Scribd
Upload
128 views2 pages

Go-Tan v. Tan

1) Sharica filed a temporary protection order (TPO) against her husband and in-laws for domestic abuse violations under the Violence Against Women and Children Act. The in-laws argued they were not covered persons under the law. 2) This court held that in-laws can be covered under the law based on the principle of conspiracy from the Revised Penal Code, which applies supplementally to special laws like the VAWC Act. 3) The court granted Sharica's petition, partly reversing the lower court's dismissal of the TPO against the in-laws. The VAWC Act must be interpreted liberally to protect victims of domestic violence.

Uploaded by

AlecParafina
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
128 views2 pages

Go-Tan v. Tan

1) Sharica filed a temporary protection order (TPO) against her husband and in-laws for domestic abuse violations under the Violence Against Women and Children Act. The in-laws argued they were not covered persons under the law. 2) This court held that in-laws can be covered under the law based on the principle of conspiracy from the Revised Penal Code, which applies supplementally to special laws like the VAWC Act. 3) The court granted Sharica's petition, partly reversing the lower court's dismissal of the TPO against the in-laws. The VAWC Act must be interpreted liberally to protect victims of domestic violence.

Uploaded by

AlecParafina
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

B2022 REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL 32 [August 31, 1987]

Go-Tan v. Tan Go-Tan v. Tan

within or without the family abode, which result in or is likely to result in


I. Recit ready digest physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse
including threats of such acts, battery, assault, coercion, harassment or
Sharica filed a TPO against her husband and her-inlaws for violation arbitrary deprivation of liberty."
of RA 9262. They argued that in-laws are not those listed in the law as
offenders. This court held that they are included. It is shown that the RPC While the law specifically states that husbands, boyfriends and
FUBUs are classified as offenders, this does prelude the application of the
has suppletory application to SPLs, meaning that the legal principles of the
principle of conspiracy as stated in the RPC. Legal principles developed
RPC are applicable even to SPLs unless stated otherwise. Therefore, in-
from the RPC may be applied in a supplementary capacity to crimes
laws may be included if it was shown that that there was a conspiracy. punished under special laws. This is called suppletory application. Sec. 47
of RA 9262 provides:
II. Facts of the Case
“For purposes of this Act, the Revised Penal Code and other
Sharica Mari L. Go-Tan (petitioner) and Steven L. Tan (Steven) were applicable laws, shall have suppletory application.”
married. After six years, Sharica filed a TPO against her husband and his
parents for causing verbal, psychological and economic abuses against her The RPC itself expressly states that it has suppletory application to
in violation of Section 5, paragraphs (e)(2)(3)(4), (h)(5), and (i)7 of RA SPLs, unless expressly stated otherwised. Art. 10 of the RPC states that:
9262 ( The VAWC Act).
“Offenses not subject to the provisions of this Code. – Offenses which
The in-laws filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that parents-in law are are or in the future may be punishable under special laws are not subject to
not covered by the VAWC Act. Sharica counter argued that respondents are the provisions of this Code. This Code shall be supplementary to such
covered by the law under a liberal interpretation aimed at promoting the laws, unless the latter should specially provide the contrary.”
protection and safety of victims. The RTC granted the dismissal, using the
statcon principle "expressio unius est exclusio alteriu" or “the explicit Therefore, conspiracy is applicable even to SPLs. Once conspiracy to
mention of one thing is the exclusion of another.” Hence this petition. achieve a criminal design is shown, the act of one is the act of all the
conspirators. It is even stated in RA 9262 that offenses may be committed
III. Issue/s by an offender through another. Sec 5 of the RA 9262 states that:

Whether the in-laws may be included in the TPO “Engaging in purposeful, knowing, or reckless conduct, personally or
through another, that alarms or causes substantial emotional or
IV. Ratio/Legal Basis psychological distress to the woman or her child.”

Yes. Section 3 of R.A. No. 9262 defines ''[v]iolence against women The remedy of issuing a TPO is applicable even to non-husbands. Sec
and their children'' as: 8 of RA 9262 states:

"any act or a series of acts committed by any person against a woman “The protection orders that may be issued under this Act shall include
who is his wife, former wife, or against a woman with whom the person any, some or all of the following reliefs:
has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a
common child, or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate,

G.R. NO: 168852 PONENTE: Austria-Martinez., J


ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: DIGEST MAKER: Tan Tan TAAAAAAAAAAAN
B2022 REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL 32 [August 31, 1987]

Go-Tan v. Tan Go-Tan v. Tan

(a) Prohibition of the respondent from threatening to commit or


committing, personally or through another, any of the acts mentioned in
Section 5 of this Act;

(b) Prohibition of the respondent from harassing, annoying,


telephoning, contacting or otherwise communicating with the petitioner,
directly or indirectly;”

When it comes to understanding this law, it must be done with


liberally construction. It is even expressly stated in Sec. 4 thereof:

“This Act shall be liberally construed to promote the protection and


safety of victims of violence against women and their children.”

Therefore, the RTC’s use of the maxim “expressio unios est exclusio
alterius" is not applicable.

V. Disposition

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The assailed


Resolutions dated March 7, 2005 and July 11, 2005 of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 94, Quezon City in Civil Case No. Q-05-54536 are hereby
PARTLY REVERSED and SET ASIDE insofar as the dismissal of the
petition against respondents is concerned.

G.R. NO: 168852 PONENTE: Austria-Martinez., J


ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: DIGEST MAKER: Tan Tan TAAAAAAAAAAAN

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy