You are on page 1of 5

R.A. 9262 ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN & THEIR CHILDREN 6. inflicting/threatening to inflict phys.

Harm on oneself to control her axns or
Violence – any act or a series of acts committed by any person w/c will likely result to decisions
physical, sexual, psychological harm/suffering, or economic abuse including threats of 7. causing/attempting to cause them to engage in sexual act not constituting
such, battery (inflicting physical harm resulting to physical, psychological or emotional rape by force, phys. Harm or intimidation of immediate family
distress), assault, coercion, harassment, or arbitrary deprivation of lib. Types: 8. engaging in purposeful, knowing, or reckless conduct that alarms/causes
1. Physical – bodily/physical harm substantial emotional/psychological distress to them
2. Sexual violence – sexual in nature (rape, sexual harassment, making a. stalking/following them in priv. places
sexually suggestive remarks, forcing one to watch indecent shows, forcing b. peering in window or lingering outside residence
wife & mistress to live under one roof; force/threaten one to engage in c. entering/remaining in dwelling/prop against owner’s will
sexual act, prostituting) d. destroying prop & personal belongings or inflicting harm to their
3. Psychological – acts/omissions that may cause mental/emotional suffering animals/pets
(intimidation, harassment, stalking {intentional, done knowingly & w/o lawful e. harassment/violence
justification, follow woman/child or put them under surveillance), verbal 9. causing mental/emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation (repeated
abuse, allowing one to witness phys/sexual/psych’l abuse of a member of verbal & emotional abuse & denial of financial support/custody of minor kids
one’s family, unwanted deprivation of custody) & denial of access to woman’s kid/s)
4. Economic Abuse – make/attempt to make woman financially dependent *PRESCRIPTION: 1-6: 20 yrs. And 5-9: 10 yrs.
(w/draw financial support, prevent victim from engaging in any legit Remedy: Protection orders w/c can:
profession/occupation/biz/activity, deprivation/threat of deprivation of 1. prohibit one from threatening to commit/committing above-mentioned acts
financial resources, destroying household prop, controlling victim’s own 2. prohibit one from harassing, annoying, telephoning,
money/prop) contacting/communicating w/ petitioner
Woman – 3. removal & exclusion of one from petitioner’s residence regardless of owner
1. wife 4. direct one to stay away from petitioner/family mem w/in court prescribed
2. former wife distance, or from school, house, office, etc.
3. one you had dating relations with – live-in or romantically involved over time 5. direct lawful possession & use by petitioner of car & other essential personal
on a continuing basis effects, regardless of ownership
4. one you had sexual relations with – single sexual act w/ or w/o bearing of 6. grant temporary/permanent custody of kids to petitioner
common child 7. direct respondent to support woman &/or child if entitled to legal support.
5. one you have common child with Can be automatically deducted from wage per court order
Children 8. prohibit respondent from using/possessing firearm/deadly weapon
1. below 18 y.o. 9. compensate victim for actual damages caused by violence
2. older than 18 but can’t take care of themselves 10. direct DSWD or other similar agencies to provide petitioner w/needs
3. biological, whether legit or illegit 11. other forms of relief, court can come up w/as long as approved by petitioner
4. all children under her care & designated family mem
Acts of Violence against women & their children *even in the absence of decrees of leg.sep., annulment, absolute nullity
1. causing physical harm Custody of children - if below 7 or older but has mental or physical disabilities,
2. threatening to cause phys. Harm MOM, followed even if mom’s suffering from BWS
3. attempting to cause phys.harm Battered Woman syndrome – scientifically defined pattern of psych’l & behavioral
4. placing them in fear of imminent phys.harm symptoms of battered women due to cumulative abuse ; valid defense
5. compel/attempt to compel them to (a) do something they have right to desist
from or (b) compel them to desist from doing something they have JULIETA NARAG VS. ATTY. DOMINADOR NARAG
engage in or (c) attempt to restrict/restrict their freedom of mov’t by force, • Dominador taught at St. Louis College of Tuguegarao, CAS & grad school
threat of force, phys or other harm, intimidation • 1984 – he met Gina Espita, his first year 17-year old student
a. threaten to deprive/deprive her of custody to family • Dominador & Gina had illicit relationship
b. deprive/threaten to deprive her/kids of financial support legally due them
• Dominador abandoned his family to live w/Gina
c. deprive/threaten to deprive of legal rt.
d. prevent her from engaging in any legit profession, occupation, biz or • Dominador used power as Sangguniang Panlalawigan to secure employment for
activity or controlling her money /prop or solely controlling Gina at the DTI
conjugal/common money/prop
• 11/13/89 – Julieta filed administrative complaint for his disbarment for violating a comfortable life, his being a successful lawyer & seasoned politician do not
Canons/Code of Ethics necessarily mean that he’s morally fit.
