R.A.

9262
ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
& THEIR CHILDREN
 SEC 2.
The State values the dignity of women & children,
and guarantees full respect for human rights.

The State also recognizes the need to protect the family and its
members, particularly women and children, from violence and
threats to their personal safety and security.
DEFINITION OF TERMS

"Violence against women and their children" (VAWC)

Refers to any act or series of acts committed by against a woman

who is his wife, former wife, whom he had a sexual or dating
relationship with, 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, economic abuse including threats
of such acts, battery, assault, coercion, harrassment, or arbitrary
deprivation of liberty.
VAWC includes, but is not limited to:

Physical Violence - physical or bodily harm

ex: boxing, grabbing, strangled, stabbed, injuries from sexual asssault

Sexual Violence - acts that are sexual in nature

ex: rape, sexual harassment, forcing her/him to watch obscene publications
and indecent shows, making demeaning and sexually suggestive remarks

Psychological Violence - acts or omissions causing or likely to cause

mental or emotional suffering of the victim.
ex: intimidation, public humiliation, repeated verbal abuse or mental infidelity

Economic Abuse - acts that make or attempt to make a woman financially

dependent
Ex: withdrawal of financial support, or preventing the victim from engaging
in ang legitimate profession, occupation, business, or activity
DEFINITION OF TERMS

"Battery" inflicting physical harm on the woman or her child resultng to ohysical
and psychological or emotional distress

"Battered Woman Syndrome" - a scientifically defined pattern of psychological

and behavioral symptoms found in women living in battering relationships as a
result of cumulative abuse.

"Dating Relationship" a situation wherein the parties live as husband and wife
without the benefit of marriage or are romantically involved over time and on a
continuing basis during the course of the relationship. A casual acquaintance or
ordinary socialization between two individuals in a business or social context is
not a dating relationship.
DEFINITION OF TERMS
"Sexual Relations" a single sexual act which may or may not result in the
bearing of a common child.

"Safe Place or Shelter" any home or institution maintained or managed by the

Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) or by any other agency
or voluntary organization accredited by the DSWD for the purposes of this Act
or any other suitable place the resident of which is willing temporarily to receive
the victim

"Children" those below eighteen (18) years of age or older but are incapable of
taking care of themselves as defined under Republic Act No. 7610. As used in
this Act, it includes the biological children of the victim and other children under
her care.
 SEC 4.
CONSTRUCTION. This act shall be liberally construed
to promote the protection and safety of victims of
violence against women and their children.
 SEC. 5
The crime of violence against women and their children is
committed through any of the following acts:
 PHYSICAL VIOLENCE
CAUSING PHYSICAL HARM TO THE WOMAN OR HER CHILD (SEC 5, A)

Boxing Stabbed
Grabbed, pushed, shoved Strangled
to the floor or to the ground Threw against the car, door,
Dragged wall, down the stairs, etc
Kicked Thrown at
Punched Injuries resulting from sexual
Slapped assault:
Wrestled Rape
Beat Oral Sex
Burned Anal Sex
Poisoned Other degrading and
Ran over injurious forms of sexual
Shot congress

THREATENING OR ATTEMPTING TO CAUSE THE WOMAN OR HER CHILD PHYSICAL HARM (SEC 5, B & C)
PLACING THE WOMAN OR HER CHILD IN FEAR OF IMMINENT PHYSICAL HARM (SEC 5, D)
 SEXUAL VIOLENCE
Causing or attempting to cause the woman or her
child to engage in any sexual activity which does
not constitute rape by force, threat of force,
physical harm, or through intimidation directed
against the woman, her child, or the woman's or
child's immediate family (SEC. 5, G)
 SEXUAL VIOLENCE
Sexual Harassment Forcing the wife and mistress/lover to
Acts of Lasciviousness live in the conjugal home or sleep
Treating a woman or her together in the same room with the
child as a sex object abuser
Making demeaning and Causing or attempting to cause the
sexually suggestive victim to engage in any sexual activity
remarks by force, threat of force, physical or
Physically attacking the other harm or threat or physical or
sexual victim's body other harm or coercion
Forcing her/him to watch Prostituting the woman or the child
obscene publications and
indecent shows
Forcing the woman or her
child to do indecent acts
and/or make films thereof
 PSYCHOLOGICAL VIOLENCE
Attempting to compel or compelling a woman or her child to engage in conduct
which the woman or child has the right to desist from or desist from conduct
which the woman or her child has the right to engage in. (SEC 5, E)
Threatening to deprive or actually depriving the woman or her
child of custody to her/his family;
 PSYCHOLOGICAL VIOLENCE
Attempting to restrict or restricting the woman's or her child's freedom of movement
or conduct by force or threat or force, physical or other harm or threat or physical or
other harm, or intimidation directed against the woman or child. (SEC 5, E)

Depriving or threatening to deprive the woman or her child of financial

support legally due her or her family, or deliberately providing the woman's
children insufficient financial support;
Depriving or threatening to deprive the woman or her child of a legal right;
Preventing the woman to engage in any legitimate profession, occupation,
business or activity or controlling the victim's own money or properties, or
solely controlling the conjugal or common money or properties. (SEC 5, E, 1-4)
PSYCHOLOGICAL VIOLENCE
Inflicting or threatening to inflict physical harm on oneself for the
purpose of controlling her actions or decisions. (SEC 5, F)

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 (SEC 5, H)

Stalking or following the woman or her child in public or private places;

Peering in the window or lingering outside the residence of the woman or her child;
Entering or remaining, or dwelling in the property of the woman or her child against her/his will
Destroying the property and personal belonging or inflicting harm to animals or pets of the
woman or her child;
Engaging in any form of harassment or violence. [SEC. 5, H, 1-5]
PSYCHOLOGICAL VIOLENCE
Causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation
to the woman or her child, including but not limited to (SEC 5, I):

Repeated verbal and emotional abuse

Belittling, berating, cursing, and insulting the victim;
Calling the victim vile or indecent names in the presence of others;
Avowing loss of affection and a desire to be rid of the offended party;
Denying any relation to the offended party;
Annoyed and molested the offended party;
Denying the woman custody or minor children or access to the woman's
child or children.
ECONOMIC ABUSE
DENIAL OF FINANCIAL SUPPORT (SEC 5, I)
Cutting of all financial allowances to the offended party;
Seizing and withholding possession of the offender party.
 PENALTIES
THE CRIME OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN,
UNDER SECTION 5, SHALL BE PUNISHED ACCORDING
TO THE FOLLOWING RULES:
REVISED PENAL CODE
01 FOR PHYSICAL VIOLENCE UNDER SECTION 5(A), SUCH AS
PARRICIDE, MURDER OR HOMICIDE.
 ARRESTO MAYOR
01 ACTS UNDER SEC. 5, C (PHYSICAL VIOLENCE)

02 ACTS UNDER SEC. 5, D (PHYSICAL VIOLENCE)

03 ACTS UNDER SEC. 5, F (PSYCHOLOGICAL VIOLENCE)

PRISON CORRECCIONAL
01 ACTS UNDER SEC. 5, E (PSYCHOLOGICAL VIOLENCE)
 PRISON MAYOR
01 ACTS UNDER SEC. 5, G (SEXUAL VIOLENCE)

02 ACTS UNDER SEC. 5, H (PSYCHOLOGICAL VIOLENCE)

03 ACTS UNDER SEC. 5, I (PSYCHOLOGICAL VIOLENCE)

In addition to imprisonment, the perpetrator shall (1) pay a fine of not less than
₱100,000 but not more than ₱300,000 and (2) undergo mandatory psychological
counseling or psychiatric treatment and shall report compliance in the court.
 SEC. 8
PROTECTION ORDERS
Issued under this act for the purpose of preventing further acts
of violence against a woman or her child specified in Sec. 5
of this Act and granting other necessary relief.
 TYPES OF PROTECTION ORDERS

1 2 3
Barangay Temporary Permanent
Protection Protection Protection
Order (BPO) Order (TPO) Order (PPO)
 1 The offended party
2 Parents or guardians of offended party

3 Ascendants, descendants or collateral relatives within

the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity;
WHO may 4 Officers or social workers of the DSWD or social workers
of local government units (LGUs);
file for a 5 Police officers, preferably those in charge of women
Protection and children's desks;
6 Punong Barangay or Barangay Kagawad;
Order? Lawyer, counselor, therapist or healthcare provider of
7
the petitioner;

8 At least two (2) concerned responsible citizens of the

city or municipality where the violence against women
and their children occurred and who has personal
knowledge of the offense committed.
BARANGAY PROTECTION ORDER (BPO)

Issued by the Punong Barangay

In the absence of the Punong Barangay, this
may be issued by a Barangay Kagawad with the
attestation that the Punong Brgy was
unavailable at the time of the issuance
Effective for 15 days
TEMPORARY PROTECTION ORDER (TPO)

Issued by the Court

Court shall schedule a hearing on the issuance of a
PPO prior to or on the date of the expiration of the
TPO
Shall include notice of the date of the hearing
Effective for 30 days
PERMANENT PROTECTION ORDER (PPO)

Issued by the Court after notice and hearing

The hearing must be done within one day. If unable
to do so and the TPO is about to expire, TPO shall
be renewed until a final decision is rendered.
Effective until revoked by a court upon application
of the person in whose favor the order was issued.
VIOLATION OF PROTECTION ORDERS

BPO - imprisonment of 30 days, may be appealed

according to the rules of court
TPO OR PPO - constitutes contempt of court
punishable under Rule 71 of the Rules of Court
 RELIEF

Prohibited from..

