Mae Duffyne Vender

Law 1B

Republic vs. CA and Molina

G.R. No. 108763 February 13, 1997
FACTS:
The case at bar challenges the decision of CA affirming the marriage of the respondent
Roridel Molina to Reynaldo Molina void in the ground of psychological incapacity. The
couple got married in 1985, after a year, Reynaldo manifested signs of immaturity and
irresponsibility both as husband and a father preferring to spend more time with friends
whom he squandered his money, depends on his parents for aid and assistance and was
never honest with his wife in regard to their finances. In 1986, the couple had an intense
quarrel and as a result their relationship was estranged. Roridel quit her work and went
to live with her parents in Baguio City in 1987 and a few weeks later, Reynaldo left her
and their child. Since then he abandoned them.
ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage is void on the ground of psychological incapacity.
HELD: The marriage between Roridel and Reynaldo subsists and remains valid. What
constitutes psychological incapacity is not mere showing of irreconcilable differences and
confliction personalities. It is indispensable that the parties must exhibit inclinations
which would not meet the essential marital responsibilites and duties due to some
psychological illness. Reynaldos action at the time of the marriage did not manifest such
characteristics that would comprise grounds for psychological incapacity. The evidence
shown by Roridel merely showed that she and her husband cannot get along with each
other and had not shown gravity of the problem neither its juridical antecedence nor its
incurability. In addition, the expert testimony by Dr Sison showed no incurable
psychiatric disorder but only incompatibility which is not considered as psychological
incapacity.

CONCURRING OPINION:
I agree with the decision of Justice Panganiban because of the exceptional facts of
the case. Psychological Incapacity depends upon cases to case basis and as to it existence
depends upon the facts of the case. In the present case both spouses did not show signs
that would indicate their incapacity to perform marital obligation but merely differences
between the spouses and appears to be curable. It is apparent that there is neglect and
refusal of both parties to perform their marital obligations. And that even though there
was a possible psychological incapacity on the part of the wife it does not met the
requirements of Gravity, Judicial Antecedent and Incurability required in ascertaining
psychological incapacity as laid down in this case.

People vs Oanis
G.R 47722 ; July 27, 1973

FACTS:
Antonio Oanis and Alberto Galanta were instructed to arrest a notorious criminal and
escaped convict, Anselmo Balagtas, and if overpowered, to get him dead or alive. They
went to the suspected house then proceeded to the room where they saw the supposedly
Balagtas sleeping with his back towards the door. Oanis and Galanta simultaneously or
successively fired at him, which resulted to the victims death. The supposedly Balagtas
turned out to be Serepio Tecson, an innocent man.
ISSUE:
1. Wheth or Not Oanis and Galanta incur no liability due to innocent mistake of fact in
the honest performance of their official duties?
2. Whether or Not Oanis and Galanta incur no criminal liability in the performance of
their duty?
HELD:
1. No. Innocent mistake of fact does not apply to the case at bar. Ignorance facti
excusat applies only when the mistake is committed without fault or carelessness. The
fact that the supposedly suspect was sleeping, Oanis and Galanta could have checked
whether it is the real Balagtas.
2. No. Oanis and Galanta are criminally liable. A person incurs no criminal liability when
he acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office. There are
2 requisites to justify this: (1) the offender acted in the perfomance of a duty or in the
lawful exercise of a right or office, (2) that the injury or offense committed be the
necessary consequence of the due performance of such duty or the lawful exercise of
such right or office. In this case, only the first requisite is present.

Concurring Opinion
I agree with the decision of Justice Moran, that there is no mistake of fact in the
part of respondent Oanis and Galanta. Mistake of fact is applicable only in cases where
the person liable performed with due diligence and without fault and carelessness. In the
present case, neither of the respondents performed due diligence in ascertaining that it

was in fact the notorious criminal that they were looking for. They started firing at the
victim, which led to its death, without performing precautionary steps.