You are on page 1of 16

NORMA A. DEL SOCORRO v. ERNST JOHAN BRINKMAN VAN WILSEM, GR No.

193707, 2014-12-10
Facts:
Petitioner Norma A. Del Socorro and respondent Ernst Johan Brinkman Van Wilsem
contracted marriage in Holland on September 25, 1990.[2] On January 19, 1994, they were
blessed with a son named Roderigo Norjo Van Wilsem, who at the time of the filing of the...
instant petition was sixteen (16) years of age.[3]
Unfortunately, their marriage bond ended on July 19, 1995 by virtue of a Divorce Decree
issued by the appropriate Court of Holland.[4] At that time, their son was only eighteen (18)
months old.[5] Thereafter, petitioner and her son... came home to the Philippines.[6]
According to petitioner, respondent made a promise to provide monthly support to their son
in the amount of Two Hundred Fifty (250) Guildene
However, since the arrival of petitioner and her son in... the Philippines, respondent never
gave support to the son, Roderigo.[8]
Not long thereafter, respondent came to the Philippines and remarried in Pinamungahan,
Cebu, and since then, have been residing thereat.
To date, all the parties, including their son, Roderigo, are presently living in Cebu City.[11]
On August 28, 2009, petitioner, through her counsel, sent a letter demanding for support
from respondent. However, respondent refused to receive the letter.[12]
Because of the foregoing circumstances, petitioner filed a complaint-affidavit with the
Provincial Prosecutor of Cebu City
Respondent submitted his counter-affidavit
Upon motion and after notice and hearing, the RTC-Cebu issued a Hold Departure Order
against respondent.[16] Consequently, respondent was arrested and, subsequently, posted
bail.
Petitioner also filed a Motion/Application of Permanent Protection Order
Subsequently,... respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss
On February 19, 2010, the RTC-Cebu issued the herein assailed Order,[21] dismissing the
instant criminal case against respondent
Thereafter, petitioner filed her Motion for Reconsideration
On September 1, 2010, the lower court issued an Order[25] denying petitioner's Motion for
Reconsideration
Issues:
Whether or not a foreign national has an obligation to support his minor child under
Philippine law
Ruling:
We find the petition meritorious. Nonetheless, we do not fully agree with petitioner's
contentions.
we agree with respondent that petitioner cannot rely on Article 195[34] of the New Civil
Code in demanding support from respondent, who is a foreign citizen
The obligation to give support to a child is a matter that falls under family rights and
duties. Since the respondent is a citizen of Holland or the Netherlands, we agree with the
RTC-Cebu that he is subject to the laws of his country, not to Philippine law, as to whether...
he is obliged to give support to his child, as well as the consequences of his failure to do
so.[37]
It cannot be gainsaid, therefore, that the respondent is not obliged to support petitioner's
son under Article 195 of the Family Code as a consequence of the Divorce Covenant
obtained in Holland.
This does not, however, mean that respondent is not obliged to support... petitioner's son
altogether.
In view of respondent's failure to prove the national law of the Netherlands in his favor, the
doctrine of processual presumption shall govern. Under this doctrine, if the foreign law
involved is not properly pleaded and proved, our courts will presume that the foreign law
is... the same as our local or domestic or internal law.[44] Thus, since the law of the
Netherlands as regards the obligation to support has not been properly pleaded and proved
in the instant case, it is presumed to be the same with Philippine law, which... enforces the
obligation of parents to support their children and penalizing the non-compliance therewith.
the
Divorce Covenant presented by respondent does not completely show that he is not liable
to give support to his son after the divorce decree was issued.
We likewise agree with petitioner that notwithstanding that the national law of respondent
states that parents have no obligation to support their children or that such obligation is not
punishable by law, said law would still not find applicability,... Additionally, prohibitive laws
concerning persons, their acts or property, and those which have for their object public
order, public policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or
judgments promulgated, or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a... foreign
country.
The public policy sought to be protected in the instant case is the principle imbedded in our
jurisdiction proscribing the splitting up of a single cause of action.
Principles:
the doctrine of processual presumption

CASE DIGEST: Go-Tan v. Spouses Tan, G.R. No. 168852


Title: Go-Tan v. Spouses Tan, G.R. No. 168852
Subject Matter: Applicability of the doctrine of conspiracy under the Revised
Penal Code to R.A. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Children Act of
2004)

Facts:
On April 18, 1999, Sharica Mari Go-Tan and Steven Tan were married. Out of this union, two female
children were born, Kyra Danielle and Kristen Denise. On January 12, 2005, barely six years into the
marriage, petitioner Go-Tan filed a petition with prayer for the issuance of a Temporary Protective
Order (TPO) against 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) of
Republic Act No. 9262.