Threatening to commit or committing, Harassing, annoying, telephoning,

personally or through another, contacting, or communicating
any act mentioned in Section 5 with the petitioner

Physical Violence
Sexual Violence
Psychological Violence
Economic Abuse
 RELIEF

ARTICLE 24 OF THE NEW CIVIL CODE

Removal and exclusion of the respondent When one is at a disadvantage (moral
from the residence of the petitioner dependence, ignorance, indigence, mental
weakness, tender age or other handicap), courts
must be vigilant for his protection.

ARTICLE 3 SECTION 2 OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION

protects the right of the people to be secure in
their houses, papers, and effects.

Probable cause determined by the judge is needed.

ARTICLE 3 SECTION 6 OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION

The liberty of abode and of changing the same shall not be
impaired except upon lawful order of the court.
Despite ownership!
 ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONSTITUTION
Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of
law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE

RA 9262 does not violate the GUARANTY OF EQUAL

protection of the laws.

EQUAL PROTECTION SIMPLY requires that all persons or

things SIMILARLY situated should be TREATED ALIKE,
both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed.
Unauthorized or improper delegation of judicial power to Barangays
is accountable to Article X of The Philippine Constitution.

JUDICIAL POWER
Includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable
and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has
been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality.
 RELIEF

Directing the respondent to stay away from

petitioner and designated family or
household member at a distance

ARTICLE 3 SECTION 6 OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION

Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national
security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.
 RELIEF

Directing lawful possession and use

by petitioner of an automobile;

Safely restoring the petitioner by accompanying

him/her to the residence of parties;

Supervise the petitioner's or respondent's

removal of personal belongings.
 RELIEF

Granting temporary or permanent custody

of a child/children to the petitioner ₱
₱ ₱

Directing the respondent to provide

support to the woman and/or her
child if entitled to legal support
 RELIEF

Prohibition of the respondent from any use or

possession of any firearm or deadly weapon
and order him to surrender it to the court

Restitution for actual damages

caused by the violence inflicted

Property damage
Medical expenses
Childcare expenses
Loss of income

Article 21 of The New Civil Code

 RELIEF

Directing the DSWD or any appropriate

agency to provide petitioner may need Provision of such other forms of relief

Supplementary Feeding Program.

Recovery and Reintegration Program of Trafficked Persons.
Minors Traveling Abroad.
Domestic Adoption.
Alternative Family Care Program.
Sustainable Livelihood Program.
Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program.
 SEC 24. PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD

Acts under Sec 5(a) to 5(f) shall prescribe in 20 years

Acts under Sec 5(g) to 5(i) shall prescribe in 10 years
 SEC 25. PUBLIC CRIME

VAWC is considered a public offense and may be

prosecuted upon the filing of a complaint of any citizen
who has personal knowledge of the circumstances
involving the commission of the crime.
 SEC 26. BATTERED WOMAN
SYNDROME AS A DEFENSE

Victim-survivors do not incur criminal and civil liability

inspite of the absence of any of the elements for
justifying circumstances of self defense under the
Revised Penal Code.

Courts shall be assisted by expert psychiatrists and

psychologists
 SEC 27. PROHIBITED DEFENSE

Being under the influence of alcohol, any illicit drugs, or

any mind-altering substance shall not be a defense
under this act.
 SEC 28. CUSTODY OF CHILDREN

The victim of the violence shall be entitled to the custody and

support of her child/children

Children below seven years old, or older but with mental or

physical disabilities, shall automatically be given to the mother.

A victiim who is suffering from battered woman syndrome

shall not be disqualified from having custody of the child.
SEC 29. DUTIES OF PROSECUTORS/COURT PERSONNEL

Prosecutors and court personnel should observe the following duties

when dealing with victims under this Act:

a) Communicate with the victim in a language understood by the

woman or her child; and

b) Inform the victim of her/his rights including legal remedies

available and procedure, and privileges for indigent litigants.
 SEC 30. DUTIES OF DUTIES OF BARANGAY
OFFICIALS AND LAW ENFORCERS

Respond immediately to a call for help whether or not a protection

1
order has been issued and ensure the safety of the victim.

2 Provide necessary relief.

3 Assist the barangay officials and other government officers

and employees who respond to a call for help;
 SEC 30. DUTIES OF DUTIES OF BARANGAY
OFFICIALS AND LAW ENFORCERS

4 Ensure the enforcement of the Protection Order/s

Arrest the suspected perpetrator without a warrant when any of the acts
5 of VAWC is occurring, or when one has knowledge that an abuse was
committed and there is imminent danger to the life of the victim

Immediately report the call for assessment or assistance of the DSWD,

6 Social Welfare Department of LGUs, or accredited NGOs.
 Rule 113, Section 5 of the Rules of Court

VALID WARRANTLESS ARRESTS ARE:

IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO ARRESTS

Committing or is attempting to commit a crime
Act done in the presence of the arresting officer.

“HOT PURSUIT” ARRESTS

An offense has just been committed
The arresting officer has probable cause to believe based on
personal knowledge of facts or circumstances

RE-ARREST OF ESCAPED PRISONERS.

