People v. Labiaga (G.R. No.

02867, July 15, 2013)

Petitioner/Appellee: People of the Philippines
Respondent/Appellant: Regie Labiaga
Ponente:Justice Carpio

FACTS

Version of the Prosecution:

Gregorio Conde and his two daughters were in their home in Iloilo when Gregorio stepped outside. One of his
daughters, Glenelyn was in their store.

Labiaga shot Gregorio who was 5 meters away from him. Gregorio called for his other daughter for help. The two
daughters eventually rushed to their father’s side. Judy was shot in the abdomen. Labiaga said that Judy is already dead
and he fled together with his companions.

Gregorio and Judy were rushed to the hospital;. Judy was pronounced DOA while Gregorio made a full recovery after
treatment of his gunshot wound.

Dr. Obaniana conducted an autopsy of judy and stated that her death was caused by cardiopulmonary arrest secondary
to Cardiac tamponade due to the gunshot wound.

Dr. Figura, on the other hand examined Gregorio after the incident. He found out that Gregorio sustained a gunshot
wound measuring 1 cm in diameter in his right forearm and abrasion wounds hematoma formation in his right shoulder.

Version of the defense:

Labiaga admitted that he was present during the shooting incident however he claimed that it was self-defense.
Gregorio was armed with a shot-gun and challenged him to a fight. Gregorio attempted to shoot Labiaga but the
shotgun jammed. Labiaga tired to wrest the shotgun from Gregorio and during the struggle, the shotgun fire.

Labiaga claimed that he did not know if anyone was hit that gunshot.

Demapanag claimed that at the time of the shooting, he was in D&D Ricemil, which was approximately 44 km away from
the crime scene. This was corroborated by Frederick, Demapanag’s brother.

The RTC ruled in favor of Demapanag due to insufficieny of evidence. Labiaga however was convicted of murder and
frustrated murder.

Labiaga was not happy with the RTC decision claiming that the lower court erred in convicting him of the crime of
murder and frustrated murder since the prosecution fialed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable dubt.

The CA-Cebu upheld the conviction of Labiaga. Thus, this appeal.

ISSUE

WON Labiaga is guilty of the crime of frustrated murder.

RULING

No, Labiaga is not guilty of the crime of frustrated murder since under Article 6 of the RPC the felony is frustrated when
the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but did not produce it
by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. In addition, in the case of Serrano v. People, it stated that
to be a frustrated murder, there must be evidence that the wound is fatal.

In this case, it did not appear that the wound sustained by Gregorio was fatal/mortal, supported by the examination
performed by Dr. Figura. Since the wound was not mortal, the Court finds that Labiaga is guilty of attempted murder and
not frustrated.
Norberto Cruz vs. People G.R. No. 166441, October 08, 2014
Petitioner/Appellee: Norberto Cruz
Respondent/Appellant: People of the Philippines
Ponente:Justice Bersamin

FACTS:

Norberto and his wife employed AAA and BBB to help them in selling their wares in Bangar, La Union which was then
celebrating its fiesta. Two tents were fixed in order that they will have a place to sleep.

At around 1:00 o'clock in the morning, AAA and BBB went to sleep. Less than an hour later, AAA was awakened when
she felt that somebody was on top of her. Norberto was mashing her breast and touching her private part. AAA realized
that she was divested of her clothing and that she was totally naked. Norberto ordered her not to scream or she'll be
killed. AAA tried to push Norberto away and pleaded to have pity on her but her pleas fell on deaf ears. She fought back
and kicked Norberto twice.

Norberto was not able to pursue his lustful desires. Norberto offered her money and told her not to tell the incident to
her mother otherwise, she will be killed. AAA went out of the tent to seek help from the house boy but she failed to
wake him up. Thirty minutes later, when AAA returned to their tent, she saw Norberto touching the private parts of BBB.
AAA saw her companion awake but her hands were shaking. When she finally entered the tent, Norberto left and went
outside.

Later that day, AAA and BBB narrated to Jess the incident that took place that early morning. Later still, while they were
on their way to fetch water, AAA and BBB asked the people around where they can find the municipal building. An old
woman pointed to them the place.AAA and BBB went straight to the municipal hall where they met a policeman by the
name of "Sabas".

They told Sabas the sexual advances made to them by Norberto. Norberto was summoned to the police station where
he personally confronted his accusers. When Norberto's wife, Belinda, arrived at the police station, an argument ensued
between them.
Version of the Defense

Norberto denied the criminal acts imputed to him.

Norberto denies the commission of the crime alleging that he could not possibly do the acts imputed out in the open as
there were many people preparing for the “simbang gabi”. Considering the location of the tents, which were near the
road and the municipal hall, he could not possibly do the dastardly acts out in the open, not to mention the fact that
once AAA and BBB would scream, the policemen in the municipal hall could hear them. He further assails the credibility
AAA for the crime of rape, alleging that the complaints were filed only for the purpose of extorting money from him.

Petitioner argued that the record does not indicate if he himself was also naked, or that his penis was poised to
penetrate her. Norberto Cruz was charged with attempted rape and acts of lasciviousness involving different victims.

RTC Ruling: Petitioner was found guilty of both crimes.

CA Ruling: Petitioner was found guilty with respect to the crime of attempted rape but was acquitted with respect to the
crime of acts of lasciviousness due to insufficiency of evidence.

ISSUE:

Is the petitioner guilty of the crime of attempted rape against AAA?

HELD:

No, Norberto is not guilty of the crime of attempted rape since the offender does not perform all the acts of execution of
having carnal knowledge. To establish attempted rape, it must show that the overt acts of the offender would ripen into
rape. He cannot be held liable for attempted rape without such overt acts demonstrating the intent to lie with the
female.

In short, The petitioner climbed on top of the naked victim and was already touching her genitalia with his hands and
mashing her breasts when she freed herself from his clutches and effectively ended his designs on her. The intent to
penetrate is manifest only through the showing of the penis capable of consummating the sexual act of touching the
external genitalia of the female. Without such showing, only the felony of acts of lasciviousness is committed.

Norberto’s embracing and touching the victim’s vagina and breasts did not directly manifest his intent to lie with her.
The lack of evidence showing his erectile penis being in the position to penetrate her when he was on top of her
deterred any inference about his intent to lie with her. At most, his acts reflected lewdness and lust for her. The intent
to commit rape should not easily be inferred against the petitioner, even from his own declaration of it, if any, unless he
committed overt acts leading to rape. Hence, Cruz is guilty only of acts of lasciviousness and not attempted rape.

Canceran v. People, GR no. 206442, July 1, 2015

Petitioner/Appellee: Jovito Canceran
Respondent/Appellant: People of the Philippines
Ponente:Justice Mendoza

FACTS
Version of the Prosecution

Damalito Ompoc, a security guard saw Canceran approach one of the counters in Ororama. Canceran was pushing a cart
which contained 2 boxes of Magic Flake (Php 1,423). Ompoc went to the packer and asked if the boxes had been
checked. Upon inspection, it was discovered that they were not Magic Flakes biscuits but 14 smaller boxes of Ponds
White Beauty Cream (Php 28,627.20).

Canceran hurriedly left and a chase ensued. Canceran reached Don Mariano gate. He stumbled as he attempted to ride a
jeepney. He was questioned and he tried to settle with the guards and even pffered personal effects to pay for the items
he tried to take. William Arcenio, the Customer Relaion Officer of Ororama Mega Center , refused to settle.

Version of the Defense

Canceran claimed that he was a promo merchandiser. He was in Ororama to buy medicine for his wife. On his way out, a
male person around 20 yrs of age requested hi to pay for the items in his cart at the cashier. He did not know the name
of the man who gave him the money for the payment of the two boxes labelled Magic Flakes.

He still obliged with the request. He denied knowing the contents of the said two boxes and that after paying at the
cashier, he wnet out of the building and went to to take a jeepney. 3 persons ran after him and he was caught. He was
taken to the 4th floor of Ororama where he was mauled and kicked by one of those who chased him. They took his phone
and cash (Php 2,500) and Ompoc took his Seiko watch and ring. AMion took his necklace.

The RTC ruled that Canceran was guilty of consummated theft.

Canceran filed an appeal to the CA. The CA debunked Canceran’s contention that there was no taking because he merely
pushed the cart loaded with goods to the cashier’s booth for payment and stopped there. The appellate court held that
the unlawful taking was deemed complete from the moment the offender gained possession of the thing, even he had
no opportunity to dispose the items.

ISSUE

Whether or not Canceran is guilty for the crime of frustrated theft.

