VAWC Law: AAA vs BBB Case Study

• VAWC Law: Updates and Jurisprudence presented by LT Kristine Joyce M Magtoles PCG, Legal Officer, CGLU-CGETDC and Acting OIC, CGLU-CGSOF

Case 1: AAA vs BBB (GR Nr 212448, 11 January 2018)

• Issue: Can a person who committed infidelity in another country be held liable for violation of the Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act?
• AAA married BBB in 2006, had two children, and BBB worked in Singapore starting in 2007, becoming a permanent resident in 2008.
• AAA and children moved back to her parents' house in Pasig City in 2010.
• AAA claimed BBB provided little to no financial support, had an affair with a Singaporean.
• April 19, 2011: AAA and BBB had a violent altercation at a hotel room in Singapore during AAA's visit with their children.
• AAA filed a complaint, and the prosecutor charged BBB with causing mental and emotional anguish through marital infidelity.
• A warrant of arrest and Hold-Departure Order were issued against BBB, who evaded arrest, leading to the case being archived.
• 2013: BBB's counsel filed a Motion to Revive Case, Quash Information, Lift Hold Departure Order and Warrant of Arrest.
• Trial court granted the motion to quash due to lack of jurisdiction, as the acts occurred in Singapore, dismissing the case.
• Question: Can Philippine courts exercise jurisdiction over psychological violence under RA 9262 committed through marital infidelity when the illicit relationship occurred outside the country?
• Supreme Court Decision: Yes, RA 9262 considers acts of violence against women and children as transitory or continuing crimes.
• These crimes have acts that occur in multiple locations, one where the violence started and the other where the suffering is experienced.
• RA 9262 criminalizes the psychological violence causing mental or emotional suffering, not the marital infidelity.
• Marital infidelity is one of the acts by which psychological violence can be committed.
• Even if the extra-marital affair occurred abroad, it does not necessarily place a prosecution under RA 9262 beyond the reach of Philippine courts.

Case 2: KNUTSON VS. FLORES & KNUTSON (G.R. No. 239215 | 12 July 2022)

• Issue: Can the husband file a case, in behalf of his child, against his abusive wife?
• Randy Knutson and Rosalina Knutson met in Singapore, got married and had a daughter named Rhuby.
• The family lived in the Philippines and Randy and Rosalina became estranged after he discovered her extra-marital affairs.
• Randy supported Rosalina and Rhuby
• Rosalina got hooked in casinos, incurred large debts, and had a boyfriend.
• Randy discovered Rosalina hurt Rhuby through physical abuse
• Neighbors complained about noisy parties and marijuana use at Rosalina's apartment.
• The lessor terminated the lease after marijuana plants were confiscated.
• Rosalina pointed a knife at Rhuby, threatening to kill her and texted Randy about her plan to kill their daughter and commit suicide.
• Randy, on behalf of minor Rhuby, filed a petition against Rosalina under RA No. 9262 for Temporary and Permanent Protection Orders.
• He alleged Rosalina placed Rhuby in a harmful environment to her development.
• Question 1: Can the father avail of the remedies under RA No. 9262 on behalf of his minor child against the mother's violent and abusive acts?
• Supreme Court Decision: Yes, RA 9262 explicitly allows “parents or guardians of the offended party” to file for protection orders.
• RA 9262 used the word "parents” which pertains to the father and the mother of the woman or child victim.
• Said law did not qualify on who between the parents of the victim may apply for protection orders, so the courts must not distinguish.
• Question 2: Does RA No. 9262 cover a situation where the mother committed violent and abusive acts against her own child?
• Supreme Court Decision: Yes, social legislation affords special protection to a particular sector, but its members are not excluded from violating such law.
• A mother who maltreated her child resulting in violence defined and penalized under RA No. 9262 is not absolved from criminal liability.

Case 3: JACINTO vs FOUTS (G.R. No. 250627. December 07, 2022)

• Issue: Does RA9262 apply to lesbian relationships?
• Sandra Jacinto (Petitioner) and Maria Fouts were a couple in a same-sex relationship for 16 years.
• Tensions arose after their break up during the 2017 Christmas season in Hong Kong, the petitioner would occasionally visit their shared home to retrieve her belongings.
• Disagreements over financial matters and property possession allegedly escalated to the petitioner attacking the respondent, leading to injuries.
• Sandra's threats caused Maria to suffer chest pain and difficulty in breathing, requiring medical attention.
• 2018: information for violation of Section 5(a) in relation to 2nd paragraph Section 6(a), of RA 9262 was filed in the RTC against Sandra.
• She moved to quash.
• Question: Does RA9262 apply to lesbian relationships?
• Supreme Court Decision: Yes.
• VAWC may also be committed "against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship."
• The gender-neutral word "person" who has or had a sexual or dating relationship with the woman encompasses even lesbian relationships.

Case 4: GO-TAN vs SPS TAN (GR Nr 168852, 30 September 2008)

• Issue: Can parents-in-law be held liable under RA9262?
• Sharica Go-Tan and Steven Tan were married; six years in, Sharica filed a Petition for issuance of TPO against Steven, and Spouses Perfecto and Juanita Tan, her parents-in-law before the RTC.
• She alleged that Steven, in conspiracy with respondents, were causing verbal, psychological and economic abuses upon her in violation of Section 5 of RA 9262, known as the "Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004."
• Spouses Tan filed a Motion to Dismiss with Opposition to the Issuance of PPO.
• The RTC lacked jurisdiction over their persons since, as parents-in-law they were not covered by R.A. 9262, so the RTC granted.
• May Spouses Perfecto & Juanita, parents-in-law of Sharica, be included in the Petition for the Issuance of a PO, in accordance with RA9262?
• The definition of VAWC under R.A. No. 9262 requires the offender to be related 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 that is expressly stated under Section 47.
• The principle of conspiracy may be applied to R.A. No. 9262.
• If conspiracy or action in concert to achieve a criminal design is shown, the act of one is the act of all the conspirators.
• The precise extent or modality of participation of each of them becomes secondary, since all the conspirators are principals.
• Section 5 of R.A. No. 9262 recognizes that the acts of violence against women and their children may be committed by an offender through another.
• Section 5: Acts of Violence Against Women and Their Children encompasses crimes committed through any of the following acts.
• Engaging in purposeful, knowing, or reckless conduct, personally or through another, that alarms or causes substantial emotional or psychological distress to the woman or her child.
• Under Section 8, the protection order that may be issued for the purpose of preventing further acts of violence against the woman or her child may include individuals other than the offending husband.
• Protection Orders shall include : Prohibition of the respondent from threatening to commit or committing, personally or through another, any of the acts mentioned in Section 5 and Prohibition of the respondent from harassing, annoying, telephoning, contacting or otherwise communicating with the petitioner, directly or indirectly.
• The presence or absence of conspiracy can be best passed upon after a trial on the merits.