1. ESSAY EXERCISES TRACT and alternative method of answering

2. Question 1 (1991) One of the grounds for annulment of marriage is that either party, at the time of their marriage was afflicted with a sexually-transmissible disease, found to be serious and appears incurable. Two (2) years after their marriage, which took place on 10 October 1988, Bethel discovered that her husband James has a sexually-transmissible disease which he contracted even prior to their marriage although James did no know it himself until he was examined two (2) years later when a child was already born to them. Bethel sues James for annulment of their marriage. James opposes the annulment on the ground that he did not even know that he had such a disease so that there was no fraud or bad faith on his part. Decide.

3. I. The marriage can be annulled provided the sexually- transmissible disease is serious and incurable. Under the Family Code, one of the grounds for annulment of marriage is when either party was afflicted with a sexually- transmissible disease found to be serious and appears to be incurable. Assuming James’ disease is serious and incurable, the instant case would fall squarely within the ambit of the above stated law James’ contention is immaterial as the law does not whether or not the party afflicted with the disease is in good faith. When the law does not distinguish, neither should we distinguish. Therefore, the marriage can be annulled.

4. I. The marriage can be annulled provided James’ sexually-transmissible disease is serious and incurable. Under the law one of the grounds for annulment of marriage is when either party was afflicted with a sexually transmissible disease found to be serious and appears to be incurable. James’ contention that he is in good faith is immaterial as the law does not distinguish whether the afflicted party is in good faith or not.

5. Question 2 (1997) What do you understand by the doctrine of incorporation?

6. 2. The doctrine of incorporation means that a legal system adopts and makes effective within its jurisdiction rules of international law without the need of further legislative action. Under the Constitution, the Philippines applies the doctrine of incorporation but only to the extent of generally accepted principles of international law, to wit: the Philippines adopts generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land.

7. Question 3 (1994) Abe, married to Liza, contracted another marriage with Connie in Singapore. Thereafter, Abe and Connie returned to the Philippines and lived as husband and wife in the hometown of Abe in Calamba, Laguna. Can Abe be prosecuted for bigamy?

8. 3. Abe cannot be prosecuted for bigamy. Generally, penal laws of the Philippines are subject to the limitation of territoriality—applicable only with Philippine jurisdiction. In this case, the bigamous marriage was contracted in Singapore. Bigamy not being one of the exceptions to territoriality as enumerated in Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code, the same cannot be prosecuted in the Philippines by virtue of extraterritoriality. Thus, Abe cannot be prosecuted for bigamy.

9. 3. Abe cannot be prosecuted for bigamy as the bigamous marriage was not contracted in the Philippines. The Philippines adopts and observes the principle of territoriality in the application of its penal laws. Bigamy not being one of the exceptions to territoriality under Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code, the same cannot be prosecuted in the Philippines when committed outside the country.

10. Question 4 What marriages are exempt from the marriage license requirement?

11. 4. The following are marriages exempt from the marriage license requirement: a. Marriage in articulo mortis; b. Marriage between persons residing in a place without transportation to allow them to personally appear before the local civil registrar; c. Marriage between Muslims or cultural minorities solemnized in accordance with their customs or practice; and d. Marriage between persons who have lived together as husband and wife for five years and without legal impediment to marry each other.

12. Question 5 (2000) What is an impossible crime?

13. 5. An impossible crime is an act which would be an offense against person or property, where it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishments or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.

14. Question 6 Distinguish between crimes mala in se and crimes mala prohibita.

15. 6. The difference between crimes mala in se and crimes mala prohibita are as follows: a. As to concept, the former are those that are penalized as inherently wrong or evil; while the latter are those that are not inherently evil, but penalized by law for public good, welfare or interest; b. As to legal implication, the former admits of the defense of good faith or lack of criminal intent or negligence; the latter does not admit of such defense; and c. As to stages of execution, the former penalizes an actor in the consumated, frustrated and attempted stage; while the latter generally penalizes only consumated crimes.