ROWENA PADILLA-RUMBAUA vs.

EDWARD RUMBAUA

FACTS

Petitioner instituted an action for the declaration of nullity of marriage against the respondent. The petitioner
alleged that the respondent was psychologically incapacitated to exercise the essential obligations of marriage

The petitioner presented testimonial and documentary evidence to substantiate her charges.

The petitioner also presented the testimony, curriculum vitae,[14] and psychological report[15] of clinical
psychologist Dr. Nedy Lorenzo Tayag (Dr. Tayag).

Dr. Tayag declared on the witness stand that she administered several tests on the petitioner.

TEST RESULTS AND EVALUATION - Respondent in this case, is revealed to operate in a very self-
centered manner as he believes that the world revolves around him. His egocentrism made it so easy for him to
deceitfully use others for his own advancement with an extreme air of confidence and dominance. He would do
actions without any remorse or guilt feelings towards others especially to that of petitioner.

When the case reached the CA: Dr. Tayags psychiatric report did not mention the cause of the respondents
so-called narcissistic personality disorder; it did not discuss the respondents childhood and thus failed to give the
court an insight into the respondents developmental years. Dr. Tayag likewise failed to explain why she came to the
conclusion that the respondents incapacity was deep-seated and incurable.

ISSUE: Dr. Tayags testimony in court cured the deficiencies in her psychiatric report.

HELD: Dr. Tayags psychological report and court testimony

We cannot help but note that Dr. Tayags conclusions about the respondents psychological incapacity were
based on the information fed to her by only one side the petitioner whose bias in favor of her cause cannot be
doubted. Dr. Tayag only diagnosed the respondent from the prism of a third party account; she did not actually hear,
see and evaluate the respondent and how he would have reacted and responded to the doctors probes.

The testimony of Dr. Tayag initially described the general characteristics of a person suffering from a
narcissistic personality disorder, she did not really show how and to what extent the respondent exhibited these
traits. She mentioned the buzz words that jurisprudence requires for the nullity of a marriage namely, gravity,
incurability, existence at the time of the marriage, psychological incapacity relating to marriage and in her own
limited way, related these to the medical condition she generally described. The testimony, together with her report,
however, suffers from very basic flaws.

First, what she medically described was not related or linked to the respondents exact condition except in a
very general way. In short, her testimony and report were rich in generalities but disastrously short on particulars,
most notably on how the respondent can be said to be suffering from narcissistic personality disorder; why and to
what extent the disorder is grave and incurable; how and why it was already present at the time of the marriage; and
the effects of the disorder on the respondents awareness of and his capability to undertake the duties and
responsibilities of marriage. All these are critical to the success of the petitioners case.

Second, her testimony was short on factual basis for her diagnosis because it was wholly based on what the
petitioner related to her. As the doctor admitted to the prosecutor, she did not at all examine the respondent, only the
petitioner. Neither the law nor jurisprudence requires, of course, that the person sought to be declared
psychologically incapacitated should be personally examined by a physician or psychologist as a condition sine qua
non to arrive at such declaration.[39] If a psychological disorder can be proven by independent means, no reason
exists why such independent proof cannot be admitted and given credit. [40] No such independent evidence, however,
appears on record to have been gathered in this case, particularly about the respondents early life and associations,
and about events on or about the time of the marriage and immediately thereafter.

Thus, the testimony and report appear to us to be no more than a diagnosis that revolves around the one-
sided and meager facts that the petitioner related, and were all slanted to support the conclusion that a ground exists
to justify the nullification of the marriage. We say this because only the baser qualities of the respondents life were
examined and given focus; none of these qualities were weighed and balanced with the better qualities, such as his
focus on having a job, his determination to improve himself through studies, his care and attention in the first six
months of the marriage, among others. The evidence fails to mention also what character and qualities the petitioner
brought into her marriage, for example, why the respondents family opposed the marriage and what events led the
respondent to blame the petitioner for the death of his mother, if this allegation is at all correct. To be sure, these are
important because not a few marriages have failed, not because of psychological incapacity of either or both of the
spouses, but because of basic incompatibilities and marital developments that do not amount to psychological
incapacity. The continued separation of the spouses likewise never appeared to have been factored in. Not a few
married couples have likewise permanently separated simply because they have fallen out of love, or have
outgrown the attraction that drew them together in their younger years.

