Republic of the Philippines v Jennifer Cagandahan

FACTS: Jennifer Cagandahan was registered as a female in her birth

certificate, but when she was growing up, she started to have male
characteristics. It was later found out that she was suffering from Congenital
Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH). A condition wherein people who are affected with
CAH posses secondary male characteristic because of too much secretion of
male hormones. It was also discovered that her ovarian structures had
diminished; she didnt have breasts and menstrual cycle. Her interests and
her mind and emotion as well started to become masculine. She filed a
petition for change of name and gender before the RTC, Branch 33 of
Siniloan, Laguna. Jennifer presented Dr. Michael Sionzon to verify her claim.
Dr. Sionzon issued a medical certificate stating that the respondent is
genetically female but her body produces male hormones and that she has
two sex organs, but the female part was not developed. The RTC granted
Jennifers petition for change of name and gender.
ISSUE: Whether or not Jennifer Cagandahan should be permitted to change
her name and gender in her birth certificate?
RULING: The court ruled in favor of Cagandahan and denied the petition of
the Republic. She was allowed to change her gender from female to male and
she was also allowed to change her name from Jennifer Cagandahan to Jeff
Cagandahan.
Rustan Ang y Pascua v Court of Appeals
FACTS: The petitioner, Rustan Ang was charged of the violation of the AntiViolence Against Women and Their Children Act of Republic Act 9262. Rustan
Ang, the petitioner and Irish Sagud were lovers during their college days.
Later on, Irish found out that Rustan had a live-in partner and that she
impregnated the woman. Due to this, Irish decided to break up with Rustan.
Rustan then asked Irish to elope with him, but Irish refused. To force Irish to
get back with him, he sent a multimedia message to Irish. The said message
contained a picture of a naked woman, with the face of Irish edited on it.
Rustan also threatened her that it is easy for him to spread the pictures with
the use of internet. Irish then asked for the help of the Vice Mayor of the
Municipality of Maria Aurora. They conducted an entrapment operation and
Rustan was arrested. The RTC found Rustan guilty for the violation of RA
9262.
Rustan filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals. He claimed that the
picture sent to the message that was sent was an inadmissible evidence. He
further claimed that the message was merely sent to him by an unknown
person and he just sent it to Irish.
ISSUE: Whether or not the the cellphone message containing the picture of
Suguds face that was attached to the body of a naked woman was an
admissible evidence?

RULING: Yes, the court mentioned that the rules that he cited were not
applicable to the criminal action. The court further stated that his objection
was already too late and he should have objected upon the admission of the
said evidence. The court found Rustan guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
The United States v Ah Chong
FACTS: The accused, Ah Chong worked as a cook in Fort Mckinley and was
sharing a room with the deceased, Pascual Gualberto. The room that they
were occupying, was not equipped with a permanent lock, as a measure of
security, they use a chair pushed against the door as the lock of the room.
One evening, Ah Chong was suddenly awakened because someone was
trying to force open the door. Ah Chong shouted Whos there? thrice, but no
one replied. But instead, the person insisted on entering the room. Ah Chong
believed that the person trying to enter the room was a thief. He shouted
again and said, If you enter, I will kill you! After his warning, no one replied.
Out of fear, Ah Chong struck Pascual upon entering the room. Ah Chong
didnt have knowledge that it was Pascual, his roommate was the one who
entered the room.
ISSUE: Whether or not Ah Chong is exempted from criminal liability?
RULING: Yes, Ah Chong was exempted from criminal liability. The accused
acted in good faith and without malice or criminal intent. His action was
merely self-defense. In addition to that, Ah Chong did not act reckless,
because he was threatened by the actions of the person.