe or the grounds never expires.

(1) Those contracted by any party below eighteen years of age even with the consent of parents or guardians;
(2) Those solemnized by any person not legally authorized to perform marriages unless such marriages were contracted with either or both parties believing in good faith that the solemnizing officer had the legal authority to do so;
(3) Those solemnized without license, except those covered the preceding Chapter;
(4) Those bigamous or polygamous marriages not failing under Article 41;
(5) Those contracted through mistake of one contracting party as to the identity of the other; and
(6) Those subsequent marriages that are void under Article 53.

(7) Incestuous marriages up to the 4th degree

(8) against public policy;

 (a) Between collateral blood relatives whether legitimate or illegitimate, up to the fourth civil degree;

(b) Between step-parents and step-children;
(c) Between parents-in-law and children-in-law;
(d) Between the adopting parent and the adopted child;
(e) Between the surviving spouse of the adopting parent and the adopted child;
(f) Between the surviving spouse of the adopted child and the adopter;
(g) Between an adopted child and a legitimate child of the adopter;
(h) Between adopted children of the same adopter; and
(i) Between parties where one, with the intention to marry the other, killed that other person's spouse, or his or her own spouse.

but of course you'd be asking where the rest of us fall. for all those who have no grounds as stated above there is this catch all provision for NULLITY of marriage. Under article 36 of the family code we can now have our marriage nullified for psychological incapacity.

Labor Concerns with security guards

Most of the time security guards in the NCR are required to work 12 hours a shift. usually this twelve hour run into the night. yet the salary of this security guards is fixed to the minimum wage let us say 426 under wage order ncr 16.

do not be fooled even if the pay slip say 426 per day, the rate applies only to an 8 hours shift. and anything beyond the 8 hours shift is considered as overtime pay and should be paid by the agency.

if a security guard is paid for 426 per day for a twelve our shift, technically the employer is underpaying and is not paying overtime pay. not to mention if the shift is a night shift then the agency should pay the night differential. and if security guards are required to work 7 days a week, employers should pay a premium of rest days. not to mention holidays.

Labor law Philippines

frequently asked question from terminated employees;

"hindi na po ako pinabalik hindi na daw ako allowed pumasok"

"Sinabihan ako na wag na ako pumasok bukas"

"You're FIRED"

all of this are illegal acts of termination. remember that the law requires two notices before you are terminated that is Notice to explain and Notice of actual termination this are the basic of due process.

continuation defenses in drugs cases RA 9165

here is my second installment of my defenses i use in court. in the first i lay the foundation on what to do in false operations and if you became the victim of such. And if worse we go to court this is usually what i ask or do in court. please do note that we always go back to section 21, RA 9165 as our base defense specially in our cross examination .

Let us start with the Forensic chemist. Sometimes i just enter into stipulations but if you don't feel like it, it is better to cross examine and ask a few questions. remember even if we are in the Philippines there is nothing to stop us applying the CSI doctrine.

First, have the habit of examining the request for laboratory examination and the crime lab report, look at the stamp receipts. in Manila, some of the forensic chemists would ask liaisons to deliver the specimens in court. if you see nothing that will indicate that the forensic chemists delivered the drugs personally in court or someone else delivered it, KEEP IT TO YOURSELF, he he, yes keep it for now. 

in cross-examination, ask him or her who delivered the same to the court, most certainly, he would answer that he is, if that is the case, drop the bomb.

if he or she said he cannot just the same drop the bomb and tell him who delivered it. in any way the chain of custody has already been broken.

stay tuned.

‘Chicharon’

‘Chicharon’

FAQ about BP22, Labor Cases, Drugs Cases (RA 9165), Support, Estafa, etc.

To extend my public service into the cyber world I am open to any question or queries regarding your legal problems. Only questions regarding Philippine Laws will be entertained.

Defense, Drugs Cases, RA 9165

I have been in the business of defending people accused of crimes involving drugs. I can tell 95% of the time, the accused are not they supposed to be. Many Police Officers have the habit of arresting, without as much as following the procedure. The procedure is very easy to follow and it is very disturbing to know the reason why they intentionally deviate from the procedure is because the persons they arrest did not commit the crime or are not in the actual act of committing the crime. In my personal investigation, Police Officers will arrest anybody that their so called assets will point as the pushers or possessors of dangerous drugs, they do not care whether the information is true or not. Casing and actual buy bust is thrown out the window. The Buybust opeartion therefore is more of on paper than on actual facts. Many have confessed to yours truly that it is easier to charge and create the operation in paper and in affidavits than doing the actual operation. Hinging on the fact that they have this legal principle as their friend – “Presumption of Regularity” in the conduct of police operations.

Presumption of Innocence is the utmost principle in criminal law, but if we read some cases, this principle has  taken the back seat from the presumption of regularity. In some cases, the accused are no longer presumed innocent and MUST try to overthrow the presumption of regularity if the wish to be acquitted, the burden of proof therefore shifted to the accused. Needless to say the height of false conviction has never reached this height, because the courts allow this deviation from procedure. Police Officers are encouraged to do more because the courts would rule that any deviation from the procedure is NOT fatal to the prosecution of cases.

 I only have one question in mind, is it that hard to follow the procedure?

Republic Act 9165 increased the penalty for possession and drug pushing, but it recognized the need to protect the citizens from police officers who would abuse their authority. Section 21 was the safety valve so to speak.

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
The same is implemented by Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165, viz.:
(a) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.

The first line of defense therefore is to ask the arresting officers to wait and go to the nearest barangay to witness the body search and confirm the whether there is any drugs present.

Now if the Operatives denied this request have any relatives to immediately go and have the incident blottered and specify the fact that you requested for the presence of the barangay in witnessing the arrest. Did I say immediately? The earlier the report to the barangay the higher the credibility of the defense.

Now if no one witnessed the apprehension then it will be a different matter.

Please follow the next post for the next defense.

“Disclaimer” I am making this post for people who would be victims of corrupted operatives who are now experts in circumventing the procedure and to help avoid innocent persons convicted of a crime they did not commit and to force Operatives to operate against TRUE drug pushers