You are on page 1of 10

CASE DIGEST: Go-Tan v. Spouses Tan, G.R. No.

168852
Title: Go-Tan v. Spouses Tan, G.R. No. 168852
Subject Matter: Applicability of the doctrine of conspiracy under the Revised
Penal Code to R.A. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Children Act of
2004)

Facts:
On April 18, 1999, Sharica Mari Go-Tan and Steven Tan were married. Out of this
union, two female children were born, Kyra Danielle and Kristen Denise. On January 12,
2005, barely six years into the marriage, petitioner Go-Tan filed a petition with prayer
for the issuance of a Temporary Protective Order (TPO) against Steven, in conspiracy
with respondents, were causing verbal, psychological, and economic abuses upon her in
violation of Section 5, paragraphs (e) (2) (3) (4), (h) (5) and (i) of Republic Act No.
9262.

Issue:
Whether or not respondents-spouses, Perfecto and Juanita, parents-in-law of Sharica,
may be included in the petition for the issuance of a protective order, in accordance
with RA 9262.

Held:

Yes, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner. While the provisions of RA 9262 provides
that the offender be ralted or connected to the victim by marriage, former marriage, or
a sexual or dating relationship, it does not preclude the application of the principle of
conspiracy under the RPC. In Section 47 of RA 9262, it has expressly provides for the
suppletory application of the RPC. Hence, legal principles developed from the Penal
Code may be applied in a supplementary capacity to crimes punished under special
laws, such as RA 9262 in which the special law is silent on a particular matter.

GARCIA v. DRILON
G.R. No. 179267
June 25, 2013
699 SCRA 352

FACTS: Petitioner Jesus Garcia (husband) admitted having an affair with a bank
manager. His infidelity emotionally wounded private respondent which spawned several
quarrels that left respondent wounded. Petitioner also unconscionably beat up their
daughter, Jo-ann.

The private respondent was determined to separate from petitioner. But she was afraid
he would take away their children and deprive her of financial support. He warned her
that if she pursued legal battle, she would not get a single centavo from him. After she
confronted him of his affair, he forbade her to hold office. This deprived her of access
to full information about their businesses. Hence, no source of income.

Thus, the RTC found reasonable ground to believe there was imminent danger of
violence against respondent and her children and issued a series of Temporary
Protection Orders (TPO) pursuant to RA 9262.

Republic Act No. 9262 is a landmark legislation that defines and criminalizes acts of
violence against women and their children (VAWC) perpetrated by women's intimate
partners.

Petitioner hence, challenged the constitutionality of RA 9262 on making a gender-based


classification.

ISSUE: Whether or not RA 9262 is discriminatory, unjust, and violative of the equal
protection clause.

RULING: No. The equal protection clause in our Constitution does not guarantee an
absolute prohibition against classification. The non-identical treatment of women and
men under RA 9262 is justified to put them on equal footing and to give substance to
the policy and aim of the state to ensure the equality of women and men in light of the
biological, historical, social, and culturally endowed differences between men and
women.

RA 9262, by affording special and exclusive protection to women and children, who are
vulnerable victims of domestic violence, undoubtedly serves the important
governmental objectives of protecting human rights, insuring gender equality, and
empowering women. The gender-based classification and the special remedies
prescribed by said law in favor of women and children are substantially related, in fact
essentially necessary, to achieve such objectives. Hence, said Act survives the
intermediate review or middle-tier judicial scrutiny. The gender-based classification
therein is therefore not violative of the equal protection clause embodied in the 1987
Constitution.

Constitutionality of RA 9262 "Anti-Violence Against Women and Their


Children Act of 2004"

Dabalos vs. RTC Branch 59 of Angeles City, Pampanga


G.R. No. 193960
Facts:

Dabalos had willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously used personal violence against the
complainant whom he had a dating relationship with. The said violence constituted the
pulling of hair, punching the complainant's back, shoulder, and left eye which have
demeaning and degrading effects on the complainant's intrinsic worth and dignity as a
human being, in violation of Section 5 (a) of the Republic Act 9262. In Dabalos'
defense, he averred that the relationship had already ceased at the time of the alleged
incident.

Issue:

Whether or not RA 9262 be construed when the dating relationship was not the
proximate cause of the violence?

Held:

Yes. The law provides that any act can be considered as a crime of violence against
women through physical harm when it is committed against a woman or her child and
the woman is the offender's wife, former wife, or with whom he has or had sexual or
dating relationship or with whom he has a common child, and when it results in or is
likely to result in physical harm or suffering.

Applying the rule on statutory construction that when the law does not distinguish,
neither should the courts, the punishable acts refer to all acts of violence against
women with whom the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship. It did not
distinguish that the act of violence should be a consequence of such relationship.

RUSTAN ANG y PASCUA, Petitioner, vs.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and IRISH SAGUD, Respondents.

G.R. No. 182835; April 20, 2010

Facts:

After receiving from the accused Rustan via multimedia message service (MMS) a
picture of a naked woman with her face superimposed on the figure, Complainant filed
an action against said accused for violation of the Anti-Violence Against Women and
Their Children Act or Republic Act (R.A.) 9262.
The sender’s cellphone number, stated in the message, was 0921-8084768, one of the
numbers that Rustan used. Irish surmised that he copied the picture of her face from a
shot he took when they were in Baguio in 2003. The accused said to have boasted that
it would be easy for him to create similarly scandalous pictures of her and threatened to
spread the picture he sent through the internet.

The trial court later found Rustan guilty of the violation of Section 5(h) of R.A. 9262. On
Rustan’s appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA), the latter rendered a decision affirming
the RTC decision. The CA denied Rustan’s motion for reconsideration in a resolution
dated April 25, 2008. Thus, Rustan filed the present for review on certiorari.

