Norma A. Del Socorro vs.

Van Wilsem
G.R. No. 193707
December 10, 2014

Facts: On September 25, 1990, petitioner Del Socorro and respondent

Wilsem contracted marriage in Holland and were blessed with a son.
On July 19, 1995, their marriage bond ended by virtue of a divorce
decree issued by the appropriate Court of Holland. Thereafter,
petitioner and her son came home to the Philippines. The respondent
promised to give monthly support to their son but failed to do so. Not
long thereafter, he came to the Philippines, remarried and since then,
has been residing in Pinamungahan, Cebu. Petitioner then sent a
letter through her counsel, demanding support from respondent,
however, he refused to receive it. Petitioner filed a complaint affidavit
against respondent for violation of Section 5, paragraph E(2) of R.A.
no. 9262 for the latter's unjust refusal to support his minor child.
However, the RTC dismissed the case on the ground that the grounds
charged in the information do not constitute an offense with respect to
the accused, he being an alien. The petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration but was denied.

Issue: Whether or not a foreign national can be held criminally liable

under R.A. 9262 for his unjustified failure to support his minor child.

Ruling: The obligation to give support to a child is a matter that falls

under family rights and duties. Since the respondent is a citizen of
Holland or the Netherlands, he is subject to the laws of his country,
not the Philippine law, as to whether he is obliged to give support to
his child, as well as the consequences of his failure to do so. In
international law, the party who wants to have a foreign law applied to
a case has the burden of proving the foreign law. It is incumbent upon
respondent to plead and prove that the national law of the
Netherlands does not impose upon the parents the obligation to
support their child. In view of respondent's failure to prove the
national law of the Netherlands in his favor, the doctrine of processual
presumption shall govern. Thus, since the law of the Netherlands as
regards the obligation to support has not been properly pleaded and
proved, it is presumed to be the same with the Philippine law, which
enforces the obligation of parents to support their children and
penalizing the non-compliance therewith.
People of the Philippines vs. Edgar Jumawan
G.R. No. 187495
April 21, 2014

Facts: Jumawan and KKK got married a year after courtship and
thereafter, begot four children. KKK is alleging that in two consecutive
nights, Jumawan forced her to engage in sexual intercourse despite
her desistance and plea. The incidents were witnessed by their
children. The prosecution presented KKK together with their children
as witnesses during the trial of the case filed by KKK against her
husband for the crime of rape. Jumawan, in his defense, denied the
allegations of KKK and stated that she manifested sexual infidelity
with other men and that the she just wants to revenge for he took over
the control and management of their business. The trial court found
the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt and it was affirmed by
the CA.

Issue: Whether or not the testimony of KKK affirms the commission of

the crime.

Ruling: Yes. The SC sees KKK and her testimony credible and
spontaneous. KKK's clear, straightforward, credible and truthful
declaration that he succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her
without her consent sufficiently overcame the presumption of
innocence of the accused. The accused was wrong in contending that
sexual community is a mutual right and obligation between husband
and wife and this case should then be treated differently from
ordinary rape. As an element of rape, force and intimidation need not
be irresistible; it may be just enough to bring about desired result.
Rustan Ang vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 182835
April 20, 2010

Facts: That on or about June 5, 2005, the accused sent through the
Short Messaging Service (SMS) using his mobile phone, a
pornographic picture to one Irish Sagud, his former girlfriend,
whereby the face of the latter was attached to a completely naked
body of another woman making it appear that it was her who is
depicted in the said obscene and pornographic picture thereby
causing substantial emotional anguish, psychological distress and
humiliation to her. The RTC found the accused guilt of the violation of
Section 5(h) of the Republic Act No. 9262. The CA affirmed RTC ’s
decision.

Issue: Whether or not a single act of harassment, like the sending of

the nude picture in this case, already constitutes a violation of Section
5(h) of R.A. 9262.