RULING

No, Canceran is not guilty of frustrated theft since it is provided in the jurisprudence that there is no crime of frustrated
theft. "Unlawful taking, which is the deprivation of one’s personal property, is the element which produces the felony in
its consummated stage. At the same time, without unlawful taking as an act of execution, the offense could only be
attempted theft, if at all."

In this case, Canceran wasn’t able to perform all acts of execution by reason of some cause independent of accused’s
will, that is, he was discovered by the employees of Ororama Mega Center who prevented him from further carrying
away said 14 cartons of Ponds White Beauty Cream. Attempted theft.
Eden Etino v. People, GR No. 206632, Feb. 7, 2018
Petitioner/Appellee: Edenetino
Respondent/Appellant: People of the Philippines
Ponente:Justice Del Castillo

FACTS

Prosecution

Jessierel Leyble and his companions were walking on their way home to Brgy. Pispis, Maasin, Iloilo. He was shot with a
12 gauge shotgun by Eden Etino. Leyble was hit on the back portion of his right shoulder and other parts of his body.
Maldecir corroborated Leyble’s testimony and stated that Leyble was shot by Etino from behind.
Leylble was treated in Don Benito Lopez Memorial Hospital (WVSUMC).

Dr. Rodney Jun Garcia, who treated Leyble, was unable to to trstify as he is based in a different city. Instead, the
prosecution presented Nida Sonza, the officer-in-charge of the security of all the medical records of the patients in the
hospital to prove the injuries suffered by Leyble.

Evidence for the Defense

The defense presented testimonies of Bautista Etino, Wenifredo Besares, Jeseryl Masiado and Eden Etino himself to
prove his alibi. The witnesses testified that that afternoon, Captain Bomejan and his companions were at the house of
Bautista Etino which was situated one kilometer away form where they heard shots that afternoon. They alleged that
the criminal complaint filed was a precipitated by a pending COMELEC gun-ban case.

RTC ruled that Etino is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of frustrated homicide. He was identified as the
perpetrator by Leyble since Leyble was able to survive.

The case was taken to the CA for appeal however the appellate court affirmed the RTC’s decision with modification on
the damages to be paid.

Petitioner's contention that the prosecution failed to identify him as the victim's assailant, given that he "was not
identified and never mentioned [in the police blotter] as the one who shot the victim" even though it was the victim
himself who personally reported the incident to the authorities.
The prosecution's witnesses never wavered in their positive identification of petitioner as the victim's assailant.

ISSUE
WON the CA erred in holding Etino guilty of frustrated homicide was proven beyond reasonable doubt, since the
physician who examined Leyble was not presented in court.

RULING

Yes, the CA erred in holding Etino guilty of frustrated homicide beyond reasonable doubt. Under the RPC, a felony is
frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but
nevertheless do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.

In order to determine whether the crime is attempted or frustrated homicide, murder or only lesions, the crucial points
to consider are: whether the injury sustained by the victim was fatal and whether there was intent to kill on the part of
the accused.

In this case, although it was sufficiently shown that Etino fired a 12 gauge shotgun at Leyble, there was no other record
that show that Etino had the intent to kill Leyble. The witnesses did not even testified that Etino had indeed aimed and
fired the shotgun to kill the victim. It is to be noted that Etino only fired one at close-range but did not hit any vital part
of the body of Leyble and immediately fled the scene right after doing it. These acts do not suggest that Etino had
intended to kil Leyble, for if he did, he could have fired multiple shots to ensure the latter’s demise.

In addition, the prosecution failed to present evidence to prove Leyble would have died of the wound inflicted by Etino.
Since the physician who treated him was not available, a Medical Certificate is presented, however the certificate only
included only the period of confinement at the hospital, the location of the gunshot wounds, the treatments he received
and his period of healing.

NOTES

Serious Physical Injuries – crime guilty of.

People v. Aca-ac,  GR No. 142500, April 20, 2001
Petitioner/Appellee/Plaintiff: People of the Philippines
Respondent/Accused/Appellant: Decoroso Aca-ac y Cespon
Ponente: Justice Mendoza

FACTS

Fritzie Aca-ac was raped by Decoroso Aca-ac y Cespon 4 times.

Criminal Case No. 7091:September 1990

Fritzie, (victim) testified that after gathering some guavas , she passed by the house of Aca-ac on her way home. Aca-ac saw her and
tried to lure her on the pre-text that he had some papayas for her. She got inside his house however she sensed that there was no
papaya in the house, she immediately tried to leave. Aca-ac, however, closed the door and brought her to his bedroom where he
raped her. He threatened her with harm if she told any one about the incident.