Issue:
Whether or not respondents-spouses, Perfecto and Juanita, parents-in-law of Sharica, may be
included in the petition for the issuance of a protective order, in accordance with RA 9262.

Held:
Yes, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner. While the provisions of RA 9262 provides that the
offender be ralted 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. In
Section 47 of RA 9262, it has expressly provides for the suppletory application of the RPC. Hence,
legal principles developed from the Penal Code may be applied in a supplementary capacity to
crimes punished under special laws, such as RA 9262 in which the special law is silent on a
particular matter.

GARCIA v. DRILON
G.R. No. 179267
June 25, 2013
699 SCRA 352
FACTS: Petitioner Jesus Garcia (husband) admitted having an affair with a bank manager. His infidelity
emotionally wounded private respondent which spawned several quarrels that left respondent wounded.
Petitioner also unconscionably beat up their daughter, Jo-ann.

The private respondent was determined to separate from petitioner. But she was afraid he would take
away their children and deprive her of financial support. He warned her that if she pursued legal battle,
she would not get a single centavo from him. After she confronted him of his affair, he forbade her to hold
office. This deprived her of access to full information about their businesses. Hence, no source of income.

Thus, the RTC found reasonable ground to believe there was imminent danger of violence against
respondent and her children and issued a series of Temporary Protection Orders (TPO) pursuant to RA
9262.

Republic Act No. 9262 is a landmark legislation that defines and criminalizes acts of violence against
women and their children (VAWC) perpetrated by women's intimate partners.

Petitioner hence, challenged the constitutionality of RA 9262 on making a gender-based classification.


ISSUE: Whether or not RA 9262 is discriminatory, unjust, and violative of the equal protection clause.

RULING: No. The equal protection clause in our Constitution does not guarantee an absolute
prohibition against classification. The non-identical treatment of women and men under RA 9262 is
justified to put them on equal footing and to give substance to the policy and aim of the state to ensure the
equality of women and men in light of the biological, historical, social, and culturally endowed differences
between men and women.

RA 9262, by affording special and exclusive protection to women and children, who are vulnerable victims
of domestic violence, undoubtedly serves the important governmental objectives of protecting human
rights, insuring gender equality, and empowering women. The gender-based classification and the special
remedies prescribed by said law in favor of women and children are substantially related, in fact
essentially necessary, to achieve such objectives. Hence, said Act survives the intermediate review or
middle-tier judicial scrutiny. The gender-based classification therein is therefore not violative of the equal
protection clause embodied in the 1987 Constitution.

Constitutionality of RA 9262 "Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of


2004"

JESUS C. GARCIA vs.THE HONORABLE RAY ALAN T. DRILON


G.R. No. 179267, June 25, 2013
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:

FACTS:
Petitioner Jesus Garcia (husband) appears to have inflicted violence against private respondent
(wife and daughter). Petitioner admitted having an affair with a bank manager. He callously
boasted about their sexual relations to the household help. His infidelity emotionally wounded
private respondent. Their quarrels left her with bruises and hematoma. Petitioner also
unconscionably beat up their daughter, Jo-ann, whom he blamed for squealing on him.

All these drove respondent Rosalie Garcia(wife) to despair causing her to attempt suicide on
December 17, 2005 by slitting her wrist. Instead of taking her to the hospital, petitioner left the
house. He never visited her when she was confined for seven (7) days. He even told his mother-
in-law that respondent should just accept his extramarital affair since he is not cohabiting with
his paramour and has not sired a child with her.

The private respondent was determined to separate from petitioner. But she was afraid he would
take away their children and deprive her of financial support. He warned her that if she pursued
legal battle, she would not get a single centavo from him. After she confronted him of his affair,
he forbade her to hold office. This deprived her of access to full information about their
businesses.

