GR No 199522

Ricky Dinamling vs People of the Philippines

GR No 199522         June 22, 2015

Facts:

            Dinamling was charged with offenses in violation of RA No 9262. The incidents that happened were as follows: First, Dinamling would hit AAA’s head, pull her hair and kick her. Second, one night after having a drinking session with a friend, Dinamling went home to AAA, a woman whom he had an on-going five year relationship and out of which two children were borne. Upon arrival, Dinamling started to evict AAA from the house as he alleged that AAA was using the same as a whore house. Even when AAA was hesitant at first, she left when Dinamling finally threw a baby’s feeding bottle causing it to break. Third, when AAA was at the house of CCC, Dinamling came and shouted for AAA to come out and thereby insulting AAA and inflicting physical abuse while outside the house.

            The RTC rendered its decision finding Dinamling guilty of the charges against him. On appeal to CA, the latter affirmed the ruling of RTC. Dinamling then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the SC.

Issue:

            WON Dinamling should be held guilty of the offenses against RA No 9262 in finding fault on the testimony of the prosecution’s witness.

Held:

            The Court resolves to deny the petition for lack of merit. On its face, there is no reason to doubt the veracity and truthfulness of the victim AAA’s evidence. In particular, AAA’s testimony narrating the specific incidents which gave rise to the charges was clear, categorical and straightforward and, therefore, worthy of credence.

            Under Section 5 of RA No 9262, the acts of violence against women and their children is committed through causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to the woman or her child, but not limited to, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, and denial of financial support or custody of minor children or access to the woman’s child or children.

            As found out, Dinamling has committed acts of physical abuse, emotional abuse, and psychological abuse when he was in an on-going relationship with AAA. The testimony of the AAA as a lone witness to the actual perpetration of the act, as long as it is credible, suffices to establish the guilt of the accused because evidence is weighed and not counted.

            The Court emphasized also that Section 5 (i) of RA No 9262 penalizes forms of psychological violence, as well as physical, sexual, and economic violence against the woman. Psychological violence is a means employed by the perpetrator, while mental or emotional anguish is the effect sustained by the offended party.

            In order to establish psychological violence as an element of the crime, it is necessary to show proof of the commission of any of the acts enumerated in Section 5 (i) or similar such acts. And to establish mental or emotional anguish, it is necessary to present the testimony of the victim as such experiences are personal to this party. Apparently, all of these were complied in the case at bar.

GR No 193225

BBB vs AAA

GR No 193225         February 9, 2015

Facts:

            BBB and AAA were in a relationship; out of which was born two children. Apparently, AAA had a child borne from a previous relationship, named CCC. BBB and AAA married in civil rights and the birth certificates of the children, including CCC were amended to change their civil status legitimated by virtue of the said marriage. However, the marriage life for the two did not work well as BBB was allegedly womanizing, while AAA was allegedly being overly jealous. BBB was alleged also to have biases over DDD and EEE despite his promise to treat CCC as his own.

            Extremely hurt by these, AAA lived temporarily at a friend’s house with the children, leaving their conjugal home. AAA then found out that BBB was not paying the rentals due to the condominium unit they were occupying. It compelled AAA to find work to support family. AAA filed an application for issuance of TPO against BBB for the latter’s economic and psychological abuse inflicted on AAA.

            RTC issued a TPO against BBB. Upon appeal, CA affirmed the factual findings of the RTC. Hence, BBB comes to the Supreme Court to file a petition for review on certiorari. During the pendency of the case, though, BBB managed to let AAA sign a compromise agreement for the exercise of parental authority over, and support of DDD and EEE. Counsel for AAA though pointed out that AAA signed the MOA while emotionally distressed and without the lawyer’s advice and guidance.

Issue:

            WON compromise agreement may be upheld; WON BBB be issued a PPO.

Held:

            The petition is not a proper subject of a compromise agreement.

            Alleging psychological violence and economic abuse, AAA anchored her application of issuance of a TPO and PPO on the basis of the provisions of RA No 9262 which was issued by RTC and affirmed by the CA. The rules, however, intend that cases filed under the provisions of RA No 9262 be not subject to compromise agreements.

