#1.

Persons liable include those who commit acts against a woman who is his wife, former wife,
or against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with
whom he has a common child, or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimAate, within or
without the family abode, which result in or is likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological
harm or suffering, or economic abuse including threats of such acts, battery, assault, coercion,
harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty.

#2. Relationships with the accused include those on which the woman was a wife, has or had a
sexual or dating relationship, or with whom the former has a common child, or against her child
whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the family abode.
__
#3.Violence against women and their children is any act or a series of acts committed by
any person against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or against a woman with whom the
person has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a common child, or
against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the family abode,
which result in or is likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or
economic abuse including threats of such acts, battery, assault, coercion, harassment or
arbitrary deprivation of liberty.
__
#4.Physical violence refers to acts that include bodily or physical harm.
__
#5. Sexual violence refers to an act which is sexual in nature, committed against a woman or her
child. It includes, but is not limited to:
a) rape, sexual harassment, acts of lasciviousness, treating a woman or her child as a sex object,
making demeaning and sexually suggestive remarks, physically attacking the sexual parts of
the victim’s body, forcing her/him to watch obscene publications and indecent shows or
forcing the woman or her child to do indecent acts and/or make films thereof, forcing the wife
and mistress/ lover to live in the conjugal home or sleep together in the same room with the
abuser;
b) acts causing or attempting to cause the victim to engage in any sexual activity by force, threat
of force, physical or other harm or threat of physical or other harm or coercion; and
c) prostituting the woman or her child.
__
#6. Psychological violence refers to acts or omissions causing or likely to cause mental or
emotional suffering to the victim such as but not limited to intimidation, harassment, stalking,
damage to property, public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal abuse, and marital
infidelity. It includes causing or allowing the victim to witness the physical, sexual or
psychological abuse of a member of the family to which the victim belongs, or to witness
pornography in any form or to witness abusive injury to pets or to unlawful or unwanted
deprivation of the right to custody and/ or visitation of common children.
__
#7. Economic abuse refers to acts that make or attempt to make a woman financially dependent
which includes, but is not limited to the following:
a) withdrawal of financial support or preventing the victim from engaging in any legitimate
profession, occupation, business or activity, except in cases wherein the other spouse/ partner
objects on valid, serious and moral grounds as defined in Article 73 of the Family Code;
b) deprivation or threat of deprivation of financial resources and the right to the use and
enjoyment of the conjugal, community or property owned in common;
c) destroying household property; and
d) controlling the victim’s own money or properties or solely controlling the conjugal money or
properties.
__
#8. The crime of violence against women and their children is committed through any of the
following acts:
(a) Causing physical harm to the woman or her child;
(b) Threatening to cause the woman or her child physical harm;
(c) Attempting to cause the woman or her child physical harm;
(d) Placing the woman or her child in fear of imminent physical harm;
(e) Attempting to compel or compelling the woman or her child to engage in conduct which the
woman or her child has the right to desist from or desist from conduct which the woman or
her child has the right to engage in, or attempting to restrict or restricting the woman's or her
child's freedom of movement or conduct by force or threat of force, physical or other harm or
threat of physical or other harm, or intimidation directed against the woman or child. This
shall include, but not limited to, the following acts committed with the purpose or effect of
controlling or restricting the woman's or her child's movement or conduct:
(1) Threatening to deprive or actually depriving the woman or her child of custody to her/his
family;
(2) Depriving or threatening to deprive the woman or her children of financial support legally
due her or her family, or deliberately providing the woman's children insufficient financial
support;
(3) Depriving or threatening to deprive the woman or her child of a legal right;
(4) Preventing the woman in engaging in any legitimate profession, occupation, business or
activity or controlling the victim's own money or properties, or solely controlling the conjugal
or common money, or properties;
(f) Inflicting or threatening to inflict physical harm on oneself for the purpose of controlling her
actions or decisions;
(g) Causing or attempting to cause the woman or her child to engage in any sexual activity which
does not constitute rape, by force or threat of force, physical harm, or through intimidation
directed against the woman or her child or her/his immediate family;
(h) Engaging in purposeful, knowing, or reckless conduct, personally or through another, that
alarms or causes substantial emotional or psychological distress to the woman or her child.
This shall include, but not be limited to, the following acts:
(1) Stalking or following the woman or her child in public or private places;
(2) Peering in the window or lingering outside the residence of the woman or her child;
(3) Entering or remaining in the dwelling or on the property of the woman or her child against
her/his will;
(4) Destroying the property and personal belongings or inflicting harm to animals or pets of the
woman or her child; and
(5) Engaging in any form of harassment or violence;
(i) Causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to the woman or her
child, including, but not limited to, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, and denial of
financial support or custody of minor children of access to the woman's child/children. (Sec.
5)

#9. Violence against women and their children shall be considered a public offense, which may
be prosecuted upon the filing of a complaint by any citizen having personal knowledge of the
circumstances involving the commission of the crime.
__
#10. People vs Genosa

Facts:

On or about the 15th day of November 1995, Marivic was alleged to have feloniously attacked,
assaulted, hit and wound BEN GENOSA, her legitimate husband, with the use of a hard deadly
weapon.