Thus, the RTC found reasonable ground to believe there was imminent danger of violence
against respondent and her children and issued a series of Temporary Protection Orders (TPO)
ordering petitioner, among other things, to surrender all his firearms including a .9MM caliber
firearm and a Walther PPK.
Petitioner challenges the constitutionality of RA 9262 for
1. making a gender-based classification, thus, providing remedies only to wives/women and not to
husbands/men.
2. He claims that even the title of the law, "An Act Defining Violence Against Women and Their
Children" is already sex-discriminatory because it means violence by men against women.
3. The law also does not include violence committed by women against children and other women.
4. He adds that gender alone is not enough basis to deprive the husband/father of the remedies
under it because its avowed purpose is to curb and punish spousal violence. The said remedies
are discriminatory against the husband/male gender.
5. There being no reasonable difference between an abused husband and an abused wife, theequal
protection guarantee is violated.

Important and Essential Governmental Objectives:


1. Safeguard Human Rights,
2. Ensure Gender Equality and
3. Empower Women

International Laws
By constitutional mandate, the Philippines is committed to ensure that human rights and
fundamental freedoms are fully enjoyed by everyone.
1. It was one of the countries that voted in favor of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(UDHR). In addition, the Philippines is a signatory to many United Nations human rights treaties
such as the
2. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,
3. the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights, the
4. Convention Against Torture, and the
5. Convention on the Rights of the Child, among others.

UDHR
As a signatory to the UDHR, the Philippines pledged itself to achieve the promotion of universal
respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms, keeping in mind the
standards under the Declaration. Among the standards under the UDHR are the following:

Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed
with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
xxxx
Article 7. All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal
protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation
of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8. Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for
acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Declaration of Policy in RA 9262


 enunciates the purpose of the said law, which is to fulfill the government’s obligation to
safeguard the dignity and human rights of women and children by providing effective remedies
against domestic violence or physical, psychological, and other forms of abuse perpetuated by
the husband, partner, or father of the victim.
 The said law is also viewed within the context of the constitutional mandate to ensure gender
equality, which is quoted as follows:
Section 14. The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building, and shall ensure the
fundamental equality before the law of women and men.

ISSUE: WON R.A. NO. 9262 IS DISCRIMINATORY, UNJUST, AND VIOLATIVE OF THE
EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE.

HELD:
RA 9262 is NOT UNCONSITUTIONAL.

1. RA 9262 - compliance with the CEDAW

It has been acknowledged that "gender-based violence is a form of discrimination that seriously
inhibits women's ability to enjoy rights and freedoms on a basis of equality with men." RA 9262
can be viewed therefore as the Philippines’ compliance with the CEDAW, which is committed
to condemn discrimination against women and directs its members to undertake, without delay,
all appropriate means to eliminate discrimination against women in all forms both in law and in
practice.

CEDAW
Known as the International Bill of Rights of Women, the CEDAW is the central and most
comprehensive document for the advancement of the welfare of women. The CEDAW, in its
preamble, explicitly acknowledges the existence of extensive discrimination against women, and
emphasized that such is a violation of the principles of equality of rights and respect for human
dignity.

2. Philippine’s obligation as state-party to CEDAW

The Philippines is under legal obligation to ensure their development and advancement for the
improvement of their position from one of de jure as well as de facto equality with men. The
CEDAW, going beyond the concept of discrimination used in many legal standards and norms,
focuses on discrimination against women, with the emphasis that women have suffered and are
continuing to suffer from various forms of discrimination on account of their biological sex.

The governmental objectives of protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms, which
includes promoting gender equality and empowering women, as mandated not only by
our Constitution, but also by commitments we have made in the international sphere, are
undeniably important and essential.
RA 9262 provides the widest range of reliefs for women and children who are victims of
violence, which are often reported to have been committed not by strangers, but by a father or a
husband or a person with whom the victim has or had a sexual or dating relationship.