 Any barangay official or law enforcer who fails to report the
incident shall be liable for a fine not exceeding P10,000.00
or whenever applicable criminal, civil or administrative liability.
SEC 30. DUTIES OF DUTIES OF BARANGAY
OFFICIALS AND LAW ENFORCERS
 SEC. 35. RIGHTS OF VICTIMS

to be treated with respect and dignity;

to avail of legal assistance form the Public Attorney's Office of the
Department of Justice (DOJ) or any public legal assistance office;
To be entitled to support services form the DSWD and LGUs'
To be entitled to all legal remedies and support as provided for under
the Family Code; and
To be informed of their rights and the services available to them
including their right to apply for a protection order

in addition to their rights under exisiting laws

 SEC. 36 DAMAGES
Any victim of violence under this Act shall be entitled to actual, compensatory, moral and
exemplary damages

Actual or Compensatory Damages - awarded to satisfy or make up for the loss or injury
sustained.
Moral Damages - to enable the injured party to obtain means, diversions or amusements that will
serve to alleviate the moral suffering he has undergone
Exemplary Damages - intended to serve as a deterrent to serious wrongdoings.
INTER-AGENCY COUNCIL ON VIOLENCE AGAINST
WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN (IAC-VAWC)

tasked to formulate programs and projects to eliminate VAW

develop capability programs for their employees to become more
sensitive to the needs of their clients.
serve as the monitoring body as regards to VAW initiatives.
 DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND
DEVELOPMENT

together with LGU's, shall provide the victims temporary shelters,

counseling, psycho-social services and/or, recovery, rehabilitation
programs and livelihood assistance

shall provide rehabilitative counseling and treatment to perpetrators

 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

shall provide medical assistance to victims

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE

together with LGU's shall establish an education and training program

for police officers and barangay officials to enable them to properly
handle cases of violence against women and their children.
 TRAINING OF PERSONS INVOLVED IN
RESPONDING TO VAWC

required to undergo education and training to acquaint them with:

a. the nature, extend and causes of VAWC
b. the legal rights of, and remedies available
c. the services and facilities available
d. the legal duties imposed on police officers to make arrest and to
offer protection and assistance; and
e. techniques for handling incidents that minimize the likelihood of
injury to the officer and promote the safety of the victim or survivor
 SEC. 43 ENTITLED TO LEAVE

Victims are entitled to a paid leave of absence up to 10 days

 SEC. 44 CONFIDENTIALITY

All records pertaining to cases of violence against women and their

children shall be confidential

Whoever publishes or causes to publish, any identifying information of a

victim or an immediate family member, without the latter's consent, shall
be liable to the contempt power of the court.

Violation constitutes a penalty of 1 year imprisonment and a fine of not

more than P500,000.
ILLUSTRATIONS BY
ACTUAL CASES
DECIDED BY THE SUPREME COURT
WILFREDO A. RUIZ, petitioner, vs. AAA, respondent.
[G.R. No. 231619. November 15, 2021.]

AAA applied for a protection order against her husband, Wilfredo Ruiz (Wilfredo), alleging
physical, emotional, and economic abuse committed against her during their marriage.

On September 10, 2008, the Regional Trial Court granted AAA a Permanent Protection Order.
6 The dispositive portion partially states:

i. Directing the respondent to provide support to the petitioner and their child [CCC] and even to their child
[BBB], if still studying and unemployed equivalent to 50% [for the time being] of the income or salaries of the
respondent from the following sources, to wit:
1. [h]is monthly salaries as reflected in his income tax return for the years 2006 and 2007 of his law office,
whichever is higher;
2. his monthly income from Benedicto Pormento & Ruiz Law Office; and
3. his monthly income from Novastar Consultancy and Trading, Inc.;
As Wilfredo no longer appealed this Decision, it became final and executory on
January 30, 2013.

On July 16, 2013, AAA filed a Motion for Execution on Support (Motion for Execution),
alleging that Wilfredo still has not complied with the portion of the Permanent
Protection Order pertaining to support despite the Decision being final and executory.

Wilfredo opposed this, arguing that the Permanent Protection Order has already been
revoked by operation of law. He claimed that AAA no longer needed protection as she
was already cohabiting with another man. He added that a petition to nullify their
marriage was already pending

December 27, 2016 Decision, 64 the Regional Trial Court declared the marriage
between petitioner and respondent void
ISSUE
Whether or not declaring a marriage void ab initio
would terminate the Permanent Protection Order.
RULING
A permanent protection order under Republic Act No. 9262 "shall be effective until revoked
by a court upon application of the person in whose favor the order was issued." Here, it is
respondent who may apply to have the Permanent Protection Order revoked, not petitioner.

Thus, after the final judgment nullifying the marriage, "the obligation of mutual
support between the spouses ceases." Petitioner and respondent's marriage having
been declared void, they are no longer obliged to give spousal support to each other.

Nonetheless, the rest of the reliefs granted under the Permanent Protection Order in
favor of respondent shall remain in full force and effect.

