TO: Ms.

Zaila Parcon

FROM: Ms. Katrina Vianca Decapia, Paralegal

DATE: May 19, 2017

RE: Zeno Parcon, Case No. 10-478

Petition for Support; Criminal Case of Frustrated Parricide

I. Statement of Facts

Mark Matikas was a popular movie star during the 1980s. He lost his fame and popularity when
he became involved in gambling and gun-running. Sometime in 1992, he received an offer for
him to give some of his sperm for the purpose of fertilizing the egg cells of an undisclosed
female in connection with an In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) procedure. As payment for his sperm
samples, Mark received P500,000. To protect the possible child that may be conceived through
the procedure, Mark signed an Agreement, stating to the effect that he is waving all rights that he
may have over the said child.

Last 2016, he met with Atty. Rafael Yabut. Atty. Yabut is the counsel of the mother of the child
who was conceived through the IVF procedure conducted last 1992. According to Atty. Yabut,
the said child, who is now more than 20 yrs. old, suffered a kidney disease and would be needing
a kidney transplant. He was contacted since they would like to ask if it is possible for him to give
one of his kidneys for the said child. By way of compensation, Mark would be given P1 million.
He agreed and was accordingly paid.

The kidney transplant procedure was successful. Through one of his cousins which happened to
be a member of the medical staff of the hospital where the transplant was conducted, Mark was
able to discover the identity of his said biological child and the mother of the latter. The name of
his son is Zeno Parcon and his mother is Zaila Parcon, a billionaire. Zeno is a multi-millionaire,
being the owner of several gas stations and the major stockholder of a top tier French restaurant.

Last March 2017, Mark suffered a heart attack and because of the same, he spent almost all his
money for his hospitalization and medicines.

To finance his medical needs, Mark decided to ask financial support from Zeno. Zeno refused to
give him anything. Given the same, Mark filed a petition for support against Zeno before RTC
Pasig.

In his petition, he argued that Zeno, being his biological son, is legally obligated to give support
to him as per the Family Code.
In a chance encounter in a mall, Mark and Zeno saw each other. Zeno said that Mark is an
opportunist and a leech. Zeno also said that he does not recognize Mark as his father.

Hurt about the things said to him by Zeno, Mark posted a video in Youtube. In the said video,
Mark recounted the IVF procedure previously undertaken. He also mentioned how Zeno became
the result of the successful IVF procedure and how he saved Zeno by giving him one of his
kidneys. He also mentioned about the mall confrontation between them and how Zeno flatly
refused his request for financial help.

The said video became viral. Since the posting of the said video, the number of customers of the
said French restaurant was drastically reduced.

Angered by the posting of the said video, Zeno went to the house of Mark. Upon seeing Mark,
Zeno forcefully threw three bundles of P1,000 bills to the face of Mark. Due to the attempt of
Mark to avoid the bundles of money thrown to him, he accidentally hit his head hard against a
protruding nail.

Due to severe head injury, Mark almost died. Mark immediately filed a case for frustrated
parricide against Zeno.

I was consulted by Ms. Zaila Parcon for my legal opinions regarding the issues of the case. I was
also requested to give possible arguments that could be raised in favor of Zeno.

II. Questions Presented

1. Is Zeno legally compelled to give support to Mark?

2. Whether the previous Agreement signed by Mark waiving all his rights over the child that
could result from the IVF procedure effectively strip all of Marks rights as against Zeno?

3. Was the information gained by Mark through his cousin (i.e. identity of Zeno and his
mother) can be legally used against Mark?

4. Could Zeno file a case for damages and/or any other case against Mark in connection
with the posting of the video in Youtube?

5. Can Zeno be convicted with frustrated parricide filed by Mark?

 III. Brief Answers

1. Yes Zeno is legally compelled to give support to Mark because it is in the provision of
the Family Code.
2. The previous Agreement signed by Mark waiving all his rights over the child that could
result from the IVF procedure did not effectively strip all of Marks right to Zeno because
that waiver constitutes to a violation in the Civil Code with regards to the waiver of
rights.
3. The information gained by Mark through his cousin can be legally used against Mark
because Mark violated Zaila and Zenos constitutional right to privacy.
4. Yes Zeno can file a case for damages and a criminal case of Libel against Mark in
connection with the posting of video in the Youtube.
5. Zeno cant be convicted with the crime of frustrated parricide because there is no intent
to kill.

IV. Discussion

Issue 1

The first issue is whether Zeno legally compelled to give support to Mark?

Yes. Zeno is legally compelled to give support to Mark because it is in the provision of the
Family Code.

According to Family Code

Art. 105. Subject to the provisions of the succeeding articles, the following are obliged to support
each other to the whole extent set forth in the preceding article:

(1) The spouses;

(2) Legitimate ascendants and descendants;

(3) Parents and their legitimate children and the legitimate and illegitimate children of the latter;

(4) Parents and their illegitimate children and the legitimate and illegitimate children of the
latter; and

(5) Legitimate brothers and sisters, whether of full or half-blood

In can clearly be seen from the provision of the family code regarding support specifically
Art.105 par. 4. Parents and their illegitimate children are obliged to support each other to the
whole extent. Zeno is the biological child of Mark even if he is not acknowledged legally by
Mark.

Issue 2

Whether the previous Agreement signed by Mark waiving all his rights over the child that could
result from the IVF procedure effectively strip all of Marks rights as against Zeno?

The previous Agreement signed by Mark waiving all his rights over the child that could result
from the IVF procedure did not effectively strip all of Marks right to Zeno because that waiver
constitutes to a violation in the Civil Code with regards to the waiver of rights.

According to Civil Code

Art. 6. Rights may be waived, unless the waiver is contrary to law, public order, public policy,
morals, or good customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law.