3. The Gender-Based Classification in RA 9262 is Substantially Related to the Achievement


of Governmental Objectives

Historical Perspective:
 A foreign history professor noted that: "from the earliest civilizations on, the subjugation of
women, in the form of violence, were facts of life,
 Judeo-Christian religious ideas; Greek philosophy; and the Common Law Legal Code: all
"assumed patriarchy as natural; that is, male domination stemming from the view of male
superiority."
 18th century legal expert William Blackstone, reflected the theological assumption that:
husband and wife were ‘one body’ before God; thus "they were ‘one person’ under the law, and
that one person was the husband," a concept that evidently found its way in some of our Civil
Code provisions prior to the enactment of the Family Code.
 Society and tradition dictate that the culture of patriarchy continues. Men are expected to take
on the dominant roles both in the community and in the family. This perception naturally leads to
men gaining more power over women – power, which must necessarily be controlled and
maintained. Violence against women is one of the ways men control women to retain such
power.
 In ancient western societies, women whether slave, concubine or wife, were under the
authority of men. In law, they were treated as property.
 The Roman concept of patria potestas allowed the husband to beat, or even kill, his wife if she
endangered his property right over her.
 Judaism, Christianity and other religions oriented towards the patriarchal family strengthened
the male dominated structure of society.
 English feudal law reinforced the tradition of male control over women.
 However, in the late 1500s and through the entire 1600s, English common law began to limit
the right of husbands to chastise their wives. Thus, common law developed the rule of thumb,
which allowed husbands to beat their wives with a rod or stick no thicker than their thumb.

Statistics:
The enactment of RA 9262 was in response to the undeniable numerous cases involving violence
committed against women in the Philippines.
 In 2012, the Philippine National Police (PNP) reported that 65% or 11,531 out of 15,969 cases
involving violence against women were filed under RA 9262.
 From 2004 to 2012, violations of RA. 9262 ranked first among the different categories of
violence committed against women. The number of reported cases showed an increasing trend
from 2004 to 2012,
 The law recognizes, with valid factual support based on statistics that women and children are
the most vulnerable victims of violence, and therefore need legal intervention. On the other
hand, there is a dearth of empirical basis to anchor a conclusion that men need legal
protection from violence perpetuated by women.
4. Different treatment of women and men based on biological, social, and cultural differences

The persistent and existing biological, social, and cultural differences between women and men
prescribe that they be treated differently under particular conditions in order to achieve
substantive equality for women. Thus, the disadvantaged position of a woman as compared to a
man requires the special protection of the law, as gleaned from the following recommendations
of the CEDAWCommittee:
 The Convention requires that women be given an equal start and that they be empowered by an
enabling environment to achieve equality of results. It is not enough to guarantee women
treatment that is identical to that of men. Rather, biological as well as socially and culturally
constructed differences between women and men must be taken into account. Under certain
circumstances, non-identical treatment of women and men will be required in order to address
such differences. Pursuit of the goal of substantive equality also calls for an effective strategy
aimed at overcoming under representation of women and a redistribution of resources and power
between men and women.
 Equality of results is the logical corollary of de facto or substantive equality. These results may
be quantitative and/or qualitative in nature; that is, women enjoying their rights in various fields
in fairly equal numbers with men, enjoying the same income levels, equality in decision-making
and political influence, and women enjoying freedom from violence.

The government’s commitment to ensure that the status of a woman in all spheres of her life are
parallel to that of a man, requires the adoption and implementation of ameliorative measures,
such as RA 9262. Unless the woman is guaranteed that the violence that she endures in her
private affairs will not be ignored by the government, which is committed to uplift her to her
rightful place as a human being, then she can neither achieve substantive equality nor be
empowered.

5. RA 9262 justified under the Constitution


The Constitution abundantly authorize Congress or the government to actively undertake
ameliorative action that would remedy existing inequalities and inequities experienced by
women and children brought about by years of discrimination. The equal protection clause when
juxtaposed to this provision provides a stronger mandate for the government to combat such
discrimination. Indeed, these provisions order Congress to "give highest priority to the enactment
of measures that protect and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce social,
economic, and political inequalities and remove cultural inequities."

RA 9262 is “THE” ameliorative action


 In enacting R.A. 9262, Congress has taken an ameliorative action that would address the evil
effects of the social model of patriarchy, a pattern that is deeply embedded in the society’s
subconscious, on Filipino women and children and elevate their status as human beings on
the same level as the father or the husband.
 R.A. 9262 aims to put a stop to the cycle of male abuses borne of discrimination against women.
It is an ameliorative measure, not a form of "reverse discrimination" against. Ameliorative
action "is not an exception to equality, but an expression and attainment of de facto equality, the
genuine and substantive equality which the Filipino people themselves enshrined as a goal of the
1987 Constitution." Ameliorative measures are necessary as a redistributive mechanism in
an unequal society to achieve substantive equality.