MODIFIED. The Writ of Execution issued by the Regional Trial Court shall remain VALID
as to all reliefs granted under the Permanent Protection Order, except as to the grant
of legal support in favor of respondent AAA.
AAA v. BBB, G.R. No. 212448, [January 11, 2018]

FACTS
Petitioner AAA and BBB were married on August 1, 2006 in Quezon City. Their union produced two
children: CCC was born on March 4, 2007 and DDD on October 1, 2009.

In May of 2007, BBB started working in Singapore as a chef, where he acquired permanent resident
status in September of 2008. This petition nonetheless indicates his address to be in Quezon City
where his parents reside and where AAA also resided from the time they were married until March
of 2010, when AAA and their children moved back to her parents' house in Pasig City.

AAA claimed, albeit not reflected in the Information, that BBB sent little to no financial support, and
only sporadically. This allegedly compelled her to fly extra hours and take on additional jobs to
augment her income as a flight attendant. There were also allegations of virtual abandonment,
mistreatment of her and their son CCC, and physical and sexual violence.
To make matters worse, BBB supposedly started having an affair with a Singaporean woman
named Lisel Mok with whom he allegedly has been living in Singapore. Things came to a head on
April 19, 2011 when AAA and BBB had a violent altercation at a hotel room in Singapore during her
visit with their kids.
As can be gathered from the earlier cited Information, despite the claims of varied forms of
abuses, the investigating prosecutor found sufficient basis to charge BBB with causing AAA mental
and emotional anguish through his alleged marital infidelity.

The Information having been filed, a warrant of arrest was issued against BBB. AAA was also able to
secure a Hold-Departure Order against BBB who continued to evade the warrant of arrest.
Consequently, the case was archived.
BBB works and lives Singapore, AAA lives in Pasig
On November 6, 2013, an Entry of Appearance as Counsel for the Accused with Omnibus Motion
to Revive Case, Quash Information, Lift Hold Departure Order and Warrant of Arrest was filed on
behalf of BBB. Granting the motion to quash on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and thereby
dismissing the case, the trial court reasoned:

Here, while the Court maintains its 28 October 2011 ruling that probable cause exists in
this case and that [BBB] is probably guilty of the crime charged, considering, however,
his subsequent clear showing that the acts complained of him had occurred in
Singapore, dismissal of this case is proper since the Court enjoys no jurisdiction over
the offense charged, it having transpired outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

Aggrieved by the denial of the prosecution's motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of the
case, AAA sought direct recourse to this Court via the instant petition on a pure question of law.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Philippine courts exercise jurisdiction
over an offense constituting psychological violence
under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9262
RULING/HELD
The petition is granted.

SECTION 7. Venue.- The Regional Trial Court designated as a Family Court shall have original and
exclusive jurisdiction over cases of violence against women and their children under this law. In the
absence of such court in the place where the offense was committed, the case shall be filed in the
Regional Trial Court where the crime or any of its elements was committed at the option of the
compliant.

Psychological violence is an element of violation of Section 5(i) just like the mental or
emotional anguish caused on the victim. Psychological violence is the means employed
by the perpetrator, while mental or emotional anguish is the effect caused to or the
damage sustained by the offended party. To establish psychological violence as an element
of the crime, it is necessary to show proof of 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.
It is necessary, for Philippine courts to have jurisdiction when the abusive conduct or act of
violence under Section 5 (i) of R.A. No. 9262 in relation to Section 3 (a), Paragraph (C) was
committed outside Philippine territory, that the victim be a resident of the place where the
complaint is filed in view of the anguish suffered being a material element of the offense. In the
present scenario, the offended wife and children of respondent husband are residents of Pasig
City since March of 2010. Hence, the RTC of Pasig City may exercise jurisdiction over the case.

The Resolutions dated February 24, 2014 and May 2, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court of
Pasig City, Branch 158, in Criminal Case No. 146468 are SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the
Information filed in Criminal Case No. 146468 is ordered REINSTATED.
 XXX v. People,
G.R. No. 236842 (Notice),
[July 27, 2020]
FACTS
Petitioner XXX was married to his wife, AAA

XXX maintained an illicit relationship with another woman while his marriage was still subsisting

Petitioner and his paramour cohabited in the family house while his own children had to sleep in the
"bodega" of their store;

Petitioner barred AAA from staying in the family home which was built mainly through the latter's
efforts;
AAA suffered emotional abuse.

Petitioner contends that children BBB and CCC were born 1975 and 1974 are no longer children.

R.A. 9262 Sec 5 (e)

 ISSUE
Whether or not children of legal age
are no longer covered by RA 9262
RULING
The contention is well-taken. Indeed, at the time of the effectivity of RA 9262 on March
27, 2004, and the filing of the Informations on November 21, 2006, BBB and CCC were
no longer "children" as defined under RA 9262. This was even admitted by AAA in her
testimony. Thus, RA 9262 cannot apply to BBB and CCC.