• 12/18/89 – SC referred case to IBP for investigation, report & recommendation 3. He has duties to his children (support, educate, instruct accdg to rt. Precepts &
• 6/26/90 – Julieta wanted to seek dismissal of other complaints & sent affidavit of good example, give love, companionship, understanding, moral & spiritual
desistance saying: guidance) and to his wife (observe mutual love, respect & fidelity & render help &
1. she fabricated allegations in complaint to humiliate & spite husband support). He failed to fulfill these duties. He was away most of the time because
2. love letters bet 2 guilty were forged of his paramour not because of work as he alleges. Son’s testimony proved that
3. she suffered from emotional confusing due to extreme jealousy he abandoned his family which even affected his son’s own family. Dominador
4. denied Gina & Dominador ever had a rel. did not merely contract a marriage, he should have been a partner who lived up
5. Dominador never left the family to his promise to love & respect his wife & remain faithful to her until death.
• 10/8/91 – IBP dismissed complaint for failure to prosecute
WARREN VS. STATE (nov. 85)
• 11/25/91 – Julieta sent another letter reviving appeal for Dominador’s disbarment Daniel Warren was convicted for rape & aggravated sodomy of his wife while they
due to his continuous threats were living together as husband & wife. He appealed to dismiss the indictment.
• 7/6/92 – Dominador requested that IBP decision be affirmed His grounds:
1. he never threatened, harassed, or intimidated her 1. Rape statute implies marital exclusion thus husband can’t be guilty of raping wife.
2. he never abandoned family, he loves them. He protected & preserved family. 2. Aggravated sodomy statute provides for marital exclusion too.
Julieta & 2 sons drove him out of their house. 3. Interpreting the above-mentioned laws otherwise would be tantamount to new
3. Julieta is emotionally disturbed – incurably jealous & possessive, violent, interpretations & application of such would deny him of his due process rts.
vindictive, scandalous. ISSUE: WON marital exclusion is implied in the rape & aggravated sodomy statutes
4. Julieta’s rich & she abhors poor. He is poor HELD: No. Conviction affirmed.
5. he was beaten, battered, brutalized, tortured, abused & humiliated by Julieta RATIO:
in public & at home physically, mentally & emotionally thus he filed for 1. There has never been an express marital exemption in Georgia rape statute.
annulment coz they can’t exist together Theories/bases for thinking that marital exclusion exists in rape statute: (a) Lord
6. She has disgraced, shamed & humiliated him by telling everyone Hale – by giving matrimonial consent, wife gave up herself in this kind unto
everywhere that he’s worthless, good-for-nothing, evil & immoral husband & she can’t take that back (b) subsequent marriage doctrine of English
7. denied relationship w/ Gina. No kids either. law - if marriage bet. A rapist & his victim extinguishes criminal liabilities then
8. love letters: inadmissible as evidence corollary, rape w/in marital relationship should be given that immunity (c) medieval
9. he’s old thus, unfit to do things alleged by Julieta. time – wife is husband’s chattel or property thus rape = man using his own property
• Investigating officer: indefinite suspension from practice of law. He never denied (d) unity of person theory – husband & wife become one, with wife incorporating
love letters, didn’t disprove adulterous relationship. Denying 2 kids ground for her existence to that of the husband, thus husband can’t be convicted of raping
disciplinary action. himself. Justifications: (a) prevent fabricated charges (b) prevent wives from using
• IBP: affirmed investigating officer’s recommendation & granted disbarment rape charges for revenge (c) prevent state intervention so as not to thwart possible
ISSUE: WON Dominador should be disbarred reconciliation. All of these theories & justifications are passé. Equal protection of
HELD: Yes. Disbarred. the laws is being practiced now.
