Name: Trecia Mae M.

Boligao
Date of Submission: December 04, 2023
Section & Year: BALCS – MANAWARI-3
Course Title: EGE 311 General Education Elective 1
Professor’s Name: Anthony Caezar F. Aya-ay

LE 2 – CASE ANALYSIS

RA 9262: the Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004

It is a law the seeks to address the prevalence of violence against women and their

children (VAWC) by their intimate partners like their husband or ex-husband, live-in

partner or former live-in partner, boyfriend/girlfriend or ex-boyfriend/ex-girlfriend,

dating partner or former dating partner.

CONCLUDED CASE IN THE PHILIPPINES

EN BANC

[ G.R. No. 179267. June 25, 2013 ]

JESUS C. GARCIA, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE RAY ALAN T. DRILON,

PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT-BRANCH 41, BACOLOD CITY,
AND ROSALIE JAYPE-GARCIA, FOR HERSELF IN BEHALF OF MINOR
CHILDREN, NAMELY: JO-ANN, JOSEPH AND EDUARD, JESSE ANTHONE, ALL
SURNAMED GARCIA, RESPONDENTS.

DECISION:
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

Thus, on March 8, 2004, after nine (9) years of spirited advocacy by women's

groups, Congress enacted Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9262, entitled “An Act Defining

Violence Against Women and Their Children, Providing for Protective Measures for

Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefor, and for Other Purposes.” It took effect on

March 27, 2004.[4]

R.A. 9262 is a landmark legislation that defines and criminalizes acts of violence

against women and their children (VAWC) perpetrated by women's intimate partners,

i.e, husband; former husband; or any person who has or had a sexual or dating

relationship, or with whom the woman has a common child.[5] The law provides for

protection orders from the barangay and the courts to prevent the commission of

further acts of VAWC; and outlines the duties and responsibilities of barangay

officials, law enforcers, prosecutors and court personnel, social workers, health care

providers, and other local government officials in responding to complaints of VAWC

or requests for assistance.

A husband is now before the Court assailing the constitutionality of R.A. 9262 as

being violative of the equal protection and due process clauses, and an undue

delegation of judicial power to barangay officials.

THE FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS:

On March 23, 2006, Rosalie Jaype-Garcia (private respondent) filed, for herself and

in behalf of her minor children, a verified petition[6] (Civil Case No. 06-797) before

the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacolod City for the issuance of a Temporary

Protection Order (TPO) against her husband, Jesus C. Garcia (petitioner), pursuant

to R.A. 9262. She claimed to be a victim of physical abuse; emotional, psychological,

and economic violence as a result of marital infidelity on the part of petitioner, with

threats of deprivation of custody of her children and of financial support.[7]

PRIVATE RESPONDENT'S CLAIMS:

Private respondent married petitioner in 2002 when she was 34 years old and the

former was eleven years her senior. They have three (3) children, namely: Jo-Ann J.
Garcia, 17 years old, who is the natural child of petitioner but whom private

respondent adopted; Jessie Anthone J. Garcia, 6 years old; and Joseph Eduard J.

Garcia, 3 years old.[8]

Private respondent described herself as a dutiful and faithful wife, whose life

revolved around her husband. On the other hand, petitioner, who is of

Filipino-Chinese descent, is dominant, controlling, and demands absolute obedience

from his wife and children. He forbade private respondent to pray, and deliberately

isolated her from her friends. When she took up law, and even when she was

already working part time at a law office, petitioner trivialized her ambitions and

prevailed upon her to just stay at home. He was often jealous of the fact that his

attractive wife still catches the eye of some men, at one point threatening that he

would have any man eyeing her killed.[9]

All the emotional and psychological turmoil drove private respondent to the brink of

despair. On December 17, 2005, while at home, she attempted suicide by cutting her

wrist. She was found by her son bleeding on the floor. Petitioner simply fled the

house instead of taking her to the hospital. Private respondent was hospitalized for

about seven (7) days in which time petitioner never bothered to visit, nor apologized

or showed pity on her. Since then, private respondent has been undergoing therapy

almost every week and is taking anti-depressant medications.[12]

Petitioner controls the family businesses involving mostly the construction of deep

wells. He is the President of three corporations – 326 Realty Holdings, Inc., Negros

Rotadrill Corporation, and J-Bros Trading Corporation – of which he and private

respondent are both stockholders. In contrast to the absolute control of petitioner

over said corporations, private respondent merely draws a monthly salary of

P20,000.00 from one corporation only, the Negros Rotadrill Corporation. Household
expenses amounting to not less than P200,000.00 a month are paid for by private

respondent through the use of credit cards, which, in turn, are paid by the same

corporation together with the bills for utilities.[15]

On the other hand, petitioner receives a monthly salary of P60,000.00 from Negros

Rotadrill Corporation, and enjoys unlimited cash advances and other benefits in

hundreds of thousands of pesos from the corporations.[16] After private respondent

confronted him about the affair, petitioner forbade her to hold office at JBTC Building,

