Marilim & Marilim Law Office

Congratulations, Atty. Edgardo R. Marilim, for being hailed as one of the Outstanding San Pableño for 2024 for your dedication and service to the people of San Pablo.

We have no doubt that you deserve such a prestigious award and recognition as you have served not only your clients but the people of San Pablo with compassion, humility and honesty.

Your dedication to your craft and work ethic is truly admirable and worthy to be emulated.

You have contributed to the field of law by being a President of the IBP (Integrated Bar of the Philippines) Laguna Chapter and to the community by being a Life Governor in APEX Club of the Philippines. Your efforts and service is not left unnoticed and now recognized by the City of San Pablo.

We are proud of you! 👏🏻

Marilim & Marilim Law Office Lawyer & Law Firm

Atty. Edgar John Marilim at Atty. Stephanie Anne Macaspac-Marilim during the Free Legal Assistance and Counseling in Nagcarlan, Laguna last July 25, 2023.

Thank you, Vice Governor Karen Agapay !

Marilim & Marilim Law Office congratulates our very own underbar associate Stephanie Anne Macaspac-Marilim for passing the 2022 Bar Examination!

We are so proud of you! 🎉

Congratulations to our very own Atty. Edgar John Marilim who was appointed today as a Notary Public for the City of San Pablo and the Municipalities of Alaminos, Nagcarlan, and Rizal, Laguna.

03.29.2023

READ: SC: Marital Infidelity is Psychological Violence under VAWC

The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction for violation of Republic Act No. 9262 or the Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004 (Anti-VAWC Act) of a man who cohabited with another woman and impregnated the same while his wife was working abroad.

In a Decision dated March 1, 2023, the Court’s First Division, through Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, denied the petition for review on certiorari of # # # and affirmed the January 31, 2019 Decision and the October 18, 2019 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA).

The CA rulings affirmed the conviction of # # # by a Regional Trial Court (RTC) which found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5(i) of the Anti-VAWC Act which states that the crime of violence against women and their children is committed by “causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to the woman or her child, including, but not limited to, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, and denial of financial support or custody of minor children or access to the woman’s child/children.”

Emphasizing that marital infidelity is one of the forms of psychological violence, the High Court agreed with the CA and the RTC and ruled that all the elements to establish a violation of Sec. 5(i) were present. These elements are: 1) the offended party is a woman and/or her child or children; 2) the woman is either the wife or former wife of the offender; 3) the offender causes on the woman and/or child mental or emotional anguish; and 4) the anguish is caused through acts of public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, denial of financial support or custody of minor children or access to the children or similar to such acts or omissions.

Court records show that petitioner # # # and AAA were married on December 29, 2006 and had a daughter, BBB. AAA later went for Singapore in 2008 to work there. In May 2015, AAA found # # # was in a romantic relationship with another woman, CCC. Worst, she later discovered that the other woman was pregnant with her husband’s child.

AAA later learned that petitioner # # # brought the other woman CCC to their hometown prompting the latter to return to the country. Learning that her husband and his mistress started to cohabit, AAA sought the assistance of the Department of Social Welfare and Development in getting her daughter BBB from her mother-in-law.

The petitioner # # # was charged with violation of Sec. 5(i) of RA 9262 before the RTC in January 2016. The RTC found # # # guilty of inflicting psychological violence against his wife and daughter through emotion and psychological abandonment.

Aggrieved, petitioner # # # appealed before the CA and imputed the following errors, among others to the RTC: such as failing to consider that it was his wife who alienated their child from petitioner and for failing to consider that it was him who took custody of the child when she was still seven-months old until October 2015.

The CA found no merit in the petition. It held that contrary to petitioner’s allegation, the Information charged him not only with deprivation of financial support to the child, but also the act of abandoning his family, which may be considered as having been subsumed in the phrase “similar acts or omissions” mentioned under Sec. 5(i) of RA 9262.