Criminal Case No. 7092: October 1990

The next month, Fritzie was gathering firewood, Aca-ac came and forced her to remove her shorts and panty. She was made to lie
down on the ground covered with nipa leaves and was then raped. She then went home after the incident with the firewood she
collected.

Criminal Case No. 7093:January 1991

Fritzie was on her way home from the house of a certain Betty when she saw Aca-ac near the house of Ned Reyes. Aca-ac seized her
and dragged her to a bush near the plantation and made her undress and lie down. He allegedly forced her to have sexual
intercourse with him.

Criminal Case No. 7094:

Fritzie was asked by her mother to buy cooked fish (inon-onan) for dinner from a store. On her way home, she met Aca-ac who held
her by the hand and forced her to go with him to the vacant house of Pinay Aguirre. Once inside, Aca-ac removed Fritzie’s shorts and
panty and made her lie down on the floor which was covered with coconut leaves.

Fritzie claimed that Aca-ac fondled her breasts and licked her private parts. He then went on top of her and made “push and pull
movements.” When he was through, he withdrew his penis and white fluid came out. Fritzie wiped her private parts and put on her
clothes. She did not tell anyone what happened to her.

Lonio, a classmate of Fritzie, testified that he was at the house of one Emmie Blasco when he saw Fritzie going inside with the
complainant to the house of Aguirre, which was known in the neighbourhood to be haunted. Put of curiosity, he followed the 2 and
saw what happened. He did not tell anyone for the fear of his life.

Lonio and Fritzie had a quarrel in school during which he asked her about the rape. Fritzie admitted and then left crying. Lonio
narrated the incident to Fritzie’s mother.

Aca-ac claimed that Felipa Aca-ac had instigated Fritzie to file the charges because he told Felipa's husband that Felipa was having an
affair with another man. He said the charges were trumped up by Felipa because she wanted to extort P30,000.00 from him. He also
stated that he had a quarrel with Felipa's husband, Roberto, because the latter had stolen his chicken. Aca-ac said he reported the
matter to Barangay Captain Felix Adorable. He stated that Faustino Aca-ac, grandfather of Fritzie, tried to get the parties to settle
the case, but he failed in his efforts.

Aca-ac alleged that at 57, he was already old and that he could no longer have an erection. Fritzie rebutted that she saw Aca-ac
insert his erect penis into her. Age is not the criterion in determining sexual interest and potency.

The RTC held that Aca-ac is guilty of frustrated rape. However, the CA held that it was consummated rape since the entry of the male
organ into the labia of the female organ alone is sufficient to constitute consummated rape

ISSUES
WON Aca-ac was guilty of consummated rape.

RULING

Yes, Aca-ac is guilty of consummated rape. Jurisprudence provides that there can be no frustrated rape. It can be either attempted
or consummated only. This shows that a felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for the execution is present. The
mere touching of the labia or pudendum by the male organ is enough to consummate the crime of rape. It is enough that there is
penetration, however, slight of the external genitalia.

In this case, there was no laceration of Fritzie’s private parts or that her hymen was intact, as testified to by Dr. Amora,does not
preclude a finding of rape against Aca-ac. It bears emphasis that a broken hymen or laceration of any part of the female genital is not
a pre-requisite for a conviction for rape.
People v Comadre
Topic: Conspiracy
Appelle: People of the Philippines
Appellants: Antonio Comadre , George Comadre and Danilo Lozano

FACTS

Robert Agbalog, Jimmy Wabe, Gerry Bullandy, Rey Camat and Lorenzo Eugenio were having a drinking session on the
terrace of Robert’s house. As the drinking session went on, Robert and the others noticed Antonio Comadre, George
Comadre, and Danilo Lozano walking.

The three stopped in front of the house. While his companions looked on, Antonio suddenly threw a hand grenade,
ripping a hole in the roof of the house. The group of Robert were hit by fragments of the grenade (shrapnel) and
slumped unconscious on the floor. They were all rushed to the hospital. However, Robert died before reaching the
hospital.

