Republic Act 9262, otherwise known as the Anti -Violation Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004, or more commonly as the Anti-VAWC Law, provides for who may be liable for the violation of the Act.
Section 3 of the Law provides that ‘’[v]iolence against women and their children’’ may be 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.”
A reading of the above -quoted provision impliedly guides who are the possible offenders of the Anti-VAWC Law when it mentions “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.”
At first instant, it may seem that the Anti-VAWC Law limits the persons liable, and excludes all other persons therefrom. However, in the case of Go-Tan v. Spouses Tan (GR No. 168852, 30 September 2008), the Supreme Court expressly held that while Section 3 of the Anti-VAWC Law provides that the offender be related or connected to the victim by marriage, former marriage, or a sexual or dating relationship, “it does not preclude the application of the principle of conspiracy under the RPC” (Revised Penal Code).
In the case of Go-Tan v. Spouses Tan, the petitioner filed a petition with prayer for the issuance of a Temporary Protection Order against her husband and parents-in-law, arguing that her husband, in conspiracy with his parents, had caused verbal, psychological, and economic abuses upon her in violation of Section 5, paras (e)(3)(3)(4), (h)(5), and (i) of the Anti-VAWC Law.
The parents-in-law in that case contended that they were not covered by the Anti-VAWC Law, arguing that Section 3 explicitly provides that the offender should be related to the victim only by marriage, a former marriage, or a dating or sexual relationship.
Ruling in favor of the petitioner, the Supreme Court decreed that the petitioner’s parents-in -law may be held liable as conspirators. The Court explained that Section 47 of the Anti-VAWC Law expressly provides for the suppletory application of the RPC.
Hence, legal principles developed from the RPC may be applied in a supplementary capacity to crimes punishable under special laws, such as the Anti-VAWC Law in which the special law is silent on a particular matter. Thus, the principle of conspiracy under Article 8 of the RPC may be applied suppletorily to the Anti-VAWC Law.
(To be continued)
