Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Sasota
REX FRIOLO
Facts: Defendant was charged with the crime of rape of a deaf and dumb girl. Sasota,
found guilty of the crime because of the victims testimony, now posits that the
testimony of the deaf and dumb should not have been accepted by the court at its full
value.
Issue: Whether or not a deaf and dumb person is considered a competent witness by
the court.
Held: There is no merit in the contention of the defendant that deaf and dumb persons
are to be considered incompetent witnesses. Though formerly, deaf and dump persons
were considered incompetent, experience and observation have shown conclusively that
the mere fact that a person is deaf and dumb is not sufficient to justify the finding that
he is incompetent as a witness. When such a witness is produced, the court may
ascertain whether he has the requisite intelligence, and the judge will allow the witness
to adopt such mode of communicating his ideas, whether by signs or writing as he
deems most satisfactory.
An excerpt from the opinion of Justice Moreland, United States v. Estrada, lends
further support to the conclusion reached by us: "The commission of the crime at the
place, at the time, and in the manner charged is not impossible and, although the charge
that it was so committed may be unreasonable, still such unreasonableness may be
overcome by the direct and positive testimony of unimpeachable witnesses. From the
evidence before him the learned trial court found that the witnesses for the prosecution
were telling the truth in their relation of the story of the case and that the facts occurred
substantially as they stated them. We have held on many occasions that 'this court will
not interfere with the intelligent conclusion of a trial court concerning the credibility of
witnesses, the court having seen the witnesses in the act of testifying and having
carefully observed their manner and demeanor as witnesses, unless the record discloses
that some fact or circumstance of weight and influence has either been overlooked by
the court or has been misapprehended or misinterpreted." There is no such showing in
this case, notwithstanding the valiant efforts of counsel for appellant to create such an
impression.
Director of Lands v. Abelardo
MALOU MAMAC
Facts: The case revolves around proving the ownership of 2 parcels of lands, which were
properties subject in a successional litigation. Siblings Fulgencia and Jose Dino are
contesting the ownership of subject properties in Manuel Libunaos possession. They
further claim that as deaf-mutes, they should not be barred by prescription in filing the
case.
Issue: Whether or not the prescription period in filing the case should be relaxed due to
their being deaf-mutes.
Held: No, they are not. The SC ruled that the subject lands are still and should still be
owned by Manuel Libuano and family due to the following reasons (1) the
preponderance of evidence as to the ownership of the lands are in favor of Libunao, (2)
the action for filing a claim regarding the partition of the estate has already prescribed.
Being a deaf-mute is not by itself alone, without the concurrence of any of the
incapacities recognized by law, considered included among the exceptions which in
replace something with something else of the same kind or with something that serves
as substitute. The birth certificate of the petitioner contained no error. No correction is
necessary.
The trial court opined that its grant of the petition was in consonance with the
principles of justice and equity. It believed that allowing the petition would cause no
harm, injury or prejudice to anyone. This is wrong. The changes sought by the petitioner
will have serious and wide-ranging legal and public policy consequences. First, the trial
court itself found that the petition was but petitioners first step towards his eventual
marriage to his male fianc. However, marriage, one of the most sacred social
institutions, is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman. To
grant the petition will substantially reconfigure and greatly alter the laws on marriage
and family relations. Second, there are various laws (Labor Code on employment of
women, etc.) which apply particularly to women which could be substantially affected if
petitioners petition were to be granted.
It is true that Article 9 of the Civil Code mandates that No judge or court shall
decline to render judgment by reason of the silence, obscurity or insufficiency of the law.
However, it is not a license for courts to engage in judicial legislation. The duty of the
courts is to apply or interpret the law, not to make or amend it.
Therefore, the petition is hereby DENIED.
REPUBLIC vs. CAGANDAHAN
JOY PALMA
FACTS: Jennifer Cagandahan filed before the Regional Trial Court Branch 33 of
Siniloan, Laguna a Petition for Correction of Entries in Birth Certificate of her name
from Jennifer B. Cagandahan to Jeff Cagandahan and her gender from female to male.
It appearing that Jennifer Cagandahan is suffering from Congenital Adrenal
Hyperplasia which is a rare medical condition where afflicted persons possess both male
and female characteristics.
Jennifer Cagandahan grew up with secondary male characteristics. To further her
petition, Cagandahan presented in court the medical certificate evidencing that she is
suffering from Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia which certificate is issued by Dr. Michael
Sionzon of the Department of Psychiatry, University of the Philippines-Philippine
General Hospital, who, in addition, explained that Cagandahan genetically is female
but because her body secretes male hormones, her female organs did not develop
normally, thus has organs of both male and female. The lower court decided in her
favor but the Office of the Solicitor General appealed before the Supreme Court invoking
that the same was a violation of Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court because the said
petition did not implead the local civil registrar.
ISSUE: The issue in this case is the validity of the change of sex or gender and name of
respondent as ruled by the lower court.
HELD: The contention of the Office of the Solicitor General that the petition is fatally
defective because it failed to implead the local civil registrar as well as all persons who
have or claim any interest therein is not without merit. However, it must be stressed
that private respondent furnished the local civil registrar a copy of the petition, the
order to publish on December 16, 2003 and all pleadings, orders or processes in the
course of the proceedings. In which case, the Supreme Court ruled that there is
substantial compliance of the provisions of Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court held that the determination of a persons sex
appearing in his birth certificate is a legal issue which in this case should be dealt with
utmost care in view of the delicate facts present in this case.
In deciding the case, the Supreme Court brings forth the need to elaborate the term
intersexuality which is the condition or let us say a disorder that respondent is
undergoing. INTERSEXUALITY applies to human beings who cannot be classified as
either male or female. It is the state of a living thing of a gonochoristic species whose sex
chromosomes, genitalia, and/or secondary sex characteristics are determined to be
neither exclusively male nor female. It is said that an organism with intersex may have
biological characteristics of both male and female sexes. In view of the foregoing, the
highest tribunal of the land consider the compassionate calls for recognition of the
various degrees of intersex as variations which should not be subject to outright denial.
The current state of Philippine statutes apparently compels that a person be classified
either as a male or as a female, but this Court is not controlled by mere appearances
when nature itself fundamentally negates such rigid classification. That is, Philippine
courts must render judgment based on law and the evidence presented. In the instant
case, there is no denying that evidence points that respondent is male. In determining
respondent to be a female, there is no basis for a change in the birth certificate entry for
gender.
The Supreme Court held that where the person is biologically or naturally intersex the
determining factor in his gender classification would be what the individual, like
respondent, having reached the age of majority, with good reason thinks of his/her sex.
Sexual development in cases of intersex persons makes the gender classification at birth
inconclusive. It is at maturity that the gender of such persons, like respondent, is fixed.
The Court will not consider respondent as having erred in not choosing to undergo
treatment in order to become or remain as a female. Neither will the Court force
respondent to undergo treatment and to take medication in order to fit the mold of a
female, as society commonly currently knows this gender of the human species.
Respondent is the one who has to live with his intersex anatomy. To him belongs the
human right to the pursuit of happiness and of health.
Thus, to him should belong the primordial choice of what courses of action to take along
the path of his sexual development and maturation. In the absence of evidence that
respondent is an incompetent and in the absence of evidence to show that classifying
respondent as a male will harm other members of society who are equally entitled to
protection under the law, the Supreme Court affirmed as valid and justified the
respondents position and his personal judgment of being a male.