Issue:

Whether or not the RTC properly admitted in evidence the obscene picture presented in
the case?

Held:

Yes. The Supreme Court affirms the decision of the CA.

Rustan claims that the obscene picture sent to Irish through a text message constitutes
an electronic document. Thus, it should be authenticated by means of an electronic
signature, as provided under Section 1, Rule 5 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence (A.M.
01-7-01-SC).

However, Rustan is raising this objection to the admissibility of the obscene picture for
the first time before the Supreme Court. The objection is too late since he should have
objected to the admission of the picture on such ground at the time it was offered in
evidence. He should be deemed to have already waived such ground for objection.

Moreover, the rules he cites do not apply to the present criminal action. The Rules on
Electronic Evidence applies only to civil actions, quasi-judicial proceedings, and
administrative proceedings.

In conclusion, the Court finds that the prosecution has proved each and every element
of the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt.

DOLINA V. VALLECERA

GR No. 182367- [December 15, 2010]


DOCTRINE:

To be entitled to legal support, petitioner must, in proper action, first establish the
filiation of the child, if the same is not admitted or acknowledged. If filiation is beyond
question, support follows as matter of obligation.

FACTS:

In 2008, Cherryl Dolina filed a petition with aprayer for the issuance of a temporary
protection order against Glenn Vallecera before RTC for alleged woman and childabuse
under RA 9262. In the pro forma complaint cherryl added a prayer for support for their
supposed child. She based such prayer on the latter’s certificate of live birth which
listed Vallecera ‘s employer, to withhold from his pay such amount of support as the
RTC may deem appropriate.

Vallecera opposed petition and claimed that Dolina’s petition was essentially one
for financial support rather than for protection against woman and child abuses, that he
was not the child’s father and that the signature in the birth certificate was not here. He
also added that the petition is a harassment suit intended to for him to acknowledge
the child as his and therefore give financialsupport.

RTC dismissed petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the RTC correctly dismissed Dolina’s action for temporary protection
and denied her application for temporary support for her child?

HELD:

Yes.

RATIO:

Dolina evidently filed the wrong action to obtain support for her child. The object of
R.A. 9262 under which she filed the case is the protection and safety of women and
children who are victims of abuse or violence. Although the issuance of a protection
order against the respondent in the case can include the grant of legal support for the
wife and the child, this assumes that both are entitled to a protection order and to legal
support. In this case neither her or her child lived with Vallecera.

To be entitled to legal support, petitioner must, in proper action, first establish the
filiation of the child, if the same is not admitted or acknowledged. Since Dolina’s
demand for support for her son is based on her claim that he is Vallecera’s
illegitimate child, the latter is not entitled to such support if he had not acknowledged
him, until Dolina shall have proved his relation to him. The child’s remedy is
to file through her mother a judicial action against Vallecera for compulsory recognition.
If filiation is beyond question, support follows as matter of obligation. In short,
illegitimate children are entitled to support and successional rights but their filiation
must be duly proved.

Dolina’s remedy is to file for the benefit of her child an action against Vallecera for
compulsory recognition in order to establish filiation and then demand support.
Alternatively, she may directly file an action for support, where the issue of compulsory
recognition may be integrated and resolved.

RICKY DINAMLING v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES


G.R. No. 19952 June 22, 2015

Facts:
Petitioner Ricky Dinamling was charged in two criminal information for violation of R.A.
No. 9262. It is alleged in the information that he feloniously inflicts psychological
violence upon a woman with whom he has two children, resulting to mental and
emotional anguish and public humiliation by repeated verbal and emotional abuse
consisting of several bad and insulting utterance directed against the victim. Dinamling
pleaded not guilty to both charges.

Issue:

Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of violation of RA No. 9262.

Ruling:
The elements of the crime 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, or is a woman with
whom the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or is a woman with
whom such offender has a common child. As for the woman’s child or children, they
may be legitimate or illegitimate, or living within or without the family abode.
(3) The offender causes on the woman and/or child mental or emotional anguish; and
(4) The anguish is caused through the 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 acts or omissions.

In this case, the elements have been proven and duly established. It is undisputed that
thevictim is a woman who has then in a five-year ongoing relationship with Dinamling
and had two common children. The woman is often in fear of petitioner due to latter’s
physical and verbal abuse.
Psychological violence is an element of violation of Section 5 (RA No. 9262) just like the
mental or emotional anguish caused on the victim. It is the means employed by the
perpetrator, while mental or emotional anguish is the effect caused to or the damage
sustained by the offended party. To establish psychological violence as the element of
the crime, it is necessary to show proof of commission of any of the acts enumerated in
Section 5(i) or similar acts. And to establish mental or emotional anguish, it is necessary
to present a testimony of the victim as such experiences are personal to this party.

In fact, neither the physical injuries suffered by the victim nor the actual physical
violence done by the perpetrator are necessary to prove the essential elements of the
crime as defined in Section 5(i) of RA 9262. The only exception is, as in the case at bar,
when the physical violence done, petitioner Dinamling's acts of publicly punching,
kicking and stripping her pants and underwear, although obvious acts of physical
violence, are also instances of psychological violence since it was alleged and proven
that they resulted in the victim’s public ridicule. Accused is alleged to have caused the
mental and emotional suffering; in which case, such acts of physical violence must be
proven. In this instance, the physical violence was a means of causing mental or
emotional suffering. As such, whether or not it led to actual bodily injury, the physical
violence translates to psychological violence since its main effect was on the victim's
mental or emotional well-being.

You might also like