However, it will only affect petitioner's liability under Section 5 (e) (2) financial support.
RULING
The RTC and CA correctly found that all the elements violated Section 5 (e) (4) and
Section 5 (i) of RA 9262.

With respect to petitioner's conviction for violation of Section 5 (e) (4) Section 5 (i), the
Court must sustain it.

AAA, to whom petitioner was married to at the time of the filing of the Information, is a
complainant in the case. Even without considering the complained acts involving
petitioner's sons, petitioner's conviction must not be overturned because the
prosecution had proven his guilt beyond reasonable doubt for violating RA 9262.
RULING
The RTC and CA correctly found that all the elements of violation of
Section 5 (e) (4) and Section 5 (i) of RA 9262 are present

With respect to petitioner's conviction for violation of Section 5 (e) (4) Section 5 (i)

The Court must sustain it.

AAA, to whom petitioner was married to at the time of the filing of the Information, is
a complainant in the case. Even without considering the complained acts involving
petitioner's sons, petitioner's conviction must not be overturned because the
prosecution had proven his guilt beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 5
(e) (4) and Section 5 (i) of RA 9262 as against AAA.
JESUS C. GARCIA, petitioner,vs.THE HONORABLE
RAY ALAN T. DRILON, Presiding Judge, Regional
Trial Court-Branch 41, Bacolod City

[G.R. No. 179267. June, 2013.]

ROSALIE JAYPE-GARCIA (ROSALIE) AND JESUS GARCIA (JESUS) GOT
MARRIED IN 2002 AND BORE 3 CHILDREN

ACCORDING TO ROSALIE, JESUS WAS DOMINANT, CONTROLLING, AND

DEMANDED ABSOLUTE OBEDIENCE FROM HIS WIFE AND CHILDREN

THINGS TURNED FOR THE WORSE WHEN PETITIONER TOOK UP AN

AFFAIR WITH A BANK MANAGER OF ROBINSON'S BANK, BACOLOD CITY.

THIS SPAWNED A SERIES OF FIGHTS THAT LEFT ROSALIE PHYSICALLY

AND EMOTIONALLY WOUNDED SUCH AS BRUISES ON HER ARMS,
HEMATOMA, BLEEDING ON THE LIPS, ETC. PETITONER ALSO BEAT THEIR
CHILD, JO-ANN, ON THE CHEST AND SLAPPED HER MANY TIMES
BECAUSE OF ALL THE EMOTIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL TURMOIL, ROSALIE EVEN
ATTEMPTED SUICIDE. SHE WAS FOUND BY HER SON BLEEDING ON THE FLOOR.
PETITIONER SIMPLY FLED THE HOUSE AND DIDN'T EVEN TAKE HER TO THE
HOSPITAL. ROSALIE STAYED IN THE HOSPITAL FOR 7 DAYS AND NEVER DID THE
PETITONER COME TO VISIT.

FINDING REASONABLE GROUND TO BELIEVE THAT AN IMMINENT DANGER OF

VIOLENCE AGAINST THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT AND HER CHILDREN EXISTS OR IS
ABOUT TO RECUR, THE RTC ISSUED A TPO ON MARCH 24, 2006 EFFECTIVE FOR
THIRTY (30) DAYS
ON APRIL 26, 2006, PETITIONER FILED AN OPPOSITION TO THE URGENT EX-PARTE
MOTION FOR RENEWAL OF THE TPO SEEKING THE DENIAL OF THE RENEWAL OF
THE TPO ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT DID NOT

(1) COMPLY WITH THE THREE-DAY NOTICE RULE, AND

(2) CONTAIN A NOTICE OF HEARING.

DURING THE PENDENCY OF CIVIL CASE NO, PETITIONER FILED BEFORE THE
COURT OF APPEALS (CA) A PETITION FOR PROHIBITION, WITH PRAYER FOR
INJUNCTION AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, CHALLENGING (1) THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF R.A. 9262 FOR BEING VIOLATIVE OF THE DUE PROCESS
AND THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES, AND (2) THE VALIDITY OF THE MODIFIED
TPO ISSUED IN THE CIVIL CASE FOR BEING “AN UNWANTED PRODUCT OF AN
INVALID LAW.”
THE CA EVENTUALLY DISMISSED THE PETITION FOR FAILURE OF
PETITIONER TO RAISE THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE IN HIS PLEADINGS
BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT IN THE CIVIL CASE, WHICH IS CLOTHED WITH
JURISDICTION TO RESOLVE THE SAME.