Antonio Comadre claimed that on the night of August 6, 1995, he was with his wife and children watching television in
the house of his father, Patricio, and his brother, Rogelio. He denied any participation in the incident and claimed that he
was surprised when three policemen from the Lupao Municipal Police Station went to his house the following morning
of August 7, 1995 and asked him to go with them to the police station, where he has been detained since

George Comadre, for his part, testified that he is the brother of Antonio Comadre and the brother-in-law of Danilo
Lozano. He also denied any involvement in the grenade-throwing incident, claiming that he was at home when it
happened. He stated that he is a friend of Rey Camat and Jimmy Wabe, and that he had no animosity towards them
whatsoever. Appellant also claimed to be in good terms with the Agbanlogs so he has no reason to cause them any grief.

Danilo Lozano similarly denied any complicity in the crime. He declared that he was at home with his ten year-old son on
the night of August 6, 1995. He added that he did not see Antonio and George Comadre that night and has not seen
them for quite sometime, either before or after the incident. Like the two other appellants, Lozano denied having any
misunderstanding with Jaime Agbanlog, Robert Agbanlog and Jimmy Wabe.

Antonio’s father, Patricio, and his wife, Lolita, corroborated his claim that he was at home watching television with them
during the night in question. Josie Comadre, George’s wife, testified that her husband could not have been among those
who threw a hand grenade at the house of the Agbanlogs because on the evening of August 6, 1995, they were resting
inside their house after working all day in the farm.

The trial court found the appellants guilty of complex crime of murder with multiple attempted murder. The trial court
held that the mere presence of George Comadre and Danilo Lozano provided encouragement and a sense of security to
Antonio Comadre, thus proving the existence of conspiracy.

ISSUE
WON there is conspiracy based on the foregoing facts?

RULING

No, there is no conspiracy based on the foregoing facts. Settled is the rule that to establish conspiracy, evidence of
actual cooperation rather than mere cognizance or approval of an illegal act is required.A conspiracy must be
established by positive and conclusive evidence. It must be shown to exist as clearly and convincingly as the commission
of the crime itself. Mere presence of a person at the scene of the crime does not make him a conspirator for conspiracy
transcends companionship.
The evidence shows that George Comadre and Danilo Lozano did not have any participation in the commission of the
crime and must therefore be set free. Their mere presence at the scene of the crime as well as their close relationship
with Antonio are insufficient to establish conspiracy considering that they performed no positive act in furtherance of
the crime. Neither was it proven that their act of running away with Antonio was an act of giving moral assistance to his
criminal act. 

NOTES
*autopsy on the cadaver of Robert Agbanlog, certified that the wounds sustained by the victim were consistent with the injuries
inflicted by a grenade explosion and that the direct cause of death was hypovolemic shock due to hand grenade explosion. 8 The
surviving victims, Jimmy Wabe, Rey Camat, Jaime Agbanlog and Gerry Bullanday sustained shrapnel injuries
*It was established that prior to the grenade explosion, Rey Camat, Jaime Agbanlog, Jimmy Wabe and Gerry Bullanday were able to
identify the culprits, namely, appellants Antonio Comadre, George Comadre and Danilo Lozano because there was a lamppost in
front of the house and the moon was bright
People v. Castillo (G.R. No. 132895, March 10, 2004)
Appellee: People of the Philippines
Appellants: Elizabeth Castillo and Evangeline Padayhag

FACTS
Rosanna Baria was employed as one of the household helpers of Mr. and Mrs Luis De Guzman Cebrero. Femie, another
housemaid and Baria’s relative, bathed and dressed up Rocky, the 6 year old son of Cebrero’s. Femie advised Baria that
someone will fetch Rocky, (who’s also a househelper.)

A tricycle arrived and on board was a woman named Evangeline Padayhag. Baria assisted Rocky to board the tricycle.
The woman and the child went to a nearby McDonald’s where they were joined by another woman, Elizabeth Castillo.
They then proceeded to a house far from the fastfood chain where Rocky slept 4 times.

Luis Cebrero arrived home from work when his other son, DJ, arrived and informed him that Rocky did not attend
school. Cebrero asked Baria who told him that Rocky was fetched at home by a woman to attend a birthday party. Mr.
Cebrero then called up his friends and went to the police station to report his son was missing.

That night, he received a phone call form a woman saying to give her his atm card in exchange for his son. The woman
asked how much money was in his atm and Cebrero said it was Php 40,000. He tried to talk to his son but the woman
answered that he’s not here and she’ll call again later. The woman then called again, this time taped recorded by the
Cebrero, asking for 1 million pesos.

