Child custody; lesbian mother

"Pablo-Gualberto v. Gualberto, Supreme Court of the Philippines (28 June 2005)
Jun 28, 2005

Procedural Posture

The father of a four-year-old child filed a petition to annul his marriage with the child’s mother, who had left the marital home with the child and was allegedly in a relationship with another woman, and the father attached an ancillary request for custody of the child while the litigation was pending. The trial court granted custody pendente lite to the father. The mother then filed a motion to the same court to reverse its previous judgment and grant her custody, which she obtained.
The father filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. The Court decided to grant him temporary custody until the issue was resolved but it also stressed that his wife’s motion to lift the award of custody still had to be considered properly and ruled upon. Both parties then filed separate petitions to the Supreme Court, challenging the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court considered the petitions simultaneously.

Issue

Whether the mother’s relationship with another woman was a compelling reason to deprive her of the custody of her child.

Domestic Law
Child and Youth Welfare Code, Article 17.
Civil Code of the Philippines, Article 363.
Family Code of the Philippines, Articles 211 and 213.

International Law
Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 3.

Reasoning of the Court

After addressing procedural questions, the Court considered the substantive issues regarding the custody of a minor child. The so-called “tender-age presumption“ under Article 213 of the Family Code provided that, in case of separation of the parents, custody of children under seven years of age was granted to the mother unless the court found “compelling reasons” to order otherwise.
The mother argued that under Article 213 of the Family Code her child could not be separated from her because of his young age. Conversely, the father argued that the mother was unfit to take care of their son and therefore there were “compelling reasons” to grant custody of the child to him.
The Court noted that, under Article 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the best interest of the child was to be the primary consideration. The principle of the best interest of the child informed national jurisprudence concerning minors and was the paramount consideration in decisions concerning parental custody.
When making a decision on parental custody, courts had to take into account all factors that were relevant to the child’s well-being and development, including material resources, care and devotion, and “moral uprightness”.
Under national jurisprudence, mothers had been declared unsuitable for parental custody for various “compelling reasons”, including abandonment, unemployment, immorality, habitual drunkenness, drug addiction, maltreatment of the child, insanity, or affliction with a communicable disease.
In the present case, the father argued that the mother should not be granted custody on the basis of her immorality, due to an alleged same-sex relationship. However, the Court found that sexual orientation alone did not prove parental neglect or incompetence. To deprive the mother of custody, the father had to establish that her “moral lapses” had an adverse impact on the welfare of the child.
The Court concluded that it was not enough for the father to show merely that his wife was a lesbian in order to obtain custody. He also had to demonstrate that she conducted her relationship with a person of the same sex under circumstances that were unconducive to their child’s proper moral development. In the present case, there was no evidence that the child had been “exposed” to his mother’s sexual relationship or that his moral and psychological development had suffered as a result.
The Court found no compelling reason to deprive the mother of the custody of her child. It therefore reversed the Court of Appeals decision and reinstated the judgment of the Regional Trial Court."

https://www.icj.org/sogicasebook/pablo-gualberto-v-gualberto-supreme-court-of-the-philippines-28-june-2005/

Simple robbery committed with the use of information and communications technologies

"The Petition is denied.

Robert was charged with simple robbery under Article 294(5) of the RPC.
ART. 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons — Penalties. — Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of any person shall suffer:

. . . .

5. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period in other cases.
"The elements of simple robbery are: a) there is personal property belonging to another; b) that there is unlawful taking of that property; c) the taking is with intent to gain; and d) there is violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things."[30]

The prosecution was able to establish all the elements.

Robert unlawfully demanded from AAA261156 and BBB261156 the sum of PHP 20,000.00 under the condition that he will not upload AAA261156's nude pictures. When AAA261156 and BBB261156 haggled for a smaller amount, Robert got irritated and demanded for the higher sum of PHP 30,000.00. Clearly, the elements of intent to gain and intimidation of persons are evident from Robert's act of extorting or demanding from AAA261156 and BBB261156 a sum of money under the condition that he will not upload AAA261156's nude pictures.

Unlawful taking was also present in this case, even though Robert was immediately arrested after he took the red plastic bag containing the marked money. Verily, taking is considered complete the moment the offender gains possession of the thing, even if he or she did not have the opportunity to dispose of the same. There is, likewise, no need to prove the exact amount of money taken, as long as there is proof of the unlawful taking.[31]

Nevertheless, Robert assails the credibility of the witnesses and denies that he is the "Rolly Gatmaitan" who demanded money from AAA261156 through facebook messenger.

Robert's arguments must fail. It is a well-settled rule that absent any evidence that the lower courts overlooked or misappreciated the facts, their factual findings on the witness' credibility are entitled to the highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal, that is:
We have consistently ruled that on matters involving the credibility of witnesses, the trial court is in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses since it has observed firsthand their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grilling examination. The trial court has the best opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses while on the stand, it can discern whether or not they are telling the truth. The unbending jurisprudence is that its findings on the matter of credibility of witnesses are entitled to the highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal. It is well to remind appellant that when the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the Court of Appeals, as in the case at bar, these are generally binding and conclusive upon this Court.[32] (Citations omitted)
At any rate, the mobile phone of BBB261156, a Huawei Y7 containing the nude pictures and videos of AAA261156, was recovered from Robert during the entrapment operation.[33] Under the Rules of Court, a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole act.[34] Here, Robert's unexplained possession of BBB261156's cellphone gives credence to the fact that he was the "Rolly Gatmaitan" who extorted money from AAA261156 and BBB261156.

As to the penalty, since the robbery was facilitated through, and with the use of information and communications technology, i.e. internet and social media, RA 10175 applies. Section 6 of the law provides that the penalty to be imposed shall be one degree higher than that provided for by the RPC to wit:
SEC. 6. All crimes defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, if committed by, through and with the use of information and communications technologies shall be covered by the relevant provisions of this Act: Provided, That the penalty to be imposed shall be one (1) degree higher than that provided for by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, as the case may be.
However, although the RTC and the CA correctly recognized the application of RA 10175, they erred in imposing the proper penalty.

Under Article 294(5) of the RPC, simple robbery is punishable by prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period. Under Section 6 of RA 10175, the penalty to be imposed shall be one degree higher than that provided by the RPC, as amended, hence, prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its medium period.

Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and absent any aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the minimum term is to be taken from anywhere within the range of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period or four years, two months and one day to 10 years. On the other hand, the maximum term should be taken from the medium period of the imposable penalty or 12 years, five months and 11 days to 14 years, 10 months and 20 days. Thus, the penalty imposed by the RTC should be modified to eight years and one day of prision mayor as minimum, to 12 years, five months and 11 days of reclusion temporal as maximum.

ACCORDINGLY, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision dated July 5, 2021 and the Resolution dated May 25, 2022 of the Court of Appeals, Manila in CA-G.R. CR No. 43884 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. ROBERT CATAN y MASANGKAY is found GUILTY of simple robbery committed with the use of information and communications technologies. He is sentenced to suffer imprisonment of eight years and one day of prision mayor as minimum, to 12 years, five months and 11 days of reclusion temporal as maximum."


[ G.R. No. 261156, August 23, 2023 ]
ROBERT CATAN Y MASANGKAY, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/69700