1. Lawyer should not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral (shameless showing Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge w/a female forcibly & against her
indifference to opinion of good mems of society) or deceitful conduct (Code of will. It violates the moral sense & personal integrity & autonomy of the female
Professional Responsibility Rule 1.01), should not behave in scandalous manner, victim. Implied consent to such in marriage conflicts is absurd & against the
in public or in private to the discredit of the legal profession (Rule 7.03). These constitution. During era of slavery, rape was seen negatively & not acceptable even
are continuing requirements/qualification of all members of bar. This includes to chattels.
prohibition against adulterous relationships. 2. Sodomy is the carnal knowledge & connection against the order of nature by man
2. Burden of proof of gross immorality for abandoning his family: Julieta. She proved w/man or in same unnatural manner w/woman. There has been no implied marital
this by presenting witnesses who attested to adulterous relationship between exemption under this statute even in earlier times. Consent is not a defense unlike
Gina & Dominador. Even Gina’s brother admitted that Gina & Dominador had 2 in rape. Anyone who voluntarily participates is guilty.
children. Even though Julieta has burden of proof, he needs to show that he is 3. There is due process. Due process merely requires that law give sufficient warning
morally fit to remain a mem of bar. His denials without proof are insufficient. His so men may avoid what is forbidden. Statutes concerned are plain & broadly
accusations against Julieta were not proven. Providing for his family, giving them
written. This may be the first application to this particular set of facts but it’s not an crim’l justice sys can take care of this). Marital rape is more violent & traumatic
unforeseeable judicial enlargement of criminal statutes that are narrowly drawn. than non-marital one. IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
3. Constitutionality of Exemption for Females – Only males can be convicted of rape
PEOPLE VS. LIBERTA (dec. 84) in the 1st degree. Reason: it aims to protect chastity of women & their prop value
• 1978 – Mario & Denise Liberta were married. Had one son to father/husbands. Treating people differently based on gender can only be
• Oct. 1978 – Mario began to beat Denise justified by its substantial relation to the achievement of an impt gov’tal obj. State
• 1980 – Denise sought a temporary order of protection from Mario. Granted on defense (a) only females can become pregnant – it’s not the main purpose (b)
April 30, 1980 ordering (a) Mario to move out (b) remain away from family home female faces probability of medical, sociological & psych’l probs unique to her
(c) stay away from Denise (d) can visit kid once each weekend gender – archaic & overbroad generalization (c) women can’t actually rape men
or if it happens, it’s rare – not tenable either. They need to present an
• March 24, 1981 – Mario wanted to visit son but Denise didn’t allow him to go the
exceedingly persuasive justification for classification. Show that gender-based
house so they met instead in the motel where Mario was staying on the condition
law serves the government’s interest better than a gender-neutral one. As it is,
that they be accompanied by a friend. However, the friend left upon their arrival
only females who forcibly rape males benefit from the present statute.
at the motel. Mario then attacked Denise, threatened to kill her & forced her to
perform fellatio on him & to engage in sexual intercourse w/him. 2 ½ y.o. son was
4. Strike out only the unconstitutional parts since the statute is of major importance.
there all the time & Mario even forced Denise to tell their son to watch what was
It’s not entirely void anyway.
happening. They were allowed to leave afterwards.
5. Due process is observed. His act was already criminal when he attacked Denise.
• Denise filed a felony complaint against Mario
• July 15, 1981 – Mario was convicted for rape & sodomy both in their 1st degrees TRACEY THURMAN VS. CITY OF TORRINGTON (OCT. 84)
• Mario says: • Charles & Tracey Thurman were married but they became estranged after some
1. they’re married thus he’s covered by marital exemption to rape & sodomy. time. They have one child Charles, Jr. They have separated already.