SECONDLY, THE CHALLENGE TO THE VALIDITY OF R.A. 9262 THROUGH A

PETITION FOR PROHIBITION SEEKING TO ANNUL THE PROTECTION
ORDERS ISSUED BY THE TRIAL COURT CONSTITUTED A COLLATERAL
ATTACK ON SAID LAW.
 PETITIONER THEN WENT TO THE SC.
HIS CONTENTIONS:
(1) SINCE R.A. 9262 IS INTENDED TO PREVENT AND CRIMINALIZE SPOUSAL
AND CHILD ABUSE, WHICH COULD VERY WELL BE COMMITTED BY EITHER
THE HUSBAND OR THE WIFE, GENDER ALONE IS NOT ENOUGH BASIS TO
DEPRIVE THE HUSBAND/FATHER OF THE REMEDIES UNDER THE LAW;

(2) ON THE BASIS OF UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATIONS, AND PRACTICALLY

NO OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND, THE HUSBAND IS STRIPPED OF FAMILY,
PROPERTY, GUNS, MONEY, CHILDREN, JOB, FUTURE EMPLOYMENT AND
REPUTATION, ALL IN A MATTER OF SECONDS, WITHOUT AN INKLING OF
WHAT HAPPENED.
 ISSUES
(1) WHETHER OR NOT R.A. 9262 IS DISCRIMINATORY, UNJUST, AND VIOLATIVE OF THE
EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE;

(2) WHETHER OR NOT R.A. 9262 RUNS COUNTER TO THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
CONSTITUTION;

(3) WHETHER OR NOT R.A. NO. 9262 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT ALLOWS AN

UNDUE DELEGATION OF JUDICIAL POWER TO THE BARANGAY OFFICIALS.

(4) WHETHER OR NOT THE FAMILY COURT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO PASS UPON THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A LAW.
 RULING
(1) WHETHER OR NOT R.A. 9262 IS DISCRIMINATORY, UNJUST, AND VIOLATIVE OF THE
EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE;

RA 9262 DOES NOT VIOLATE THE GUARANTY OF EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.
EQUAL PROTECTION SIMPLY REQUIRES THAT ALL PERSONS OR THINGS SIMILARLY
SITUATED SHOULD BE TREATED ALIKE, BOTH AS TO RIGHTS CONFERRED AND
RESPONSIBILITIES IMPOSED.
IN VICTORIANO V. ELIZALDEROPE WORKER’S UNION THE COURT RULED THAT ALL THAT
IS REQUIRED OF A VALID CLASSIFICATION IS THAT IT BE REASONABLE AND SHOULD
BE BASED ON SUBSTANTIAL DISTINCTIONS WHICH MAKE FOR REAL DIFFERENCES;
THAT IT MUST BE GERMANE TO THE PURPOSE OF THE LAW; NOT LIMITED TO EXISTING
CONDITIONS ONLY; AND APPLY EQUALLY TO EACH MEMBER OF THE CLASS.
 RULING

THEREFORE, RA9262 IS BASED ON A VALID CLASSIFICATION AND DID NOT

VIOLATE THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE BY FAVOURING WOMEN OVER MEN
AS VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE AND ABUSE TO WHOM THE SENATE EXTENDS ITS
PROTECTION
 RULING
(2) WHETHER OR NOT R.A. 9262 RUNS COUNTER TO THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
OF THE CONSTITUTION;

A PROTECTION ORDER IS AN ORDER ISSUED TO PREVENT FURTHER ACTS OF

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN, THEIR FAMILY OR
HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS, AND TO GRANT OTHER NECESSARY RELIEFS. ITS
PURPOSE IS TO SAFEGUARD THE OFFENDED PARTIES FROM FURTHER HARM,
MINIMIZE ANY DISRUPTION IN THEIR DAILY LIFE AND FACILITATE THE
OPPORTUNITY AND ABILITY TO REGAIN CONTROL OF THEIR LIFE. IT ALSO
ENABLES THE COURT TO AWARD TEMPORARY CUSTODY OF MINOR CHILDREN
TO PROTECT THE CHILDREN FROM VIOLENCE, TO PREVENT THEIR ABDUCTION
BY THE PERPETRATOR AND TO ENSURE THEIR FINANCIAL SUPPORT
 RULING
THE RULES REQUIRE THAT PETITIONS FOR PROTECTION ORDER BE IN WRITING,
SIGNED AND VERIFIED BY THE PETITIONER THEREBY UNDERTAKING FULL
RESPONSIBILITY, CRIMINAL OR CIVIL, FOR EVERY ALLEGATION THEREIN. SINCE
"TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE IN CASES OF VAWC IF FURTHER VIOLENCE IS TO BE
PREVENTED, THE COURT IS AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE EX PARTE A TPO AFTER RAFFLE
BUT BEFORE NOTICE AND HEARING WHEN THE LIFE, LIMB OR PROPERTY OF THE
VICTIM IS IN JEOPARDY AND THERE IS REASONABLE GROUND TO BELIEVE THAT THE
ORDER IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE VICTIM
THERE NEED NOT BE ANY FEAR THAT THE JUDGE MAY HAVE NO RATIONAL BASIS TO
ISSUE AN EX PARTE ORDER. THE VICTIM IS REQUIRED NOT ONLY TO VERIFY THE
ALLEGATIONS IN THE PETITION, BUT ALSO TO ATTACH HER WITNESSES' AFFIDAVITS
TO THE PETITION.
 RULING
THE GRANT OF A TPO EX PARTE CANNOT, THEREFORE, BE CHALLENGED AS
VIOLATIVE OF THE RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS. JUST LIKE A WRIT OF PRELIMINARY
ATTACHMENT WHICH IS ISSUED WITHOUT NOTICE AND HEARING BECAUSE THE
TIME IN WHICH THE HEARING WILL TAKE COULD BE ENOUGH TO ENABLE THE
DEFENDANT TO ABSCOND OR DISPOSE OF HIS PROPERTY, IN THE SAME WAY,
THE VICTIM OF VAWC MAY ALREADY HAVE SUFFERED HARROWING
EXPERIENCES IN THE HANDS OF HER TORMENTOR, AND POSSIBLY EVEN DEATH,
IF NOTICE AND HEARING WERE REQUIRED BEFORE SUCH ACTS COULD BE
PREVENTED.
 RULING

IT IS A CONSTITUTIONAL COMMONPLACE THAT THE ORDINARY

REQUIREMENTS OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS MUST YIELD TO THE
NECESSITIES OF PROTECTING VITAL PUBLIC INTERESTS, AMONG WHICH
IS PROTECTION OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN FROM VIOLENCE AND
THREATS TO THEIR PERSONAL SAFETY AND SECURITY.
 RULING
(3) WHETHER OR NOT R.A. NO. 9262 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT
ALLOWS AN UNDUE DELEGATION OF JUDICIAL POWER TO THE BARANGAY
OFFICIALS.

THE BPO ISSUED BY THE PUNONG BARANGAY OR, IN HIS UNAVAILABILITY, BY ANY
AVAILABLE BARANGAY KAGAWAD, MERELY ORDERS THE PERPETRATOR TO DESIST
FROM (A) CAUSING PHYSICAL HARM TO THE WOMAN OR HER CHILD; AND (2)
THREATENING TO CAUSE THE WOMAN OR HER CHILD PHYSICAL HARM. SUCH
FUNCTION OF THE PUNONG BARANGAY IS, THUS, PURELY EXECUTIVE IN NATURE, IN
PURSUANCE OF HIS DUTY UNDER THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE TO "ENFORCE ALL
LAWS AND ORDINANCES," AND TO "MAINTAIN PUBLIC ORDER IN THE BARANGAY."114
 RULING
WE HAVE HELD THAT "(T)HE MERE FACT THAT AN OFFICER IS REQUIRED
BY LAW TO INQUIRE INTO THE EXISTENCE OF CERTAIN FACTS AND TO
APPLY THE LAW THERETO IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHAT HIS
OFFICIAL CONDUCT SHALL BE AND THE FACT THAT THESE ACTS MAY
AFFECT PRIVATE RIGHTS DO NOT CONSTITUTE AN EXERCISE OF
JUDICIAL POWERS
 RULING
4) WHETHER OR NOT THE FAMILY COURT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO PASS UPON
THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A LAW.

FAMILY COURTS HAVE AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER THE

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATUTE. THEY ARE SPECIAL COURTS OF THE SAME
LEVEL AS REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS. UNDER RA 8369 OTHERWISE KNOWN AS
"FAMILY COURTS ACT OF 1997", FAMILY COURTS HAVE EXCLUSIVE AND ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND DECIDE CASES OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AGAINST
WOMEN AND CHILDREN. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS, THE SUPREME COURT
DESIGNATED FROM AMONG BRANCHES OF THE RTC AT LEAST ONE FAMILY COURT
AND ACCORDING TO SEC 7 OF RA 9262, RTCS DESIGNATED AS FAMILY COURTS
SHALL HAVE ORIGINAL AND EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER CASES OF VAWC
Actual Bar Exam Question
2018 BAR EXAMINATIONS
CRIMINAL LAW
XVI
For the past five years, Ruben and Rorie had been living together as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage. Initially,
they had a happy relationship which was blessed with a daughter, Rona, who was born on March 1, 2014. However, the partners’
relationship became sour when Ruben began indulging in vices, such as women and alcohol, causing frequent arguments
between them. Their relationship got worse when, even for slight mistakes, Ruben would lay his hands on Rorie. One day, a tipsy
Ruben barged into their house and, for no reason, repeatedly punched Rorie in the stomach. To avoid further harm, Rorie ran out
of the house. But Ruben pursued her and stripped her naked in full view of their neighbors; and then he vanished.

Ten days later, Ruben came back to Rorie and pleaded for forgiveness. However, Rorie expressed her wish to live separately from
Ruben and asked him to continue providing financial support for their daughter Rona. At that time, Ruben

was earning enough to support a family. He threatened to withdraw the support he was giving to Rona unless Rorie would agree
to live with him again. But Rorie was steadfast in refusing to live with Ruben again, and insisted on her demand for support for
Rona. As the ex-lovers could not reach an agreement, no further support was given by Ruben.

What crimes did Ruben commit:

For beating and humiliating Rorie? (2.5%)

For withdrawing support for Rona? (2.5%)