Anda di halaman 1dari 11

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 567 29/01/2018, 8:48 PM

Carpio-Morales, Tinga, Velasco, Jr. and Brion, JJ.,


concur.

Petition dismissed.

Notes.·In the absence of any administrative action


taken against him by the Supreme Court with regard to a
judgeÊs certificates of service, an investigation conducted by
the Ombudsman encroaches into the CourtÊs power of
administrative supervision over all courts and its
personnel, in violation of the doctrine of separation of
powers. (Maceda vs. Vasquez, 221 SCRA 464 [1993])
The Supreme Court has consistently refrained from
interfering with the exercise by the Ombudsman of his
constitutionally mandated investigatory and prosecutory
powers, a rule based not only upon constitutional
considerations but also upon practical ones. (Montebon vs.
Tanglao-Dacanay, 455 SCRA 110 [2005])
··o0o··

G.R. No. 168852. September 30, 2008.*

SHARICA MARI L. GO-TAN, petitioner, vs. SPOUSES


PERFECTO C. TAN and JUANITA L. TAN, respondents.**

Anti-Violence against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 (R.A.


No. 9262); Conspiracy; Words and Phrases; „Violence against Women
and Their Children,‰ Defined; While Section 3 of R.A. No. 9262
provides that the offender be related or connected to the victim by
marriage, former marriage, or a sexual or dating relationship, it

_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.

** The present petition impleaded the Court of Appeals as respondent.


Pursuant to Section 4, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the name of the Court of
Appeals is deleted from the title.

232

232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Go-Tan vs. Tan

does not preclude the application of the principle of conspiracy under


the Revised Penal Code (RPC).·Section 3 of R.A. No. 9262 defines

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016141eadb2c7fea44ba003600fb002c009e/p/AQV465/?username=Guest Page 1 of 11
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 567 29/01/2018, 8:48 PM

ÂÂ[v]iolence against women and their childrenÊÊ as „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.‰ 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 RPC.
Same; Same; If the principle of conspiracy under Article 8 of the
Revised Penal Code (RPC) is applied to B.P. 22 in the absence of a
contrary provision therein, with more reason could the same
principle be applied suppletorily to R.A. No. 9262 because of the
express provision of Section 47 that the Revised Penal Code (RPC)
shall be supplementary to said law.·Most recently, in Ladonga v.
People, 451 SCRA 673 (2005), the Court applied suppletorily the
principle of conspiracy under Article 8 of the RPC to B.P. Blg. 22 in
the absence of a contrary provision therein. With more reason,
therefore, the principle of conspiracy under Article 8 of the RPC
may be applied suppletorily to R.A. No. 9262 because of the express
provision of Section 47 that the RPC shall be supplementary to said
law. Thus, general provisions of the RPC, which by their nature, are
necessarily applicable, may be applied suppletorily. Thus, 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.
Same; Same; 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.·It must be 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

233

VOL. 567, SEPTEMBER 30, 2008 233

Go-Tan vs. Tan

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: x x x
Same; Same; Statutory Construction; The intent of the statute is
the law.·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

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016141eadb2c7fea44ba003600fb002c009e/p/AQV465/?username=Guest Page 2 of 11
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 567 29/01/2018, 8:48 PM

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.
Same; Same; Same; Words and Phrases; The maxim „expressio
unios est exclusio alterius‰ is only an ancillary rule of statutory
construction which should be applied only as a means of discovering
legislative intent which is not otherwise manifest and should not be
permitted to defeat the plainly indicated purpose of the legislature.·
Contrary to the RTCÊs pronouncement, the maxim „expressio unios
est exclusio alterius‰ finds no application here. It must be
remembered that this maxim is only an „ancillary rule of statutory
construction.‰ It is not of universal application. Neither is it
conclusive. It should be applied only as a means of discovering
legislative intent which is not otherwise manifest and should not be
permitted to defeat the plainly indicated purpose of the legislature.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the resolutions of the


Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Br. 94.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Alfred Joseph T. Jamora for petitioner.
Jeanie S. Pulido for respondents.

234

234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Go-Tan vs. Tan

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the
Resolution1 dated March 7, 2005 of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Branch 94, Quezon City in Civil Case No. Q-
05-54536 and the RTC Resolution2 dated July 11, 2005
which denied petitionerÊs Verified Motion for
Reconsideration.
The factual background of the case:
On April 18, 1999, Sharica Mari L. Go-Tan (petitioner)
and Steven L. Tan (Steven) were married.3 Out of this
union, two female children were born, Kyra Danielle4 and
Kristen Denise.5 On January 12, 2005, barely six years into
the marriage, petitioner filed a Petition with Prayer for the
Issuance of a Temporary Protective Order (TPO)6 against
Steven and her parents-in-law, Spouses Perfecto C. Tan
and Juanita L. Tan (respondents) 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, paragraphs (e)(2)(3)(4), (h)(5),
and (i)7 of Republic Act (R.A.)

