GR No 141066

Evangeline Ladonga vs People of the Philippines

GR No 141066        February 17, 2005

Facts:

The spouses Ladonga were charged to have conspired and mutually helped one another in violating the provisions of BP Blg 22 in issuing a UCPB check on their account, knowing fully well that the same does not have sufficient funds. The said check was delivered to Alfredo Oculam to guarantee the loan availed of by the spouses. Apparently, when Oculam encashed the check, the same was dishonored by the Bank as the account of the spouses has already been closed.

This is where Evangeline Ladonga contended that she was not a signatory of the checks and had no participation in the issuance thereof, thus acquitting her from the judgment against her husband. She argued that the RTC erred in finding her criminally liable for conspiring with her husband as the principle of conspiracy is inapplicable to BP Blg 22. The CA affirmed RTC decision, hence the appeal.

Issue:

     WON Evangeline Ladonga is guilty of conspiracy with her husband in committing a violation against BP Blg 22.

Held:

          

          Principle of conspiracy is applicable to BP Blg 22 because the RPC provides that its provisions shall be supplementary to special laws unless the latter provides the contrary. Apparently, BP Blg 22 does not prohibit the applicability of the suppletory character of the provisions of RPC.

          Article 10 of RPC provides that, offenses which are or in the future may be punishable under special laws are not subject to the provisions of this Code. This Code shall be supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should specially provide the contrary.

          The first clause should be understood to mean only that the special penal laws are controlling with regard to offenses therein specifically punished. The second clause states that the code shall be supplementary to special laws, unless the elater should specifically provide the contrary.

          However, the conviction of Evangeline must be set aside as conspiracy was not established. Article 8 of the RPC provides that a conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. To be held guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, the accused must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity. The overt act or acts of the accused may consist of active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself or may consist of moral assistance to his co-conspirators by moving them to execute or implement the criminal plan.

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.