From the provisions of the Civil Code regarding the waiver of right it is not considered as an
absolute rule. It must not be contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals, or good
customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law. Obviously the waiver of
all Marks right over his child against Zeno is clearly against law. Our Constitution emphasized
the high regard for family. It considered as an inviolable institution and defined as a building
block of society. Such waiver constitutes a violation of law. It is also against morals. Our
country being considered as a family oriented it is clearly an acceptable standard to waive the
rights of the father to his son.

Issue 3

Was the information gained by Mark through his cousin (i.e. identity of Zeno and his mother)
can be legally used against Mark?

The information gained by Mark through his cousin can be legally used against Mark because
Mark violated Zaila and Zenos constitutional right to privacy.

According to the Philippine Constitution under Bill of Rights

Section 3. The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon
lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.
Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any
purpose in any proceeding.

Right to privacy is the right to be left alone, it is the right against unwarranted publicity, it also
involves concept that one's personal information is protected from public scrutiny.

The information obtained by Mark through his cousin is clearly confidential information.
Records of patients in the hospital shall not be disclosed to anyone without their consent and
approval. There is an expectation of privacy. The act of Mark and his cousin violates the right to
privacy of Zaila and Zeno.

Issue 4

Could Zeno file a case for damages and/or any other case against Mark in connection with the
posting of the video in Youtube?

Yes Zeno can file a case for damages and a criminal case of Libel against Mark in connection
with the posting of video in the Youtube.

With regard to the case for damages Zeno can file for damages because Marks act of posting the
video in Youtube prejudiced Zaila and Zenos business because when the video becomes viral
the number of customers of their French restaurant was drastically reduced.

According to the Civil Code on Human Relations

Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act
with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.

Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another
shall indemnify the latter for the same.

When a right is exercised in a manner not conformable with Article 19 and 20 of the Civil Code
and the exercise results in the damage of another, a legal wrong is committed and the wrong doer
is held responsible. In the present case Mark is exercising his right to claim for support to Zeno
but the said exercise of Marks right is not conformable with the Civil Code. It caused damage
and prejudiced to Zaila and Zenos business. Even if the posting of the video was done willfully
or negligently as long as it is contrary to law and caused damage to others the person causing the
damage should indemnify the injured party.

With regards to the criminal case of Libel Zeno can file a case of Libel against Mark because all
the element of the crime of Libel is present in this case.
According to Revised Penal Code

Art. 353. Definition of libel. A libel is public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice
or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to
cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the
memory of one who is dead.

Art. 354. Requirement for publicity. Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be

malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown,
except in the following cases:

1. A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal,
moral or social duty; and

2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of any judicial,
legislative or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of any statement,
report or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers in
the exercise of their functions.

Art. 355. Libel means by writings or similar means. A libel committed by means of writing,
printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition,
cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means, shall be punished by prision correccional in its
minimum and medium periods or a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both, in addition to
the civil action which may be brought by the offended party.

Based on the foregoing all the elements of Libel were established in this case. First there must be
an imputation or allegation of a crime, a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act or omission,
condition, status or circumstance which tend to dishonor or discredit a natural or juridical person.
In the case Mark mentioned the mall confrontation between him and Zeno who flatly refused to
his request for financial help in the video. Marks act can be considered or any act or omission,
condition, status or circumstance which tend to dishonor or discredit Zeno. Second is that there
must be a publication of this imputation. Obviously this element is present because Mark posted
it in Youtube. Third is that the identity of the person defamed must be established or identified.
Zeno is identified in the video. Last is the existence of malice. Mark is with malice when he
posted the video because Zeno did not give him money.

Issue 5

Can Zeno be convicted with frustrated parricide filed by Mark?

Zeno cant be convicted with the crime of frustrated parricide because there is no intent to kill.
According to the Revised Penal Code attempted, frustrated or murder, homicide and parricide
can only arise if theres an intent to kill. Absent the intent to kill the said crime cannot occur. The
act of Zeno when he went to the house of Mark to throw three bundles of P 1,000 bills to Mark
does not show that Zeno has intent to kill Mark. It is only an accident that Mark hit his head
against a protruding nail when he attempted to avoid the bundles of money thrown by Mark.

V. Conclusion

The possible lines of action that Zeno can use in order to deal with the situation with Mark are to
file a case against Mark for violating his and Zailas right to privacy. Their right under our
Constitution has been infringed because their identity at the hospital must be confidential. It must
not be given without their authorization. Next is he can also file a civil case for damages because
their business was prejudiced because if the video posted by Mark. When the video becomes
viral the number of the customers in their restaurant drastically decreased. He can also file a
criminal case of libel against Mark regarding the video. It clearly dishonors him and it has been
publicized and theres malice when Mark posted the video. Another one is the motion to dismiss
the case filed by Mark to Zeno which is the frustrated parricide. The case cannot prosper because
the intent to kill is wanting. The advantages of these lines of action is it can be proven because it
is based on the established facts of the case backed up with pieces of evidence and existing laws
in our country. The disadvantage of these lines of action is it takes time. It requires a lot of time,
money and effort.

When it comes to issue number one which is about the support that should be given by Zeno to
Mark he can raise this argument that since Mark already waived all his rights that he may have
over him that waiver also includes the right to receive support from him. Thus he is not obliged
to support Mark.

When it comes to the second issue which deals with whether the previous agreement signed by
Mark stating that he is waiving all his rights over Zeno is not a valid waiver Zeno can raise this
argument that although the waiver of right is not absolute and it is invalid is it is contrary to law,
morals, good customs, public policy and public order. The said waiver of Mark of his rights over
him is not contrary to the stated enumeration above thus it is a valid waiver.