2. Rape & sodomy statutes are unconsti’l because it treats married & • Oct. 82 – Charles attacked Tracey at the home of Judy Bentley & Richard St.
unmarried persons differently. Hilaire. Judy & Richard filed complaint & requested efforts to keep Charles off
ISSUES: WON Mario is covered by the marital exemption their prop
WON the statutes are unconsti’l for violating equal protection clause • Nov. 5, 82 – Charles returned & forcefully took their son. Tracey & Richard filed
HELD: Conviction affirmed.
complaint but was not accepted even on ground of trespassing
• Nov. 9, 82 – Charles threatened Tracey while she was in her car & she even
1. NO. Male guilty of rape when he engages in sexual intercourse w/female by
forcible compulsion. Female is any female person not married to actor. Sodomy broke her windshield. He was arrested & convicted of breach of peace. Allowed
means engaging in deviate sexual intercourse (sexual conduct bet.persons not conditional discharge w/conditions: 1) stay completely away from Tracey 2) from
married to each other consisting of contact bet.penis & anus, mouth & penis, or Judy & Richard’s house 3) no more crimes. Police were informed.
mouth & vulva. Not married phrase means there is marital exemption for both. • Dec. 31, 82 – Charles returned & threatened her. Tracey called police dept but
But it has exemptions. One of which is when spouses are living apart pursuant to they made no attempt to look for him/arrest him
a valid & effective (a) order issued by court of competent jurisdiction requiring • Jan. 1 – May 4, 83 – police dept. got several calls re threats of violence to Tracey
such living apart (b) decree of separation (c) written agreement of separation, & Charles, Jr. They requested for his arrest. He violated the probation terms.
they are considered to be not married. Thus, forcible rape or sodomy in this • May 4 & 5, 83 – Tracey requested for arrest warrant for her husband due to
instance would be punishable. In this case, Denise & Mario were technically, not threats that he would shoot them. Complaint was refused. Told to return after 3
married, by virtue of the temporary order of protection. weeks for warrant.
2. Constitutionality of Marital Exemption - Married man ordinarily can’t be convicted • May 6, 83 – Tracey filed for restraining order against Charles. Court issued such
of forcibly raping/sodomizing his wife (marital exemption). State is allowed to forbidding Charles from assaulting, threatening & harassing Tracey. Police were
make classifications as long as there is a rational basis for doing so & it does not informed.
arbitrarily burden a particular group. No rational basis for distinguishing • May 27, 83 – Tracey returned to police dept. to secure warrant & requested for
bet.marital & non-marital rape. Rationales are archaic. (See P vs. Liberta police protection. Asked to call back on may 31.
explanations on theories). Imposing a marital exemption does not further the • May 31, 83 – still no warrant. They were told that Charles would be arrested on
cause it purportedly protects which is marital privacy. (ex. Prevent state June 8, 83, didn’t happen.
interference to protect privacy – not justified by allowing husband to forcibly rape
• June 10, 83 – Charles returned & Tracey called police dept. to pick him up.
his wife; Disrupt marriage – the act of rape/sodomy in itself would disrupt the
Tracey spoke to husband but she was stabbed repeatedly in the chest, neck &
marriage & reconciliation is quite impossible; wife will present fabricated info –

throat. Tracey called police once again. One police arrived yet he didn’t arrest • Entry into public sphere was opposed by many. They might disturb existing
Charles immediately. He even let him kick Tracey in the head. power structures in voting or they may pave the way for prohibition of liquors. It
• Tracey alleges that: would be difficult to reconcile family w/ public life. They might lose their identity.
1. Charles worked as a counterman in a diner where he served members of the • Judiciary didn’t help either. They were unwilling to provide remedies & they were
police department & he bragged to them that he would get Tracey & kill her. not prepared to vest women w/political rts.
2. City of Torrington has a policy of indifference/affording lesser protection • Discrimination against women in admission to bar & other professions. Ex. Belva
when the victim is assaulted by someone with whom she has close domestic Lockwood, etc.) Women were not fit for occupations of civil life due to their
relations such as a woman abused by a boyfriend/spouse and a kid abused timidity & delicacy but they never explained why these made women unfit.
by dad/stepdad. • Women’s property acts – In reality, these were limited. They didn’t really put
ISSUE: WON such policy violates equal protection of the laws women in equal footing w/their husbands. Husband’s power to manage/deplete
HELD: YES. family assets still existed. When women work, some of their earnings were seen
RATIO: as extension of husbands’ thus used to pay for husbands’ purchases. Wives
1. Equal protection of laws is not restricted to racial discriminations, it also involves continued to be dependent on husbands’ support.
alien-based classifications, discriminatory legislative actions & discriminatory
• Marital relationships – wife limited to take custody over the home. Husband to
administration & enforcement of law by the gov’t. Classifications/discriminations
decide domicile. Limited rts for women in gaining custody of small children.
can only be justified by a compelling or overriding state interest. Thus, police
Husband obliged to support their families but court rarely enforced that oblig.
action is subject to this. Police officers are expected to preserve the law & order
Wife-beating was allowed as long as he didn’t kill or maim (injure/mutilate) her.