Thus, on the whole, we do not blame the petitioner for the move to secure a remand of this case to the trial
courts for the introduction of additional evidence; the petitioners evidence in its present state is woefully insufficient to
support the conclusion that the petitioners marriage to the respondent should be nullified on the ground of the
respondents psychological incapacity.
PEOPLE vs. EFREN CASTILLO

FACTS:

Appellant was charged by AAA, assisted by her mother, BBB, with the crime of rape.

The prosecution presented the following witnesses: AAA, the private offended party; Dr. Thessa Marie
Antillon-Malimas (Dr. Antillon-Malimas),[8] the doctor in Gingoog District Hospital who examined AAA; BBB, the
mother of AAA, who was also presented as rebuttal witness; and Myrna delos Reyes-Villanueva, the Guidance
Psychologist at the Northern Mindanao Medical Center who conducted psychological tests on AAA to determine her
mental capacity.

Appellant was found guilty of rape under Article 266-A, par. 1(b), of the Revised Penal Code.

ART. 266-A. Rape; When and How Committed. - Rape is committed.

1) By a man who have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following
circumstances:xxx

b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise

unconscious;

Appellant contends that the records are bereft of any evidence that would conclusively show that AAA was
suffering from mental retardation. BBBs declaration that AAA is a slow thinker does not sufficiently establish AAAs
mental retardation. Further, the expert witness qualification of the prosecutions supposed expert witness is highly
questionable because she had not acquired any doctorate degree in the field of psychology or psychiatry. More so,
the psychological tests administered by her on AAA were inadequate to establish AAAs mental capacity.

ISSUE: Whether or not mental capacity of the victim was sufficiently established to held accused guilty of
rape

HELD: Accordingly, it is competent for the ordinary witness to give his opinion as to the sanity or mental condition of
a person, provided the witness has had sufficient opportunity to observe the speech, manner, habits, and
conduct of the person in question. Commonly, it is required that the witness details the factors and reasons upon
which he bases his opinion before he can testify as to what it is. As the Supreme Court of Vermont said: A non-expert
witness may give his opinion as to the sanity or insanity of another, when based upon conversations or dealings
which he has had with such person, or upon his appearance, or upon any fact bearing upon his mental condition, with
the witness own knowledge and observation, he having first testified to such conversations, dealings, appearance or
other observed facts, as the basis for his opinion. [35]

The mother of an offended party in a rape case, though not a psychiatrist, if she knows the physical and
mental condition of the party, how she was born, what she is suffering from, and what her attainments are, is
competent to testify on the matter.[36] Thus, even though the Guidance Psychologist who examined AAA may not
qualify as an expert witness, though the psychological tests conducted by her on AAA may not be accurate to
determine AAAs mental capacity, such circumstance is not fatal to the prosecutions cause.

In the case at bench, BBB testified that AAA has been suffering from epilepsy since she was nine years old,
which is one of the reasons why AAA was not able to finish her Grade I level. AAA also had to stop schooling
because she had difficulties understanding her lessons in school, she cannot write well, she had poor memory and
she had difficulty answering even the simplest question asked of her. BBB further stated that AAA is the eldest of her
four children; however, compared to her younger siblings, AAA had a hard time comprehending the instructions given
to her at home and in school.

In the same way, though the Guidance Psychologist who examined AAA may not be qualified as an expert
witness, her observations, however, as regards the appearance, manner, habits and behavior of AAA, is also
admissible in evidence as an ordinary witness testimony. Even before the Guidance Psychologist administered the
psychological tests on AAA, she already noticed that AAA lacked personal hygiene. While conversing with AAA, she
observed that AAA has low level mental functioning as she has difficulty understanding simple things, has a vague
concept of big numbers and time like days of the week, and has regressed behavior that is not congruent to her
age, i.e., 21 years old at the time of her examination. She also stated that she was not able to administer the Purdue
Non-Language Test, which is an Intelligence Quotient Test, on AAA due to the latters inability to identify the items
therein.
 For purposes of determining the mental capacity of a person, this Court held that the personal observation of
the trial judge suffices even in the absence of an expert opinion. [40] Hence, the aforesaid findings of the trial court are
entitled to great weight and respect being in the best position as it had the opportunity to hear and observe the
demeanor, conduct and attitude of AAA while testifying.