Appellant admitted killing Ben. Ben allegedly flew into a rage, dragged appellant outside of
the bedroom towards a drawer holding her by the neck, and told her 'You might as well be killed
so nobody would nag me.'"Appellant, however, insisted that she ended the life of her husband by
shooting him. She supposedly 'distorted' the drawer where the gun was and shot Ben. He did not
die on the spot, though, but in the bedroom.

She testified that while Ben was alive he used to gamble and drink. These incidents happened
several times and she would often run home to her parents, but Ben would follow her and seek
her out, promising to change and would ask for her forgiveness. Several witness testified in favor
of Marivic.

Issue: (1) whether appellant acted in self-defense and in defense of her fetus

Ruling:

No. Traditionally, in order that self-defense may be appreciated, the unlawful aggression or the
attack must be imminent and actually in existence. This interpretation must, however, be re-
evaluated vis-à-vis the recognized inherent characteristic of the psyche of a person afflicted with
the “Battered Woman Syndrome.” Women afflicted by this syndrome live in constant fear for
their life and thus respond in self-defense. Once BWS and an impending danger based on the
conduct of the deceased in previous battering episodes are established, actual occurrence of an
assault is no longer a condition sine qua non before self defense may be upheld. Threatening
behavior or communication can satisfy the required imminence of danger. To require the battered
person to await an obvious deadly attack before she can defend her life would amount to
sentencing her to murder by installment.

The principle that aggression, if not continuous, does not warrant self-defense. In the absence of
such aggression, there can be no self-defense -- complete or incomplete -- on the part of the
victim. Thus, Marivic's killing of Ben was not completely justified under the circumstances.

__

#11. Cycle of violence includes the three phases: (1) the tension-building phase; (2) the acute
battering incident; and (3) the tranquil, loving (or, at least, nonviolent) phase.
During the tension-building phase, minor battering occurs -- it could be verbal or slight
physical abuse or another form of hostile behavior. The woman usually tries to pacify the
batterer through a show of kind, nurturing behavior; or by simply staying out of his way. What
actually happens is that she allows herself to be abused in ways that, to her, are comparatively
minor. All she wants is to prevent the escalation of the violence exhibited by the batterer. This
wish, however, proves to be double-edged, because her "placatory" and passive behavior
legitimizes his belief that he has the right to abuse her in the first place. The violence "spirals out
of control" and leads to an acute battering incident.

The acute battering incident is said to be characterized by brutality, destructiveness and,

sometimes, death. The battered woman deems this incident as unpredictable, yet also inevitable.
During this phase, she has no control; only the batterer may put an end to the violence. Its nature
can be as unpredictable as the time of its explosion, and so are his reasons for ending it. The
battered woman usually realizes that she cannot reason with him, and that resistance would only
exacerbate her condition.

During this tranquil period, the couple experience profound relief. On the one hand, the batterer
may show a tender and nurturing behavior towards his partner. He knows that he has been
viciously cruel and tries to make up for it, begging for her forgiveness and promising never to
beat her again. On the other hand, the battered woman also tries to convince herself that the
battery will never happen again; that her partner will change for the better; and that this "good,
gentle and caring man" is the real person whom she loves.

__

#12. Battered Woman Syndrome refers to a scientifically defined pattern of psychological and
behavioral symptoms that have resulted from cumulative abuse found in women living in
battering relationships. Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering from
battered woman syndrome do not incur any criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the
absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the Revised
Penal Code.

__

#13. SHARICA MARI L. GO-TAN vs. SPOUSES PERFECTO C. TAN and JUANITA L.
TAN
G.R. No. 168852, September 30, 2008

Facts:

Sharica Mari L. Go-Tan filed a Petition for issuance of TPO against her husband and her parents-
in-law for alleged conspiracy with respondents who were causing verbal, psychological and
economic abuses upon her in violation of Section 5, paragraphs (e)(2)(3)(4), (h)(5), and (i) 7 of
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9262,8 otherwise known as the "Anti-Violence Against Women and
Their Children Act of 2004. The RTC issued an Order/Notice 9 granting petitioner's prayer for a
TPO. Upon Motion to Dismiss by the respondents contending that the RTC lacked jurisdiction
over the parents-in-law due to non-coverage by RA 9262, RTC dismissed the case.