The CA held that contrary to petitioner’s claims, the Information charged him not only with deprivation of financial support to the child, but also the act of abandoning her and her mother, which may be considered as having been subsumed in the phrase “similar acts or omissions” mentioned under Sect. 5(i) of RA 9262. The CA added that while the prosecution was not able to establish that petitioner denied them financial support, the prosecution was able to clearly show that petitioner abandoned them, and such abandonment caused them mental or emotional anguish.” A Motion for Reconsideration was filed by the petitioner but the same was denied by the CA. The petitioner then brought his case to the High Court.

The Supreme Court held that there are several forms of abuse, the most visible form of which is physical violence. The others are sexual violence, psychological violence, and economic abuse.

The Court ruled that the prosecution in this case was able to satisfactorily establish petitioner’s marital infidelity, petitioner’s cohabitation with CCC who even bore him a child, and his abandonment of AAA.

“BBB’s psychological trauma was evident when she wept in open court upon being asked to narrate petitioner’s infidelity. In particular, BBB explained that she was deeply hurt because her father had another family and loved another woman other than her mother, BBB,” the Court said, highlighting that the child was only nine years old when she took the witness stand in 2015.

FULL TEXT OF G.R. No. 250219 at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/250219- # # #-vs-people-of-the-philippines/

SC: Abusive Mothers can be Offenders under VAWC Law; Fathers can File Case on Behalf of Abused Children

February 9, 2023

Mothers who abuse their children can be offenders under the Anti- Violence Against Women and Their Children (VAWC) Act, and fathers can apply for remedies under the law on behalf of the abused children.

Thus ruled the Supreme Court En Banc in an 18-page Decision penned by Justice Mario V. Lopez, granting the Petition for Certiorari filed by Randy Michael Knutson on behalf of his minor daughter. The petition challenged the ruling of the Taguig City Regional Trial Court (RTC) which had dismissed Knutson’s petition under Republic Act 9262, or the VAWC Act, for the issuance of Temporary and Protection Orders against Rosalina Knutson (Rosalina), the mother of his daughter.

The High Court also granted a permanent protection order in favor of the daughter.

On December 7, 2017, Knutson petitioned the Taguig City RTC for Temporary and Protection Orders against Rosalina, alleging that Rosalina placed their daughter in a harmful environment deleterious to the latter’s physical, emotional, moral, and psychological development.

The RTC dismissed Knutson’s petition on the ground that protection and custody orders under the VAWC Act could not be issued against a mother who allegedly abused her own child.

The RTC added that the remedies under the law were not available to Knutson, the father, because he was not a “woman victim of violence.”

Knutson moved for reconsideration of the dismissal, but was also denied by the RTC, prompting him to file a Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC.

In granting Knutson’s petition, the Supreme Court ruled that while the VAWC Act excludes men as victims, this does not mean the law denies a father of its remedies solely because of his gender or the fact that he is not a “woman victim of violence.”

The Court held that Section 9(b) of the VAWC Act explicitly allows “parents or guardians of the offended party” to file a petition for protection orders. This provision was further incorporated in the law’s implementing rules as well as in A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC or the Rule on Violence Against Women and Children, the Court said.

The Court further explained that the law speaks in clear language

when it used the word “parents” pertaining to the father and the mother of

the woman or child victim. The law did not qualify on who between the parents of the victim may apply for protection orders, held the Court.

In the case of Knutson, it is clearly stated in the title of his petition for issuance of a protection order that he is acting on behalf of his minor daughter. “There is no question that the offended party is [the daughter], a minor child, who allegedly experienced violence and abuse. Thus, [Knutson] may assist [his daughter] in filing the petition as the parent of the offended party,” ruled the Court.

The Court added that Knutson is not asking for a protection order in his favor. The petition he filed is “principally and directly for the protection of the minor child and not the father.”

The Court also ruled that the VAWC Act covers situations where the mother committed violent and abusive acts against her own child. “The fact that a social legislation affords special protection to a particular sector does not automatically suggest that its members are excluded from violating such law,” ruled the Court.

Citing Section 3 of the VAWC Act, the Court noted that “violence against women and children” was defined in the law as abusive acts “committed by any person.”

“The statute used the gender-neutral word ‘person’ as the offender

which embraces any person of either sex,” noted the Court.

