Parents in law can be impleaded in the Protection Order in relation to the provisions on Law on Violence against women and their children

            In the case of Sharica Mari l. Go-Tan vs. Sps. Tan, G.R. No. 168852, September 30, 2008, the Supreme court ruled that a woman can implead her parent/s in law in her petition for issuance of protection order in relation to the provisions of law on Violence against women and their children(RA 9262).  The respondents in this case contend that they are not covered by R.A. No. 9262 since Section 3 thereof explicitly provides that the offender should be related to the victim only by marriage, a former marriage, or a dating or sexual relationship. They further argued that respondents cannot be characterized as indispensable or necessary parties, since their presence in the case is not only unnecessary but altogether illegal, considering the non-inclusion of in-laws as offenders under Section 3 of R.A. No. 9262.

                The Petitioner in this case submit that R.A. No. 9262 must be understood in the light of the provisions of Section 47 of R.A. No. 9262 which explicitly provides for the suppletory application of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and, accordingly, the provision on “conspiracy” under Article 8 of the RPC can be suppletorily applied to R.A. No. 9262; that her husband and parents in law had community of design and purpose in tormenting her by giving her insufficient financial support; harassing and pressuring her to be ejected from the family home; and in repeatedly abusing her verbally, emotionally, mentally and physically; that respondents should be included as indispensable or necessary parties for complete resolution of the case.

                The Court ruled in favour of the petitioner stating that while the said provision provides that the offender 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 Revised Penal Code. 

                Indeed, Section 47 of R.A. No. 9262 expressly provides for the suppletory application of the RPC, thus:

 SEC. 47.  Suppletory Application. - For purposes of this Act, the Revised Penal Code and other applicable laws, shall have suppletory application. (Emphasis supplied) 

            Thus conformably with the foregoing, the principle of conspiracy may be applied to R.A. No. 9262.  For once conspiracy or action in concert to achieve a criminal design is shown, the act of one is the act of all the conspirators, and the precise extent or modality of participation of each of them becomes secondary, since all the conspirators are principals.

                The court further noted that Section 5 of R.A. No. 9262 expressly recognizes that the acts of violence against women and their children may be committed by an offender through another, thus:

                SEC. 5.  Acts of Violence Against Women and Their Children. - The crime of violence against women and their children is committed through any of the following acts:

                x x x

                (h) 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.  This shall include, but not be limited to, the following acts:

                (1) Stalking or following the woman or her child in public or private places;

                (2) Peering in the window or lingering outside the residence of the woman or her child;

                (3) Entering or remaining in the dwelling or on the property of the woman or her child against her/his will;

                (4) Destroying the property and personal belongings or inflicting harm to animals or pets of the woman or her child; and

                (5) Engaging in any form of harassment or violence; x x x.  (Emphasis supplied)

                In addition, the court said, that 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, thus: 

                SEC. 8. Protection Orders. – x x x The protection orders that may be issued under this Act shall include any, some or all of the following reliefs:

                (a) Prohibition of the respondent from threatening to commit or committing, personally or through another, any of the acts mentioned in Section 5 of this Act;

                (b) Prohibition of the respondent from harassing, annoying, telephoning, contacting or otherwise communicating with the petitioner, directly or indirectly; x x x   (Emphasis supplied)

                Finally, Section 4 of R.A. No. 9262 calls for a liberal construction of the law, thus:

                SEC. 4. Construction. - This Act shall be liberally construed to promote the protection and safety of victims of violence against women and their children. (Emphasis supplied).

                It bears mention that the intent of the statute is the law and that this intent must be effectuated by the courts.  In the present case, the express language of R.A. No. 9262 reflects the intent of the legislature for liberal construction as will best ensure the attainment of the object of the law according to its true intent, meaning and spirit - the protection and safety of victims of violence against women and children.

                (In this case, the High Court reversed the Order of the Regional Trial Court in so far as the dismissal is concerned thus ruling on the issue of inclusion of the parents in law in the Protection Order. It did not delve on the presence or absence of conspiracy, the High Court, being not a trier of facts.)

One act enough to constitute Violation of Law on Violence Against Women and their Children (VAWC)

            

            In the case of Ang y Pascua vs. CA and G.R. No. 182835,  April 20, 2010, the one act of a former boyfriend sending to the girl the picture of a naked woman, not her, but with her face on it was considered an act violence against women punishable under RA 9262.

The antecedent facts of the case show that complainant (herein called Ms. A) and accused (herein called Mr. X) were classmates at a University in Aurora Province.  Mr. X courted Miss A and they became “on-and-off” sweethearts towards the end of 2004.  When Miss A learned afterwards that Mr. X had taken a live-in partner (now his wife), whom he had gotten pregnant, Miss A broke up with him. 