Upon petition for review on certiorari, the petitioner contended 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.

Issue: WHETHER OR the PARENTS-IN-LAW OF SHARICA, MAY BE INCLUDED IN THE

PETITION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A PROTECTIVE ORDER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9262, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE "ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST
WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN ACT OF 2004

Ruling:

Yes. Section 3 of R.A. No. 9262 defines ''[v]iolence against women and their children'' as "any
act or a series of acts committed by any person against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or
against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom
he has a common child, or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without
the family abode, which result in or is likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or
suffering, or economic abuse including threats of such acts, battery, assault, coercion, harassment
or arbitrary deprivation of liberty."

The principle of conspiracy under Article 8 of the RPC may be applied suppletorily to R.A. No.
9262 because of the express provision of Section 47 that the RPC shall be supplementary to said
law. Thus, general provisions of the RPC, which by their nature, are necessarily applicable, may
be applied suppletorily.
#16. NORMA A. DEL SOCORRO vs.
ERNST JOHAN BRINKMAN VAN WILSEM
G.R. No. 193707, December 10, 2014

Facts:

After divorce in Holland, Ernst Johan Brinkman Van Wilsem made a promise to provide
monthly support to his son RODERIGO NORJO VAN WILSEM with his previous wife, Norma
A. Del Socorro. However, since the arrival of petitioner and her son in the Philippines,
respondent never gave support to the son.

Respondent came to the Philippines and remarried in Cebu and established a business with her
new wife. Petitioner sent a letter demanding for support from respondent. However, respondent
refused to receive the letter. Petitioner filed a complaint affidavit with the Provincial Prosecutor
of Cebu City against respondent for violation of Section 5, paragraph E(2) of R.A. No. 9262 for
the latter’s unjust refusal to support his minor child with petitioner resulting in economic abuse
to the victim.

Petitioner reiterated respondent’s obligation to support their child under Article 195 of the
Family Code, thus, failure to do so makes him liable under R.A. No. 9262 which "equally applies
to all persons in the Philippines who are obliged to support their minor children regardless of the
obligor’s nationality. It was however contended that accused is a foreign national--he is not
subject to our national law (The Family Code) in regard to a parent’s duty and obligation to give
support to his child.

Issue:’ Whether or not a foreign national can be held criminally liable under R.A. No. 9262 for
his unjustified failure to support his minor child.

Ruling: Yes. Under the special law, the deprivation or denial of financial support to the child is
considered an act of violence against women and children.

Considering that respondent is currently living in the Philippines, the Court find strength in
petitioner’s claim that the Territoriality Principle in criminal law, in relation to Article 14 of the
New Civil Code, applies to the instant case, which provides that: "[p]enal laws and those of
public security and safety shall be obligatory upon all who live and sojourn in Philippine
territory, subject to the principle of public international law and to treaty stipulations." On this
score, it is indisputable that the alleged continuing acts of respondent in refusing to support his
child with petitioner is committed here in the Philippines as all of the parties herein are residents
of the Province of Cebu City. As such, our courts have territorial jurisdiction over the offense
charged against respondent. It is likewise irrefutable that jurisdiction over the respondent was
acquired upon his arrest. Therefore, respondent may be made liable under Section 5(e) and (i) of
R.A. No. 9262 for unjustly refusing or failing to give support to petitioner’s son.

__
#26. Section 3 requires the drawee, who refuses to pay the check to the holder thereof, to cause
to be written, printed or stamped in plain language thereon, or attached thereto, the reason for his
dishonor or refusal to pay the same. Where there are no sufficient funds in or credit with it, the
drawee bank shall explicitly state that fact in the notice of dishonor or refusal. A mere oral notice
or demand to pay would appear to be insufficient for conviction under the law. Responsibility
under B.P. Big. 22 is personal to the accused; hence, personal knowledge of the notice of
dishonor is necessary.

__
#30. Issuing a check in payment of an obligation, which is subsequently dishonored, may be
punished under the Revised Penal Code and under BP Big. 22. In estafa, the act constituting the
offense is postdating or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the offender had no
funds in the bank or his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the amount of the
check.The mere fact that the drawer had insufficient or no funds in the bank to cover the amount
of the check at the time he postdated or issued it, is sufficient to make him liable for estafa.

Deceit is an element of estafa and may be presumed from the failure of the drawer to deposit the
amount necessary to cover the check within three (3) days from receipt of notice of dishonor for
lack or insufficiency of funds in the bank. Deceit is not required in BP Big. 22.