_______________

1 Penned by Judge Romeo F. Zamora, Records, p. 209.


2 Id., at p. 501.
3 Records, p. 21.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016141eadb2c7fea44ba003600fb002c009e/p/AQV465/?username=Guest Page 3 of 11
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 567 29/01/2018, 8:48 PM

4 Id., at p. 22.
5 Id., at p. 23.
6 Id., at p. 1.
7 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:
xxxx
(e) Attempting to compel or compelling the woman or her child to
engage in conduct which the woman or her child has the right to desist
from or to desist from conduct which the woman or her child has the
right to engage in, or attempting to restrict or restricting the womanÊs or
her childÊs freedom of movement or conduct by force or threat of force,
physical or other harm or threat of physical or other harm, or
intimidation directed against the woman

235

VOL. 567, SEPTEMBER 30, 2008 235


Go-Tan vs. Tan

No. 9262,8 otherwise known as the „Anti-Violence against


Women and Their Children Act of 2004.‰
On January 25, 2005, the RTC issued an Order/Notice9
granting petitionerÊs prayer for a TPO.
On February 7, 2005, respondents filed a Motion to
Dismiss with Opposition to the Issuance of Permanent
Protection

_______________

or her child. This shall include, but not limited to, the following acts
committed with the purpose or effect of controlling or restricting the
womanÊs or childÊs movement or conduct:

xxxx
(2) Depriving or threatening to deprive the woman or her children of
financial support legally due her or her family, or deliberately providing
the womanÊs children insufficient financial support;
(3) Depriving or threatening to deprive the woman or her child of a
legal right;
(4) Preventing the woman in engaging in any legitimate profession,
occupation, business or activity, or controlling the victimÊs own money or
properties, or solely controlling the conjugal or common money, or
properties;
xxxx
(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:
xxxx
(5) Engaging in any form of harassment or violence;
(i) Causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or
humiliation to the woman or her child, including, but not limited to,
repeated verbal and emotional abuse, and denial of financial support or
custody of minor children or denial of access to the womanÊs
child/children.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016141eadb2c7fea44ba003600fb002c009e/p/AQV465/?username=Guest Page 4 of 11
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 567 29/01/2018, 8:48 PM

8 Entitled „AN ACT DEFINING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN


AND THEIR CHILDREN PROVIDING FOR PROTECTIVE MEASURES
FOR VICTIMS, PRESCRIBING PENALTIES THEREFOR, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES.‰
9 Records, p. 26.

236

236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Go-Tan vs. Tan

Order Ad Cautelam and Comment on the Petition,10


contending that the RTC lacked jurisdiction over their
persons since, as parents-in-law of the petitioner, they were
not covered by R.A. No. 9262.
On February 28, 2005, petitioner filed a Comment on
Opposition11 to respondentsÊ Motion to Dismiss arguing
that respondents were covered by R.A. No. 9262 under a
liberal interpretation thereof aimed at promoting the
protection and safety of victims of violence.
On March 7, 2005, the RTC issued a Resolution12
dismissing the case as to respondents on the ground that,
being the parents-in-law of the petitioner, they were not
included/covered as respondents under R.A. No. 9262 under
the well-known rule of law „expressio unius est exclusio
alterius.‰13
On March 16, 2005, petitioner filed her Verified Motion
for Reconsideration14 contending that the doctrine of
necessary implication should be applied in the broader
interests of substantial justice and due process.
On April 8, 2005, respondents filed their Comment on
the Verified Motion for Reconsideration15 arguing that
petitionerÊs liberal construction unduly broadened the
provisions of R.A. No. 9262 since the relationship between
the offender and the alleged victim was an essential
condition for the application of R.A. No. 9262.

_______________

10 Records, p. 36.
11 Id., at p. 147.
12 Id., at p. 209.
13 Latin maxim meaning „The expression of one thing is the exclusion
of another.‰ (San Miguel Corporation Employees Union-Phil. Transport
and General Workers Org. v. San Miguel Packaging Products Employees
Union-Pambansang Diwa ng Manggagawang Pilipino, G.R. No. 171153,
September 12, 2007, 533 SCRA 125, 152).
14 Records, p. 316.
15 Id., at p. 376.