Section 23 (c) of AM No 4-10-11-SC explicitly prohibits compromise on any act constituting the crime of violence against women. On the other hand, the same administrative memorandum directs referral to mediation of all issues under the Family Code and other laws in relation to support, custody, visitation, property relations and guardianship of minor children, excepting therefrom those covered by RA No 9262.

The RTC and CA found substantial evidence and did not commit reversible errors when they issued the PPO against BBB. Events, which took place after the issuance of PPO, do not erase the fact that psychological, emotional and economic abuses were committed by BBB against AAA.

Under Section 16 of RA No 9262, a PPO shall be effective until revoked by the court upon the application of the person in whose favor the order was issued. Pending the resolution of the case, both parties executed an MOA, upon which basis compromise was sought to be rendered. However, this only urges the court to examine the factual circumstances during such agreement.

Hence, the case is remanded to RTC. In order to put finality on the principal query, Court held that the issuance of PPO was valid.

GR No 193960

Karlo Angelo Dabalos vs Regional Trial Court

GR No 193960         January 7, 2013

Facts:

            Dabalos was charged with a violation of RA No 9262 for using personal violence on the complainant by pulling her hair, punching her back, shoulder, and left eye, thereby demeaning and degrading the complainant’s intrinsic worth and dignity as a human being. Dabalos then was the boyfriend of Dabalos.

            After examining the supporting evidence, RTC found probable cause and consequently, issued a warrant of arrest against Dabalos. The latter then posted a cash bond for his provisional liberty and averred that at the time of the alleged incident, he was no longer in a dating relationship with respondent.

            RTC denied the motion of Dabalos. It did not consider material fact that the parties’ dating relationship had ceased prior to the incident, ratiocinating that since the parties had admitted a prior dating relationship, the infliction of slight physical injuries constituted an act of violence against women and their children under RA No 9262.

Issue:

            WON RA No 9262 should be construed in a manner that will favor Dabalos.

Held:

            The petition has no merit.

            Section 3 of RA No 9262 defines violence against women and their children as any act or 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 had 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 may result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse.

            Notably, while it is required that the offender has or had sexual or dating relationship with the offended woman for RA No 9262 be applicable, it is not indispensable that the act of violence be a consequence of such relationship. Nowhere in the law can such limitation be inferred. Hence, applying the rule on statutory construction that when the law does not distinguish, neither should the courts, then clearly, the punishable acts refer to all acts of violence against women with whom the offender has or had a sexual dating relationship.

            As correctly ruled by RTC, it is immaterial whether the relationship had ceased for as long as there is sufficient evidence showing the past or present existence of such relationship between the offender and the victim when the physical harm was committed.

GR No 168852

Sharica Mari Go-Tan vs Spouses Perfecto Tan and Juanita Tan

GR No 168852         September 30, 2008

Facts:

            Sharica Go-Tan and Steven Tan were married with two children Kyra Danielle and Kristen Denise. Barely six years into the marriage, Sharica filed a petition for the issuance of a TPO against Steven and her parents-in-law, Spouses Perfecto and Juanito Tan. The petition was based on the verbal, psychological and economic abuses of Steven and her parents-in-law against her in violation of RA No 9262 or the Anti-Violence against Women and their Children Act of 2004.

            RTC granted the petition and issued an Order/Notice in effect of the same. However, Spouses Tan appealed contending that the said law does not apply include parents-in-law as the violator. RTC then issued a Resolution dismissing the case as against the Spouses as they were not covered by RA No 9262.

            A petition for review on certiorari was filed by Sharica with the Supreme Court for pure question of law.

Issue:

            WON Spouses Tan, as parents-in-law be subject to RA No 9262 as a violator.

Held:

            The Court rules in favor of the Sharica.

            Section 3 of RA No 9262 defines violence against women and their children as any act or 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 had 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 may result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse.

            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 RPC.

In fact, Section 47 of the RA No 9262 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 No 9262, in which the special law is silent on a particular matter.

Thus, the principle of conspiracy may be applied to RA 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.

In addition, protection order that may be issued for the purpose of preventing further acts of violence against the women or her child may include individuals other than the offending husband.