The Cebreros informed the authorities that 2 of their maids were hired from an agency, General Services Inc. The agency
furnished them personal data of the maids named Elizabeth Castillo and Jasmine Nunez. The next day, Cebrero did not
receive any call so he instructed his wife to raise some money. The next day, they received a phone call asking if the
money was ready. Cebrero said that he can only pay half and the kidnapper agreed and instructed to be in Paco,
Obando, Bulacan alone at 2 o’clock in the morning. The church called Sabadista is where Cebrero was instructed to drop
the money.

Two women appeared and picked up the bag and left. The ISG team search the area however they weren’t able to locate
them. The team befriended residents of the place and a certain Joselito Torres claimed that he was the former boyfriend
of Elizabeth Castillo. Torres informed the ISG team that Castillo already left for Mindanao.

Luis Cebrero was at home when a tricycle stopped in front of his house. Somebody knocked at the door and when Luis
Cebrero opened it, he saw his son, Rocky.

The authorities were able to locate Padayhag, who voluntarily went with the authorities to clear her name. Castillo was
arrested in Mindanao after tracing of the local authorities.

The court ruled that Evangeline Padayhag’s only participation in the crime was picking up the boy from his house.
Although she did not get part of the ransom the fact is that she fully and directly cooperated and did her part to carry
out the resolution of her co-accused. Under these facts there was conspiracy to extort ransom.

They were charged of kidnapping and serious illegal detention.

ISSUE
WON the trial court erred in concluding that there was conspiracy to extort ransom in this case.

RULING

Yes, the trial court erred in conducting that there was conspiracy to extort ransom in this case.

Conspiracy is established by the presence of two factors: (1) singularity of intent; and (2) unity in execution of an
unlawful objective. The two must concur. Performance of an act that contributes to the goal of another is not enough.
The act must be motivated by the same unlawful intent. Neither joint nor simultaneous action is per se sufficient
indicium of conspiracy, unless proved to have been motivated by a common design.

Padayhag’s act of fetching Rocky is not conclusive proof of her complicity with Castillo’s plan, a plan Padayhag did not
even know. Both appellants testified that Padayhag met Castillo only because Castillo told Padayhag that Padayhag’s
boyfriend was sick. It was precisely on the pretext that they were to visit Padayhag’s boyfriend that the two met. When
they met, Padayhag realized that Castillo had deceived her.
Go-Tan v Tan G.R. No. 168852 September 30, 2008
Petitioner: SHARICA MARI L. GO-TAN
Respondents: SPOUSES PERFECTO C. TAN and JUANITA L. TAN

FACTS
On April 18, 1999, Sharica Go-Tan and Steven Tan were married and had two children. Barely six years of marriage, Sharica, filed a
petition for the issuance of Temporary Protection Order (TPO) before the RTC against her husband Steven and her parents-in-law.
She alleged that Steven in conspiracy with his parents were causing verbal, psychological, and economic abuses upon her in violation
of Sect. 5 of R.A. 9262.

The RTC granted the TPO.

The respondents filed a motion to dismiss contending that the RTC lack jurisdiction over them, since, as parents-in-law of the
petitioner, they are not covered under R.A 9262. Sharica filed a comment on opposition and argued the contrary that they are
covered by R.A 9262.

The RTC dismissed the respondents on the ground that they are not covered under R.A 9262 under the well-known rule of law
“expression unios exclusion alterius”.

Petitioner filed for motion for reconsideration contending that the doctrine of necessary implication should be applied in the
broader interests of substantial justice and due process. 

RTC denied the petitioner’s motion. 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.

Petitioner’s Claim:
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.

Respondents Claim:
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 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.

ISSSUE
Whether or not respondents parents-in-law of petitioner, may be included in the petition for the Issuance of a Protective Order in
accordance with R.A. NO. 9262.

RULING
Yes, the parents-in-law of petitioner may be included in the petition for the Issuance of a Protective Order in accordance with RA No.
9262.

ART. 10. of the RPC provides 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
legal principles developed from the Penal Code may be applied in a supplementary capacity to crimes punished under special laws,
such as R.A. No. 9262, in which the special law is silent on a particular matter.

Under Section 3 of R.A 9262 which the 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. Section 47 of
R.A. No. 9262 expressly provides for the suppletory application of the RPC.

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.

However, 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.