Ameliorative measures to achieve substantive equality


In the context of women’s rights, substantive equality has been defined by the Convention on the
Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) as equality which
requires that women be given an equal start and that they be empowered by an enabling
environment to achieve equality of results. It is not enough to guarantee women treatment that is
identical to that of men. Rather, biological as well as socially and culturally constructed
differences between women and men must be taken into account. Under certain
circumstances, non-identical treatment of women and men will be required in order to address
such differences.

Women’s struggle for equality with men has evolved under three models:
1. Formal equality - women and men are to be regarded and treated as the same. But this model
does not take into account biological and socially constructed differences between women and
men. By failing to take into account these differences, a formal equality approach may in fact
perpetuate discrimination and disadvantage.
2. Protectionist model – this recognizes differences between women and men but
considerswomen’s weakness as the rationale for different treatment. This approach reinforces the
inferior status of women and does not address the issue of discrimination of women on account
of their gender.
3. Substantive equality model – this assumes that women are "not vulnerable by nature, but
suffer from imposed disadvantage" and that "if these imposed disadvantages were eliminated,
there was no further need for protection." Thus, the substantive equality model gives prime
importance to women’s contexts, realities, and experiences, and the outcomes or results of acts
and measures directed, at or affecting them, with a view to eliminating the disadvantages they
experience as women.

6. The gender-based classification of RA 9262 does not violate the Equal Protection
Clause (application of the substantive equality model)

The equal protection clause in our Constitution does not guarantee an absolute prohibition
against classification. The non-identical treatment of women and men under RA 9262 is
justified to put them on equal footing and to give substance to the policy and aim of the state to
ensure the equality of women and men in light of the biological, historical, social, and
culturally endowed differences between men and women.

RA 9262, by affording special and exclusive protection to women and children, who are
vulnerable victims of domestic violence, undoubtedly serves the important governmental
objectives of protecting human rights, insuring gender equality, and empowering women. The
gender-based classification and the special remedies prescribed by said law in favor of women
and children are substantially related, in fact essentially necessary, to achieve such objectives.
Hence, said Act survives the intermediate review or middle-tier judicial scrutiny. The gender-
based classification therein is therefore not violative of the equal protection clause embodied in
the 1987 Constitution.

Justice Brion: As traditionally viewed, the constitutional provision of equal protection simply
requires that similarly situated persons be treated in the same way. It does not connote identity of
rights among individuals, nor does it require that every person is treated identically in all
circumstances. It acts as a safeguard to ensure that State-drawn distinctions among persons are
based on reasonable classifications and made pursuant to a proper governmental purpose. In
short, statutory classifications are not unconstitutional when shown to be reasonable and made
pursuant to a legitimate government objective.

R.A. No. 9262 as a measure intended to strengthen the family. Congress found that domestic
and other forms of violence against women and children contribute to the failure to unify and
strengthen family ties, thereby impeding the State’s mandate to actively promote the family’s
total development. Congress also found, as a reality, that women and children are more
susceptible to domestic and other forms of violence due to, among others, the pervasive bias
and prejudice against women and the stereotyping of roles within the family environment that
traditionally exist in Philippine society. On this basis, Congress found it necessary to recognize
the substantial distinction within the family between men, on the one hand, and women and
children, on the other hand. This recognition, incidentally, is not the first to be made in the laws
as our law on persons and family under the Civil Code also recognize, in various ways, the
distinctions between men and women in the context of the family.

Justice Leonen: It may be said that violence in the context of intimate relationships should not
be seen and encrusted as a gender issue; rather, it is a power issue.

By concurring with these statements I express a hope: that the normative constitutional
requirements of human dignity and fundamental equality can become descriptive reality. The
socially constructed distinctions between women and men that have afflicted us and spawned
discrimination and violence should be eradicated sooner. Power and intimacy should not co-
exist.

The intimate spaces created by our human relationships are our safe havens from the helter
skelter of this world. It is in that space where we grow in the safety of the special other who we
hope will be there for our entire lifetime. If that is not possible, then for such time as will be
sufficient to create cherished memories enough to last for eternity.

I concur in the ponencia. Against abominable acts, let this law take its full course.

Justice Abad: RA 9262 is a historic step in the Filipino women's long struggle to be freed from a
long-held belief that men are entitled, when displeased or minded, to hit their wives or partners
and their children. This law institutionalizes prompt community response to this violent behavior
through barangay officials who can command the man to immediately desist from harming his
home partner and their children. It also establishes domestic violence as a crime, not only against
its victims but against society as well. No longer is domestic violence lightly dismissed as a case
of marital dispute that law enforcers ought not to get into.