Mandalagan, where all the businesses of the corporations are conducted, thereby

depriving her of access to full information about said businesses. Until the filing of

the petition a quo, petitioner has not given private respondent an accounting of the

businesses the value of which she had helped raise to millions of pesos.[17

ACTION OF THE RTC OF BACOLOD CITY:

Finding reasonable ground to believe that an imminent danger of violence against

the private respondent and her children exists or is about to recur, the RTC issued a

TPO[18] on March 24, 2006 effective for thirty (30) days, which is quoted hereunder:

Respondent (petitioner herein), Jesus Chua Garcia, is hereby:

a) Ordered to remove all his personal belongings from the conjugal dwelling

or family home within 24 hours from receipt of the Temporary Restraining Order and

if he refuses, ordering that he be removed by police officers from the conjugal

dwelling; this order is enforceable notwithstanding that the house is under the name

of 236 Realty Holdings Inc. (Republic Act No. 9262 states “regardless of

ownership”), this is to allow the Petitioner (private respondent herein) to enter the

conjugal dwelling without any danger from the Respondent.

After the Respondent leaves or is removed from the conjugal dwelling, or anytime

the Petitioner decides to return to the conjugal dwelling to remove things, the

Petitioner shall be assisted by police officers when re-entering the family home.

The Chief of Police shall also give the Petitioner police assistance on Sunday, 26

March 2006, because of the danger that the Respondent will attempt to take her

children from her when he arrives from Manila and finds out about this suit.

b) To stay away from the petitioner and her children, mother, and all her

household help and driver from a distance of 1,000 meters, and shall not enter the

gate of the subdivision where the Petitioner may be temporarily residing.

c) Not to harass, annoy, telephone, contact or otherwise communicate with

the Petitioner, directly or indirectly, or through other persons, or contact directly or

indirectly her children, mother and household help, nor send gifts, cards, flowers,

letters and the like. Visitation rights to the children may be subject of a modified TPO

in the future.

d) To surrender all his firearms including a .9MM caliber firearm and a Walther

PPK and ordering the Philippine National Police Firearms and Explosives Unit and

the Provincial Director of the PNP to cancel all the Respondent's firearm licenses. He

should also be ordered to surrender any unlicensed firearms in his possession or

control.

e) To pay full financial support for the Petitioner and the children, including

rental of a house for them, and educational and medical expenses.

f) Not to dissipate the conjugal business.

 g) To render an accounting of all advances, benefits, bonuses, and other cash

he received from all the corporations from 1 January 2006 up to 31 March 2006,

which himself and as President of the corporations and his Comptroller, must submit

to the Court not later than 2 April 2006. Thereafter, an accounting of all these funds

shall be reported to the court by the Comptroller, copy furnished to the Petitioner,

every 15 days of the month, under pain of Indirect Contempt of Court.

On August 23, 2006, the RTC issued a TPO,[28] effective for thirty (30) days,

which reads as follows:

Respondent (petitioner herein), Jesus Chua Garcia, is hereby:

1) Prohibited from threatening to commit or committing, personally or through

another, acts of violence against the offended party;

2) Prohibited from harassing, annoying, telephoning, contacting or otherwise

communicating in any form with the offended party, either directly or indirectly;

3) Required to stay away, personally or through his friends, relatives, employees or

agents, from all the Petitioners Rosalie J. Garcia and her children, Rosalie J.

Garcia's three brothers, her mother Primitiva Jaype, cook Novelita Caranzo, driver

Romeo Hontiveros, laundrywoman Mercedita Bornales, security guard Darwin

Gayona and the petitioner's other household helpers from a distance of 1,000

meters, and shall not enter the gate of the subdivision where the Petitioners are

temporarily residing, as well as from the schools of the three children; Furthermore,

that respondent shall not contact the schools of the children directly or indirectly in

any manner including, ostensibly to pay for their tuition or other fees directly,
otherwise, he will have access to the children through the schools and the TPO will

be rendered nugatory;

4) Directed to surrender all his firearms including .9MM caliber firearm and a Walther

PPK, to the Court;

5) Directed to deliver in full financial support of Php200,000.00 a month and

Php50,000.00 for rental for the period from August 6 to September 6, 2006; and

support in arrears from March 2006 to August 2006 the total amount of

Php1,312,000.00;

6) Directed to deliver educational expenses for 2006-2007 the amount of

Php75,000.00 and Php25,000.00;

In its Order[29] dated September 26, 2006, the trial court extended the aforequoted

TPO for another ten (10) days and gave the petitioner a period of five (5) days within

which to show cause why the TPO should not be renewed, extended, or modified.