237

VOL. 567, SEPTEMBER 30, 2008 237


Go-Tan vs. Tan

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016141eadb2c7fea44ba003600fb002c009e/p/AQV465/?username=Guest Page 5 of 11
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 567 29/01/2018, 8:48 PM

On July 11, 2005, the RTC issued a Resolution16 denying


petitionerÊs Verified Motion for Reconsideration. The RTC
reasoned that to include respondents under the coverage of
R.A. No. 9262 would be a strained interpretation of the
provisions of the law.
Hence, the present petition on a pure question of law, to
wit:

WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENTS-SPOUSES PERFECTO


& JUANITA, PARENTS-IN-LAW OF SHARICA, 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.‰17

Petitioner contends 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
Steven and respondents 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.
On the other hand, respondents submit 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; that allegations on the conspiracy of
respondents require a factual determination which cannot
be

_______________

16 Id., at p. 510.
17 Rollo, p. 8.

238

238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Go-Tan vs. Tan

done by this Court in a petition for review; 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 Court rules in favor of the petitioner.
Section 3 of R.A. No. 9262 defines ÂÂ[v]iolence against
women and their childrenÊÊ as „any act or a series of acts
committed by any person against a woman who is his wife,

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016141eadb2c7fea44ba003600fb002c009e/p/AQV465/?username=Guest Page 6 of 11
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 567 29/01/2018, 8:48 PM

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.‰
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 RPC.
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)

Parenthetically, Article 10 of the RPC provides:

„ART. 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions of this Code.·


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.‰ (Emphasis supplied)

Hence, legal principles developed from the Penal Code may


be applied in a supplementary capacity to crimes punished

239

VOL. 567, SEPTEMBER 30, 2008 239


Go-Tan vs. Tan

under special laws, such as R.A. No. 9262, in which the


special law is silent on a particular matter.
Thus, in People v. Moreno,18 the Court applied
suppletorily the provision on subsidiary penalty under
Article 39 of the RPC to cases of violations of Act No. 3992,
otherwise known as the „Revised Motor Vehicle Law,‰
noting that the special law did not contain any provision
that the defendant could be sentenced with subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency.
In People v. Li Wai Cheung,19 the Court applied
suppletorily the rules on the service of sentences provided
in Article 70 of the RPC in favor of the accused who was
found guilty of multiple violations of R.A. No. 6425,
otherwise known as the „Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972,‰
considering the lack of similar rules under the special law.
In People v. Chowdury,20 the Court applied suppletorily
Articles 17, 18 and 19 of the RPC to define the words
„principal,‰ „accomplices‰ and „accessories‰ under R.A. No.
8042, otherwise known as the „Migrant Workers and
Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995,‰ because said words were

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016141eadb2c7fea44ba003600fb002c009e/p/AQV465/?username=Guest Page 7 of 11
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 567 29/01/2018, 8:48 PM

not defined therein, although the special law referred to


the same terms in enumerating the persons liable for the
crime of illegal recruitment.
In Yu v. People,21 the Court applied suppletorily the
provisions on subsidiary imprisonment under Article 39 of
the RPC to Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 22, otherwise
known as the „Bouncing Checks Law,‰ noting the absence
of an express provision on subsidiary imprisonment in said
special law.
Most recently, in Ladonga v. People,22 the Court applied
suppletorily the principle of conspiracy under Article 8 of
the

_______________

18 60 Phil. 712 (1934).


19 G.R. Nos. 90440-42, October 13, 1992, 214 SCRA 504.
20 G.R. Nos. 129577-80, February 15, 2000, 325 SCRA 572.
21 G.R. No. 134172, September 20, 2004, 438 SCRA 431.
22 G.R. No. 141066, February 17, 2005, 451 SCRA 673.

240

240 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Go-Tan vs. Tan

RPC to B.P. Blg. 22 in the absence of a contrary provision


therein.
With more reason, therefore, the principle of conspiracy
under Article 8 of the RPC may be applied suppletorily to
R.A. No. 9262 because of the express provision of Section
47 that the RPC shall be supplementary to said law. Thus,
general provisions of the RPC, which by their nature, are
necessarily applicable, may be applied suppletorily.
Thus, 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.23
It must be 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:
xxx
(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;

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016141eadb2c7fea44ba003600fb002c009e/p/AQV465/?username=Guest Page 8 of 11
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 567 29/01/2018, 8:48 PM

(2) Peering in the window or lingering outside the residence of


the woman or her child;

_______________

23 Ladonga v. People, supra note 22; People v. Felipe, G.R. No. 142505,
December 11, 2003, 418 SCRA 146, 176; People v. Julianda, Jr., G.R. No.
128886, November 23, 2001, 370 SCRA 448, 469; People v. Quinicio, G.R. No.
142430, September 13, 2001, 365 SCRA 252, 266.

241

VOL. 567, SEPTEMBER 30, 2008 241


Go-Tan vs. Tan

(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 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 law24


and that this intent must be effectuated by the courts. In
the present case, the express language of R.A. No. 9262
reflects

_______________

24 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., G.R.


No. 160528, October 9, 2006, 504 SCRA 90, 101; Eugenio v. Drilon, 322
Phil. 112; 252 SCRA 106 (1996); Philippine National Bank v. Office of the
President, 322 Phil. 6, 14; 252 SCRA 5, 11 (1996); Ongsiako v. Gamboa,
86 Phil. 50, 57 (1950); Torres v. Limjap, 56 Phil. 141, 145-146 (1931).

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016141eadb2c7fea44ba003600fb002c009e/p/AQV465/?username=Guest Page 9 of 11
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 567 29/01/2018, 8:48 PM

242

242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Go-Tan vs. Tan

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.
Thus, contrary to the RTCÊs pronouncement, the maxim
„expressio unios est exclusio alterius‰ finds no application
here. It must be remembered that this maxim is only an
„ancillary rule of statutory construction.‰ It is not of
universal application. Neither is it conclusive. It should be
applied only as a means of discovering legislative intent
which is not otherwise manifest and should not be
permitted to defeat the plainly indicated purpose of the
legislature.25
The Court notes that petitioner unnecessarily argues at
great length on the attendance of circumstances evidencing
the conspiracy or connivance of Steven and respondents to
cause verbal, psychological and economic abuses upon her.
However, conspiracy is an evidentiary matter which should
be threshed out in a full-blown trial on the merits and
cannot be determined in the present petition since this
Court is not a trier of facts.26 It is thus premature for
petitioner to argue evidentiary matters since this
controversy is centered only on the determination of
whether respondents may be included in a petition under
R.A. No. 9262. The presence or absence of conspiracy can
be best passed upon after a trial on the merits.
Considering the CourtÊs ruling that the principle of
conspiracy may be applied suppletorily to R.A. No. 9262,
the Court will no longer delve on whether respondents may
be

_______________

25 Coconut Oil Refiners Association, Inc. v. Torres, G.R. No. 132527,


July 29, 2005, 465 SCRA 47, 78; Dimaporo v. Mitra, Jr., G.R. No. 96859,
October 15, 1991, 202 SCRA 779, 792; Primero v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
Nos. 48468-69, November 22, 1989, 179 SCRA 542, 548-549.
26 Superlines Transportation Company, Inc. v. Philippine National
Construction Company, G.R. No. 169596, March 28, 2007, 519 SCRA 432,
441; Insular Life Assurance Company, Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
126850, April 28, 2004, 428 SCRA 79, 85.

243

VOL. 567, SEPTEMBER 30, 2008 243


Go-Tan vs. Tan

considered indispensable or necessary parties. To do so

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016141eadb2c7fea44ba003600fb002c009e/p/AQV465/?username=Guest Page 10 of 11
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 567 29/01/2018, 8:48 PM

would be an exercise in superfluity.


WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The
assailed Resolutions dated March 7, 2005 and July 11, 2005
of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 94, Quezon City in
Civil Case No. Q-05-54536 are hereby PARTLY
REVERSED and SET ASIDE insofar as the dismissal of
the petition against respondents is concerned.
SO ORDERED.

Ynares-Santiago (Chairperson), Chico-Nazario,


Nachura and Reyes, JJ., concur.

Petition granted, assailed resolutions partly reversed and


set aside.

Notes.·A battered woman has been defined as a


woman „who is repeatedly subjected to any forceful
physical or psychological behavior by a man in order to
coerce her to do something he wants her to do without
concern for her rights. Battered women include wives or
women in any form of intimate relationship with men.
Furthermore, in order to be classified as a battered woman,
the couple must go through the battering cycle at least
twice. Any woman may find herself in an abusive
relationship with a man once. If it occurs a second time,
and she remains in the situation, she is defined as a
battered woman.‰ (People vs. Genosa, 419 SCRA 537 [2004])
There is no conspiracy in just being married to an erring
spouse·for a spouse or any person to be a party to a
conspiracy as to be liable for the acts of the others, it is
essential that there be intentional participation in the
transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common
design. (Teves vs. Sandiganbayan, 447 SCRA 309 [2004])

© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016141eadb2c7fea44ba003600fb002c009e/p/AQV465/?username=Guest Page 11 of 11

Anda mungkin juga menyukai