Chief Justice Puno on Expanded Equal protection and Substantive Equality


Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno espouses that the equal protection clause can no longer be
interpreted as only a guarantee of formal equality but of substantive equality. "It ought to be
construed in consonance with social justice as ‘the heart’ particularly of the 1987 Constitution—
a transformative covenant in which the Filipino people agreed to enshrine asymmetrical
equality to uplift disadvantaged groups and build a genuinely egalitarian democracy." This
means that the weak, including women in relation to men, can be treated with a measure of bias
that they may cease to be weak.

Chief Justice Puno goes on: "The Expanded Equal Protection Clause, anchored on the human
rights rationale, is designed as a weapon against the indignity of discrimination so that in
the patently unequal Philippine society, each person may be restored to his or her rightful
position as a person with equal moral status."

Dabalos vs. RTC Branch 59 of Angeles City, Pampanga


G.R. No. 193960

Facts:

Dabalos had willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously used personal violence against the
complainant whom he had a dating relationship with. The said violence constituted the
pulling of hair, punching the complainant's back, shoulder, and left eye which have
demeaning and degrading effects on the complainant's intrinsic worth and dignity as a
human being, in violation of Section 5 (a) of the Republic Act 9262. In Dabalos' defense, he
averred that the relationship had already ceased at the time of the alleged incident.

Issue:

Whether or not RA 9262 be construed when the dating relationship was not the proximate
cause of the violence?

Held:

Yes. The law provides that any act can be considered as a crime of violence against women
through physical harm when it is committed against a woman or her child and the woman is
the offender's wife, former wife, or with whom he has or had sexual or dating relationship or
with whom he has a common child, and when it results in or is likely to result in physical
harm or suffering.

Applying the rule on statutory construction that when the law does not distinguish, neither
should the courts, the punishable acts refer to all acts of violence against women with whom
the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship. It did not distinguish that the act of
violence should be a consequence of such relationship.

RUSTAN ANG y PASCUA, Petitioner, vs.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and IRISH SAGUD, Respondents.

G.R. No. 182835; April 20, 2010

Facts:

After receiving from the accused Rustan via multimedia message service (MMS) a picture of a
naked woman with her face superimposed on the figure, Complainant filed an action against said
accused for violation of the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act or Republic Act
(R.A.) 9262.

The sender’s cellphone number, stated in the message, was 0921-8084768, one of the numbers that
Rustan used. Irish surmised that he copied the picture of her face from a shot he took when they
were in Baguio in 2003. The accused said to have boasted that it would be easy for him to create
similarly scandalous pictures of her and threatened to spread the picture he sent through the
internet.

The trial court later found Rustan guilty of the violation of Section 5(h) of R.A. 9262. On Rustan’s
appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA), the latter rendered a decision affirming the RTC decision. The
CA denied Rustan’s motion for reconsideration in a resolution dated April 25, 2008. Thus, Rustan
filed the present for review on certiorari.

Issue:

Whether or not the RTC properly admitted in evidence the obscene picture presented in the case?

Held:

Yes. The Supreme Court affirms the decision of the CA.


Rustan claims that the obscene picture sent to Irish through a text message constitutes an electronic
document. Thus, it should be authenticated by means of an electronic signature, as provided under
Section 1, Rule 5 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence (A.M. 01-7-01-SC).

However, Rustan is raising this objection to the admissibility of the obscene picture for the first time
before the Supreme Court. The objection is too late since he should have objected to the admission
of the picture on such ground at the time it was offered in evidence. He should be deemed to have
already waived such ground for objection.

Moreover, the rules he cites do not apply to the present criminal action. The Rules on Electronic
Evidence applies only to civil actions, quasi-judicial proceedings, and administrative proceedings.

In conclusion, the Court finds that the prosecution has proved each and every element of the crime
charged beyond reasonable doubt.

DOLINA V. VALLECERA

GR No. 182367- [December 15, 2010]

DOCTRINE:

To be entitled to legal support, petitioner must, in proper action, first establish the
filiation of the child, if the same is not admitted or acknowledged. If filiation is beyond
question, support follows as matter of obligation.

