Know Thy Law Ph

14/02/2026

"Individuals who are in love had the power to let love grow or let love die – it is a choice one had to face when love is not the love he/she expected." (PADILLA-RUMBAUA vs. RUMBAUA, G.R. No. 166738, August 14, 2009)

In the instant case, the wife sought to have her marriage declared void, claiming her husband was psychologically incapacitated because he refused to live with her, failed to support her, blamed her for his mother’s death, represented himself as single, and later lived with another woman.💔💔💔

The Supreme Court denied the petition, ruling that she failed to prove psychological incapacity. Under Article 36 of the Family Code, psychological incapacity must be serious, existing at the time of marriage, and incurable.

The Court held that the acts of the husband, while blameworthy, do not rise to the level of psychological incapacity required by law. They must be distinguished from mere difficulty, refusal, or neglect in the performance of marital obligations. The Court reiterated that it is not enough to show unwillingness or failure to comply with marital duties; there must be proof of a disabling psychological condition rooted in the respondent’s personality that effectively incapacitated him from fulfilling those obligations.
While the husband’s actions were hurtful and wrong, broken promises, emotional immaturity, neglect, or even infidelity do not automatically make a marriage void without proof of a serious psychological disorder.💔

My personal take: Love isn’t built on fate alone. Yes, crossing paths may feel meant to be—touched by faith, timing, or destiny—but what happens after that is no longer in the hands of fate. Love grows or fades by choice. Two people in love always have the power to nurture it, fight for it, or let it go. In the end, love stays not because it was written in the stars, but because someone chooses it, every single day.

15/01/2026

👵👴 Know Your Rights as a Senior Citizen!

Did you know that under Republic Act No. 9994 (Expanded Senior Citizens Act of 2010), our senior citizens are entitled to discounts and privileges? 👇

✨ 20% Discount + VAT Exemption (for personal use) on:

💊 Medicines and vaccines
– Including flu and pneumococcal vaccines, and other essential medical supplies

🩺 Doctors’ and health professionals’ fees
– In private hospitals, clinics, outpatient services, and even home health care

🏥 Medical and dental services
– Including lab tests, diagnostics, and other related services in private facilities

🚍✈️🚢 Transportation fares
– Land transport (jeepneys, buses, taxis, LRT, MRT, PNR)
– Domestic air travel and sea transport (based on actual fare and booking)

🏨🍽️ Hotels, restaurants, and recreation centers

🎬🎶 Entertainment and leisure
– Cinemas, theaters, concert halls, amusement and leisure facilities

⚱️ Funeral and burial services
– For the death of a senior citizen

💼 Tax Privilege
– Senior citizens who are minimum wage earners are exempt from individual income tax

💡🚿 Utility Discounts
– At least 5% discount on monthly water and electricity bills, as long as:
✔️ The meter is in the senior citizen’s name
✔️ Consumption does not exceed 100 kWh (electricity) and 30 m³ (water)
✔️ The discount applies per household, regardless of how many seniors live there

📌 Additional Update (Joint Administrative Order No. 24-02, Series of 2024):
All Senior Citizens are entitled to an additional 5% special discount on basic necessities and prime commodities (BNPC) listed under the JAO.
⚠️ This 5% discount does not come with VAT exemption.

🧡 These benefits are there to support, honor, and protect our seniors.
Let’s help spread awareness—because knowing your rights matters.

06/01/2026

A stray bullet struck a bystander. Is the shooter liable for the bystander's death? 🔫

Yes.

Stray bullets do not choose their victims. They strike suddenly and without warning, leaving an innocent person with no chance to avoid harm or defend herself. In such cases, the shooter did not intend to kill the bystander. He did not aim at her or plan to harm her. At first glance, the death may seem accidental—random and unintended—because the bullet was not meant for her.

However, criminal responsibility does not depend only on who the offender intended to kill. Under Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code, a person is liable not only for the crime he intended to commit but also for all the natural and logical consequences of his unlawful act.

In People v. Adriano (G.R. No. 205228, July 15, 2015), the offender deliberately fired a gun at another person in a criminal attack. The bullet instead struck a bystander and caused her death. Although the killing was unintended, it was a direct and natural result of the offender’s decision to use deadly force. The fact that the bullet hit someone other than the intended target does not excuse him from liability. This situation is known in law as aberratio ictus, where the offender misses his intended victim but harms or kills another person.

The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that it does not matter that the person killed was not the intended victim. What matters is that the offender committed a deliberate criminal act, and that act set in motion a chain of events that led to the bystander’s death. For this reason, the offender is liable not only for the attack on his intended target but also for the death of the innocent bystander.

In simple terms, el que es causa de la causa es causa del mal causado—“he who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” By firing the gun, the offender became legally responsible for the tragic outcome of his unlawful act, whether he foresaw it or not.

31/12/2025

Lahat ba nasabihan na ng "tumaba ka" o natanong kung kelan magaasawa? 😂😅

🤔 THINK BEFORE YOU SPEAK 🗣️

Republic Act No. 11313, also known as the “Bawal Bastos Law” or “Safe Spaces Act,” took effect on August 3, 2019, and declares gender-based s*xual harassment (GBSH) illegal as it violates a person’s dignity and human rights. The law seeks to create a safer, more respectful environment for everyone, regardless of s*x and gender.

Under this law, the following acts are punishable:
• Catcalling – making unsolicited, often s*xual remarks in public
• Taunting or insulting – mocking or verbally attacking someone
• Persistent unwanted comments on a person’s appearance – repeatedly commenting on how someone looks

Penalties of the foregoing acts under RA 11313:
• First offense: ₱1,000 fine, 12 hours of community service, and mandatory gender sensitivity training
• Second offense: 6–10 days imprisonment or a ₱3,000 fine
• Third offense: 11–30 days imprisonment and a ₱10,000 fine

Other acts punishable under the law include:
Cursing, relentless requests for personal details, misogynistic, transphobic, homophobic, and s*xist slurs, wolf-whistling, intrusive gazing (looking at someone in a lascivious or unpleasant way), use of s*xual names, unwanted invitations, persistent telling of s*xual jokes, inappropriate comments or demands, or any statement that invades a person’s personal space or threatens his/her safety.

It is important to note that these actions are punishable when committed by any person against any other person— either in the streets, public spaces or transportation, online platforms, workplaces, educational institutions, or training institutions.

REMEMBER: It’s not about your joke—it’s about how your words make someone feel.

*xualharassment