“Logically, a mother who maltreated her child resulting in physical, sexual, or psychological violence defined and penalized under [the VAWC Act] is not absolved from criminal liability notwithstanding that the measure is intended to protect both women and their children,” the Court ruled.

Applying this to Knutson, the Court held that the RTC’s position that only children under the care of the woman victim of violence can be protected under the VAWC Act is a restrictive interpretation that “will frustrate the policy of the law to afford special attention to women and children as usual victims of violence and abuse.”

Such approach “will weaken the law and remove from its coverage instances where the mother herself is the abuser of her child,” held the Court, adding that this “negates not only the plain letters of the law and the clear legislative intent as to who may be offenders but also downgrades the country’s avowed international commitment to eliminate all forms of violence against children including those perpetrated by their parents.”

The Court added that the RTC’s “consoling statement that the children who suffered abuse from the hands of their own mothers may invoke other laws except [the VAWC Act] is discriminatory. The supposed reassurance is an outright denial of effective legal measures to address the seriousness and urgency of the situation…[given that] only [the VAWC Act] created the innovative remedies of protection and custody orders. Other laws have no mechanisms to prevent further acts of violence against the child.”

The Court concluded that in issuing its ruling, “the Court refuses to

be an instrument of injustice and mischief perpetrated against vulnerable

sectors of the society such as children victims of violence. The Court will not shirk its bounden duty to interpret the law in keeping with the cardinal principle that in enacting a statute, the legislature intended right and justice to prevail.” (Courtesy of the Supreme Court Public Information Office)

FULL TEXT OF G.R. No. 239215 dated July 12, 2022 at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/32898/

FULL TEXT OF Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo’s Separate Dissenting Opinion: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/32920/

FULL TEXT OF Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen’s Separate Opinion: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/32916/

FULL TEXT OF Associate Justice Benjamin S. Caguioa’s Dissenting Opinion: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/32923/

FULL TEXT OF Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier’s Concurring Opinion: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/32926/

FULL TEXT OF Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda’s Dissenting Opinion: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/32930/

FULL TEXT OF Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh’s Dissenting Opinion: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/32934/

HEADS UP! ✋

Net taxable incomes for compensation income earners will be adjusted starting next Sunday, Jan. 1, 2023. Read here to learn more.

SIM CARD REGISTATION REMINDERS!

Starting Dec. 27, 2022 all mobile subscribers must register their SIM cards or face deactivation after 180 days or 6 months

Here are the links to remember on December 27, 2022 for the SIM Card Registration.

For DITO Subscribers,
https://dito.ph/RegisterDITO

For Globe/TM/Gomo Subscribers,
https://new.globe.com.ph/simreg

For Smart/TNT/Sun Subsribers,
https://smart.com.ph/simreg

Note: Sa December 27 pa po available ang mga link

~ctto

Marilim & Marilim Law Office Lawyer & law firm

Purchasing a new SIM won’t be as easy as buying candy from a store anymore.

You’ll soon need to register and present a government ID with a photo, as stated in the SIM Registration Law.

If you’re an existing prepaid user, you still have to register your SIM. If not, your number will be deactivated.

The guidelines or IRR still need to be made before the law takes effect. More details: bit.ly/3ek0LUL

In the case of Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape Tañon Strait vs Sec. Reyes, G.R. No. 180771, 2015 ⚖️🐬

“The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.” - The 1987 Constitution, Article II, Section 16.

Guidelines on the Minimum Documentary Requirements for the Posting of Cash, Surety and Property Bonds, and for the Posting of Bail involving an Accused with Multiple Cases in Court

MARILIM and MARILIM LAW OFFICE congratulates Dra. Erika Jazmine O. Marilim for the successful opening of Marilim Dental Clinic.🦷✨

We are proud of you. 👏🏻

Our very own, Atty. Edgar John "Atty. EJ" O. Marilim as guest speaker during the Laguna College Graduation Rites

Opening really soon! 👀

Marilim Dental Clinic 🦷✨

We will announce our opening date soon! Stay tuned! 🦷✨

Happy Independence Day! 🇵🇭