FACTS:

In 2008, Cherryl Dolina filed a petition with aprayer for the issuance of a temporary
protection order against Glenn Vallecera before RTC for alleged woman and childabuse
under RA 9262. In the pro forma complaint cherryl added a prayer for support for their
supposed child. She based such prayer on the latter’s certificate of live birth which listed
Vallecera ‘s employer, to withhold from his pay such amount of support as the RTC may
deem appropriate.

Vallecera opposed petition and claimed that Dolina’s petition was essentially one
for financial support rather than for protection against woman and child abuses, that he
was not the child’s father and that the signature in the birth certificate was not here. He
also added that the petition is a harassment suit intended to for him to acknowledge
the child as his and therefore give financialsupport.

RTC dismissed petition.


ISSUE:

Whether or not the RTC correctly dismissed Dolina’s action for temporary protection
and denied her application for temporary support for her child?

HELD:

Yes.

RATIO:

Dolina evidently filed the wrong action to obtain support for her child. The object of
R.A. 9262 under which she filed the case is the protection and safety of women and
children who are victims of abuse or violence. Although the issuance of a protection
order against the respondent in the case can include the grant of legal support for the
wife and the child, this assumes that both are entitled to a protection order and to legal
support. In this case neither her or her child lived with Vallecera.

To be entitled to legal support, petitioner must, in proper action, first establish the
filiation of the child, if the same is not admitted or acknowledged. Since Dolina’s
demand for support for her son is based on her claim that he is Vallecera’s
illegitimate child, the latter is not entitled to such support if he had not acknowledged
him, until Dolina shall have proved his relation to him. The child’s remedy is
to file through her mother a judicial action against Vallecera for compulsory recognition.
If filiation is beyond question, support follows as matter of obligation. In short,
illegitimate children are entitled to support and successional rights but their filiation
must be duly proved.

Dolina’s remedy is to file for the benefit of her child an action against Vallecera for
compulsory recognition in order to establish filiation and then demand support.
Alternatively, she may directly file an action for support, where the issue of compulsory
recognition may be integrated and resolved.

RICKY DINAMLING v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES


G.R. No. 19952 June 22, 2015

Facts:
Petitioner Ricky Dinamling was charged in two criminal information for violation of R.A. No.
9262. It is alleged in the information that he feloniously inflicts psychological violence upon a
woman with whom he has two children, resulting to mental and emotional anguish and public
humiliation by repeated verbal and emotional abuse consisting of several bad and insulting
utterance directed against the victim. Dinamling pleaded not guilty to both charges.

Issue:

Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of violation of RA No. 9262.


Ruling:
The elements of the crime are;

(1) The offended party is a woman and/or her child or children


(2) The woman is either the wife or former wife of the offender, or is a woman with whom the
offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or is a woman with whom such offender has a
common child. As for the woman’s child or children, they may be legitimate or illegitimate, or
living within or without the family abode.
(3) The offender causes on the woman and/or child mental or emotional anguish; and
(4) The anguish is caused through the acts of public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal and
emotional abuse, denial of financial support or custody of minor children or access to the
children or similar acts or omissions.

In this case, the elements have been proven and duly established. It is undisputed that thevictim
is a woman who has then in a five-year ongoing relationship with Dinamling and had two
common children. The woman is often in fear of petitioner due to latter’s physical and verbal
abuse.

Psychological violence is an element of violation of Section 5 (RA No. 9262) just like the mental
or emotional anguish caused on the victim. It 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 the element of the crime, it is necessary to show
proof of commission of any of the acts enumerated in Section 5(i) or similar acts. And to
establish mental or emotional anguish, it is necessary to present a testimony of the victim as such
experiences are personal to this party.

In fact, neither the physical injuries suffered by the victim nor the actual physical violence done
by the perpetrator are necessary to prove the essential elements of the crime as defined in Section
5(i) of RA 9262. The only exception is, as in the case at bar, when the physical violence done,
petitioner Dinamling's acts of publicly punching, kicking and stripping her pants and underwear,
although obvious acts of physical violence, are also instances of psychological violence since it
was alleged and proven that they resulted in the victim’s public ridicule. Accused is alleged to
have caused the mental and emotional suffering; in which case, such acts of physical violence
must be proven. In this instance, the physical violence was a means of causing mental or
emotional suffering. As such, whether or not it led to actual bodily injury, the physical violence
translates to psychological violence since its main effect was on the victim's mental or emotional
well-being.