Upon the petitioner's manifestation,[30] however, that he has not received a copy of

the private respondent's motion to modify/renew the TPO, the trial court directed in

its Order[31] dated October 6, 2006, that petitioner be furnished a copy of said

motion. Nonetheless, an Order[32] dated a day earlier, October 5, had already been

issued renewing the TPO dated August 23, 2006. The pertinent portion is quoted

hereunder:

it appearing further that the hearing could not yet be finally terminated, the

Temporary Protection Order issued on August 23, 2006, is hereby renewed and

extended for thirty (30) days and continuously extended and renewed for thirty (30)
days, after each expiration, until further orders, and subject to such modifications as

may be ordered by the court.

After having received a copy of the foregoing Order, petitioner no longer submitted

the required comment to private respondent's motion for renewal of the TPO arguing

that it would only be an “exercise in futility.”[33]

CASE ANALYSIS REFLECTION:

Navigating the Landscape of Protection: Reflecting on RA 9262 - The

Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004

The enactment of Republic Act 9262, or the Anti-Violence Against Women

and their Children (VAWC) Act of 2004, marked a significant milestone in the

Philippines' commitment to safeguarding the rights and well-being of women and

children. As the chosen Case of this paper concluded, the jurisdiction implies the

protection needed by the Family of Garcia stated in the concluded case, The

National Commission on the Role of Filipino Women (NCRFW) reported that for the

years 2000-2003, "female violence comprised more than 90% of all forms of abuse

and violence and more than 90% of these reported cases were committed by the

women's intimate partners such as their husbands and live-in partners.”[3]

As I reflect on the provisions and implications of this legislation, it becomes

evident that RA 9262 plays a pivotal role in addressing and curbing gender-based

violence within the country. Whereupon understanding the context, prevailing the

conduct of abuse such as Physical, Emotional, Mental, and Economical. Given the
stated PRIVATE RESPONDENT'S CLAIMS about this abusive husband to her and to

her (3) children, namely: Jo-Ann J. Garcia, 17 years old, who is the natural child of

petitioner but whom private respondent adopted; Jessie Anthone J. Garcia, 6 years

old; and Joseph Eduard J. Garcia, 3 years old. To appreciate the importance of RA

9262, one must recognize the historical context and societal norms that necessitated

such legislation. Gender-based violence has long been a pervasive issue, affecting

countless women and children. This law emerged as a response to the urgent need

to protect victims, hold perpetrators accountable, and foster a culture of respect and

equality. This case pertains to the idea and legal consumption of women's and

children's protection.

As an in-depth reading and analysis, the Case has Key Provisions that RA

9262, a comprehensive legal framework, encompasses a range of protective

measures. From defining acts of violence to establishing support systems for

survivors, the law is designed to leave no room for ambiguity or leniency. It

criminalizes physical, emotional, economic, and psychological abuse, recognizing

that violence against women and children extends beyond the physical realm.

Moreover, the law introduces protective orders, including Temporary and Permanent

Protection Orders (TPO and PPO), empowering victims to swiftly seek legal

remedies. The establishment of Barangay Protection Orders (BPO) bridges the gap

between the community and the legal system, making protection more accessible to

those in need.

As it legally binds all, it has challenges and implementation in the case that

dropped to the eye of the Supreme Court, where the petition of opposition upon the

direct ruling and order of the RTC of Bacolod City. While RA 9262 represents a
crucial step forward, challenges persist in its effective implementation. Awareness

campaigns are imperative to ensure victims and communities understand their rights

and the available legal avenues. Strengthening law enforcement, judiciary, and

support services is essential to streamline the process of seeking justice for

survivors.

As a concluding part of this paper, RA 9262 stands as a beacon of hope in the fight

against gender-based violence. Its comprehensive approach, coupled with ongoing

efforts to enhance implementation, positions the Philippines on a path toward

creating a society where women and children can live free from the fear of abuse. As

we reflect on the significance of this legislation, let us remain committed to raising

awareness, breaking the silence surrounding abuse, and championing the rights of

every woman and child in our communities. When I think about RA 9262, I

remember its effect on empowering survivors. By criminalizing acts of violence, this

law not only deters potential perpetrators but also sends a strong signal that society

will not tolerate such acts. Issuing a protection order allows survivors to regain

control of their lives, promoting security and empowerment.

REFLECTION

Philippine Commission on Women. (2023, July 4). FAQs RA 9262: the

Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004 -

Philippine Commission on Women.

https://pcw.gov.ph/faq-republic-act-9262/#:~:text=It%20is%20a%20law

%20the,partner%20or%20former%20dating%20partner.

G.R. No. 179267 - JESUS C. GARCIA, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE

RAY ALAN T. DRILON, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL

COURT-BRANCH 41, BACOLOD CITY, AND ROSALIE

JAYPE-GARCIA, FOR HERSELF IN BEHALF OF MINOR CHILDREN,

NAMELY: JO-ANN, JOSEPH AND EDUARD, JESSE ANTHONE, ALL

SURNAMED GARCIA, RESPONDENTS.D E C I S I O N - Supreme

Court E-Library. (n.d.).

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/55942