& to protect the personal safety of everyone in the community including women
Judiciary was relatively tolerant of brutality. They refused to hear “trivial”
assaulted by people w/whom they have a domestic relation. The inaction of the
complaints. Better to keep it private than to expose it to public curiosity &
police during all those times that Tracey has complained is proof that this has
criticism. Even divorce was biased. Grounds were limited. Mostly, males were
been a pattern/practice and is tantamount to an administrative classification
entitled to initiate the proceedings. Women often lacked funds for the judicial
employing discriminatory application of law. State failed to present a compelling
interest in applying such discrimination.
2. The reason advanced by the state, the notion that it is in the husband’s • In general, women became more separate than equal.
prerogative to physically discipline his wife is outdated. One is not allowed to
physically abuse or endanger a woman simply because he is her husband. And EFFECTS OF EPA
thus, police can’t refuse to interfere and automatically decline to make an arrest • Age of marriage (minimum age allowed) & age of consent (marriage w/o consent
simply because involved parties are married. Refusal to interfere does not already permitted) should be the same for both male & female. Reasons for
promote domestic harmony. difference: 1) maturity 2) males should not be disturbed while they prepare to
3. Charles Jr. can’t claim that he was denied equal protection of the laws. He was earn a living
rarely present during assaults thus he didn’t suffer from police inaction unlike his • Name change: can’t require woman to take husbands’ name even thru leg.
mom. He was not part of the court orders. Presumption. You can allow them to pick same last name, either one of theirs or
4. Municipality/city can be sued along with the police dept. Tracey’s testimony shows a third last name or ask judge to decide won to allow woman to use maiden
a pattern/custom/policy on the part of the municipality. Actually, single brutal name or take new name. Kids can take parent’s name, parents can choose on of
incident is sufficient to suggest a link bet. A violation of consti’l rts. & pattern of their name or have no rule at all.
police misconduct. • Domicile – woman should be given equal rt. To choose domicile as much as man
5. Unidentified police officers can be sued even if they had not been properly served. can choose. Woman can’t be compelled to follow husband’s domicile. Refusal
Partial identification is sufficient. should no longer be tantamount to abandonment and ground for divorce. For
kids, family residence, domicile of parent he lives with if separated, let child
• Women, limited to private sphere (home). • Rights of consortium – both can recover for loss of spouse’s services &
• Though a lot of people were fighting for women’s rights, they saw things companionship, gender-neutral definitions of conjugal functions (both should be
differently. They advanced different causes. Some even accepted the tasked to do housework, available for sexual relations, provide for support.
subordination & traditional roles. • Allocation of family support bet. Husband & wife – extend duty to women or
• Anti suffragists for instance, often advanced more realistic causes than based on current resources, earning pow, etc.
suffragists who often lost sight of what they were fighting for. But they paved the • Ownership of community property – decide jointly, who earns more has rt, joint
way for activating & uniting women. Women gained recognition, self-esteem & control of mixed prop
political skills.
• Ownership of common law prop – have separate props, give equal rts to
surviving husband similar to what surviving wife gets (part of estate, allowance)
• Grounds for divorce – non support either eliminate it or oblige wife to support
husband too. Pregnancy – justifications: difficult to identify the father except
when father acknowledges and presumption that woman’s child is her husband’s
thus he should support child & give him his name. Solution: abolish it or give
women rt to file for divorce if she didn’t know about her husband impregnating
another woman at time of marriage
• Alimony – available equally or based on who’s working, who stays at home to
care for kids (parental function, marital contribution, ability to pay) determine their
capacity too
• Custody of children – no gender-based grants