View full case

SHARICA MARI L. GO-TAN v. SPS. PERFECTO C. TAN

FACTS:

Sharica Mari L. Go-Tan (petitioner) and Steven L. Tan (Steven) got married on April 18, 1999. They had two children. On January 12, 2005, petitioner filed a petition for a Temporary Protective Order (TPO) against Steven and her parents-in-law, Spouses Perfecto C. Tan and Juanita L. Tan (respondents), alleging verbal, psychological, and economic abuse in violation of the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004. The RTC granted the TPO on January 25, 2005.

Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that the RTC lacked jurisdiction over their persons since they were not covered by the law. Petitioner argued that respondents should be included under a liberal interpretation of the law to promote the protection and safety of victims. The RTC dismissed the case against respondents on the ground that they were not included as respondents under the law. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied by the RTC.

The issue in this case is whether respondents, as parents-in-law of petitioner, can be included in the petition for a protective order under the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004. Petitioner argues that the law should be understood in light of the provision on conspiracy under the Revised Penal Code and that respondents had community of design and purpose in tormenting her. On the other hand, respondents argue that they are not covered by the law since they are not related to the victim by marriage or a sexual or dating relationship.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not respondents, Spouses Perfecto & Juanita Tan, parents-in-law of the petitioner, may be included in the petition for the issuance of a protective order in accordance with Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise known as the "Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004".

RULING:

  1. YES. The Supreme Court ruled that the principle of conspiracy under the Revised Penal Code (RPC) may be applied suppletorily to R.A. No. 9262. This enables the inclusion of respondents (parents-in-law) in the petition for the issuance of a protective order. R.A. No. 9262 does not explicitly preclude the application of conspiracy, and Section 47 of R.A. No. 9262 allows for the suppletory application of the RPC. Furthermore, Section 5 of R.A. No. 9262 recognizes that acts of violence against women and their children may be committed through another person, supporting a liberal construction to promote the law's protective aims.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Suppletory Application Section 47 of R.A. No. 9262 expressly provides for the suppletory application of the RPC.

  • Conspiracy Doctrine The principle of conspiracy under Article 8 of the RPC can be applied suppletorily to R.A. No. 9262 in the absence of a contrary provision.

  • Liberal Construction Section 4 of R.A. No. 9262 mandates that the law be liberally construed to promote the protection and safety of victims of violence against women and their children.

  • Inclusivity of Offenders R.A. No. 9262’s provision, which states that violence may be committed by the offender "through another" person, extends the scope of potential respondents beyond the immediate offender.

  • Legislative Intent The intent of R.A. No. 9262 is to ensure the attainment of its protective purpose, promoting an interpretation in favor of victim safety.