Facts
On April 18, 1999, Sharica Mari L. Go-Tan (petitioner) and Steven L. Tan (Steven) were married. Out of this union, two female children were born, Kyra Danielle and Kristen Denise.
By January 12, 2005, barely six years into the marriage, the petitioner filed a Petition with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Protective Order (TPO) against Steven and her parents-in-law, Spouses Perfecto C. Tan and Juanita L. Tan (respondents) before the RTC.
She alleged that Steven, in conspiracy with his parents, 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, otherwise known as the “Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004.”
On January 25, 2005, the RTC issued an Order/Notice granting the petitioner’s prayer for a TPO. On February 7, 2005, respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss, contending that the RTC lacked jurisdiction over their persons since, as parents-in-law of the petitioner, they were not covered by R.A. No. 9262.
On February 28, 2005, the petitioner filed a Comment on Opposition arguing that respondents were covered by R.A. No. 9262 under a liberal interpretation thereof aimed at promoting the protection and safety of victims of violence.
On March 7, 2005, the RTC issued a Resolution dismissing the case as to respondents on the ground that, being the parents-in-law of the petitioner, they were not included/covered as respondents under R.A. No. 9262 under the well-known rule of law “expressio unius est exclusio alterius.”
On March 16, 2005, the petitioner filed her Verified Motion for Reconsideration, contending that the doctrine of necessary implication should be applied in the broader interests of substantial justice and due process.
On April 8, 2005, respondents filed their Comment, arguing that the petitioner’s liberal construction unduly broadened the provisions of R.A. No. 9262, as the relationship between the offender and the alleged victim was an essential condition for the application of R.A. No. 9262.
On July 11, 2005, the RTC issued a Resolution denying the petitioner’s Verified Motion for Reconsideration. The RTC reasoned that to include respondents under the coverage of R.A. No. 9262 would be a strained interpretation of the provisions of the law.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondents Spouses Perfecto & Juanita, parents-in-law of Sharica, may be included in the Petition for the Issuance of a Protective Order, in accordance with R.A. 9262
Ruling
YES, Section 3 of R.A. No. 9262 defines ”violence 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.”
While the said provision 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.
Indeed, Section 47 of R.A. No. 9262 expressly provides for the suppletory application of the RPC, thus:
SEC. 47. Suppletory Application. – For purposes of this Act, the Revised Penal Code and other applicable laws, shall have suppletory application. (Emphasis supplied)
Parenthetically, Article 10 of the RPC provides:
ART. 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions of this Code. – Offenses which are or in the future may be punishable under special laws are not subject to the provisions of this Code. This Code shall be supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should specially provide the contrary.
Hence, legal principles developed from the Penal Code may be applied in a supplementary capacity to crimes punished under special laws, such as R.A. No. 9262, in which the special law is silent on a particular matter.