Before Mr. X got married, however, he got in touch with Miss A and tried to convince her to elope with him, saying that he did not love the woman he was about to marry.  Miss A rejected the proposal and told Mr. X to take on his responsibility to the other woman and their child.  Miss A changed her cellphone number but Mr. X somehow managed to get hold of it and sent her text messages.  Mr. X used two cellphone numbers for sending his messages, namely, 0920-4769301 and 0921-8084768.  Miss A replied to his text messages but it was to ask him to leave her alone.

In the early morning of June 5, 2005, Miss A received through multimedia message service (MMS) a picture of a naked woman with spread legs and with Miss A’s face superimposed on the figure (Exhibit A). The sender’s cellphone number, stated in the message, was 0921-8084768, one of the numbers that Mr. X used.  Miss A surmised that he copied the picture of her face from a shot he took when they were in Baguio in 2003 (Exhibit B).

After she got the obscene picture, Miss A got other text messages from Mr. X.  He boasted that it would be easy for him to create similarly scandalous pictures of her.  And he threatened to spread the picture he sent through the internet.  One of the messages he sent to Miss A, written in text messaging shorthand, read: “Madali lang ikalat yun, my chatrum ang tarlac rayt pwede ring send sa lahat ng chatter.”

Miss A sought the help of the vice mayor of Maria Aurora who referred her to the police.  Under police supervision, Miss A contacted Mr. X through the cellphone numbers he used in sending the picture and his text messages.  Miss A asked Mr. X to meet her at the Lorentess Resort in Brgy. Ramada, Maria Aurora, and he did.  He came in a motorcycle.  After parking it, he walked towards Miss A but the waiting police officers intercepted and arrested him.  They searched him and seized his Sony Ericsson P900 cellphone and several SIM cards.  While Mr. X was being questioned at the police station, he shouted at Miss A: “Malandi ka kasi!”

 Mr. X got the sender’s number and, pretending to be Miss A, contacted the person.  Mr. X claims that he got back obscene messages from the prankster, which he forwarded to Miss A from his cellphone.  This explained, he said, why the obscene messages appeared to have originated from his cellphone number.  Mr. X claims that it was Miss A herself who sent the obscene picture to him.  He presented six pictures of a woman whom he identified as Miss A.

After trial, the Regional Trial Court found the accused Mr. X guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5(h) RA 9262 and which was later on affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

On appeal to the Supreme Court, one of the issues raised was whether or not a single act of harassment, like the sending of the nude picture in this case, already constitutes a violation of Section 5(h) of R.A. 9262

            Mr. X argues that the one act of sending an offensive picture should not be considered a form of harassment.  He claims that such would unduly ruin him personally and set a very dangerous precedent.  But Section 3(a) of R.A. 9262 punishes “any act or series of acts” that constitutes violence against women.  This means that a single act of harassment, which translates into violence, would be enough.  The object of the law is to protect women and children.  Punishing only violence that is repeatedly committed would license isolated ones.

            Mr. X alleges that today’s women, like Miss A, are so used to obscene communications that her getting one could not possibly have produced alarm in her or caused her substantial emotional or psychological distress.  He claims having previously exchanged obscene pictures with Miss A such that she was already desensitized by them.

            In resolving the case, the Court cited the following pertinent provisions of RA 9262:

Section 3(a) of R.A. 9262 provides that violence against women includes an act or acts of a person against a woman with whom he has or had a sexual or dating relationship.  Thus:

SEC. 3.  Definition of Terms. – As used in this Act,

(a)        “Violence against women and their children” refers to any act or a series of acts committed by any person against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a common child, or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the family abode, which result in or is likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse including threats of such acts, battery, assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty.

x x x x

 Section 5 identifies the act or acts that constitute violence against women and these include any form of harassment that causes substantial emotional or psychological distress to a woman.  Thus:

 SEC. 5.  Acts of Violence Against Women and Their Children. – The crime of violence against women and their children is committed through any of the following acts:

                 

x x x x

h.         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. This shall include, but not be limited to, the following acts:

x x x x

5.         Engaging in any form of harassment or violence;

The Court stated that it cannot measure the trauma that Miss A experienced based on Mr. X’s low regard for the alleged moral sensibilities of today’s youth.  What is obscene and injurious to an offended woman can of course only be determined based on the circumstances of each case.  Here, the naked woman on the picture, her legs spread open and bearing Miss A’s head and face, was clearly an obscene picture and, to Miss A a revolting and offensive one.  Surely, any woman like Miss A, who is not in the pornography trade, would be scandalized and pained if she sees herself in such a picture.  What makes it further terrifying is that, as Miss A testified, Mr. X sent the picture with a threat to post it in the internet for all to see.  That must have given her a nightmare.

In conclusion, the Court found that the prosecution has proved each and every element of the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt and affirmed lower court’s decision finding Mr. X guilty for violation of Section 5(h) of RA 9262.