Ruling: Yes. Rustan argues that one act of sending an offensive

picture should not be considered a form of harassment. He claims
that such would unduly ruin him personally and set a very dangerous
precedent. But Section 3(a) of R.A. 9262 punishes “any act or series of
acts” that constitutes violence against women. This means that a
single act of harassment, which translates into violence, would be
enough. The object of the law is to protect women and children.
Punishing only violence that is repeatedly committed would license
isolated ones.
Cherryl B. Dolina vs. Glenn D. Vallecera
G.R. No. 182367
December 15, 2010

Facts: In February 2008 petitioner Cherryl B. Dolina filed a petition

with prayer for the issuance of a temporary protection order against
respondent Glenn D. Vallecera before the RTC Tacloban for alleged
woman and child abuse under R.A. 9262. In filling out the blanks in
the pro-forma complaint, Dolina added a handwritten prayer for
financial support from Vallecera for their supposed child. She based
her prayer on the latter’s Certificate of Live Birth which listed
Vallecera as the child’s father. Vallecera opposed the petition claiming
that Dolina’s petition was essentially one for financial support rather
than for protection against woman and child abuses; that he was not
the child’s father; that the signature appearing on the child ’s
Certificate of Live Birth is not his; that the petition is a harassment
suit intended to force him to acknowledge the child as his and give it
financial support; and that Vallecera has never lived nor has been
living with Dolina, rendering unnecessary the issuance of a protection
order against him. The RTC dismissed the petition.

Issue: Whether or not the RTC correctly dismissed Dolina ’s action for
temporary protection and denied her application for temporary
support for her child.

Ruling: Yes. Dolina evidently filed the wrong action to obtain support
for her child. The object of R.A. 9262 under which she filed the case is
the protection and safety of women and children who are victims of
abuse or violence. Dolina of course alleged that Vallecera had been
abusing her and her child. But it became apparent to the RTC upon
hearing that this was not the case since, contrary to her claim, neither
she nor her child ever lived with Vallecera. As it turned out, the true
object of her action was to get financial support from Vallecera for her
child, her claim being that he is the father. To be entitled to legal
support, petitioner must, in proper action, first establish the filiation
of the child, if the same is not admitted or acknowledged. Since
Dolina’s demand for support for her son is based on her claim that he
is Vallecera’s illegitimate child, the latter is not entitled to such
support if he had not acknowledged him, until Dolina shall have
proved his relation to him.
Sharica Mari L. Go-Tan vs. Spouses Perfecto Tan and Juanita Tan
G.R. No. 168852
September 30, 2008

Facts: Sharica filed a petition with prayer for the issuance of a

Temporary Protective Order (TPO) against Steven, her husband, and
spouses Perfecto Tan and Juanita Tan, her parents-in-law. She
alleged that Steven, in conspiracy with respondents, were causing
verbal, psychological and economic abuses upon her in violation of
Section 5, paragraphs (e)(2)(3)(4), h(5),and (i) of R.A. 9262, otherwise
known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children. RTC
granted the petition. Respondents then filed a Motion to Dismiss
contending that the RTC lack jurisdiction over their persons since, as
parents-in-law of the petitioner, they were not covered by R.A. 9262.

Issue: Whether or not respondents-spouses Perfecto and 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. While the provision of Section 3 of R.A. 9262 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.
Legal principles developed from the Penal Code may be applied in a
supplementary capacity to crimes punished under special laws, such
as R.A. 9262, in which the special law is silent on a particular matter.
The principle of conspiracy may be applied to R.A. 9262. For once
conspiracy or action in concert to achieve a criminal design is shown,
the act of one is the act of all the conspirators, and the precise extent
or modality of participation of each of them becomes secondary, since
all the conspirators are principals.
Jesus C. Garcia vs. Judge Ray Alan T. Drilon
G.R. No. 179267
June 25, 2013

Facts: Private respondent Rosalie Jaype-Garcia married petitioner

Jesus Garcia in 2002 and they have three children. Private
respondent described herself as a dutiful and faithful wife, whose life
revolved around her husband. On the other hand, petitioner is
dominant, controlling, and demands absolute obedience from his wife
and children. Petitioner took up an affair with a bank manager and
even admitted it to private respondent when confronted. Petitioner ’s
infidelity spawned a series of fights that left private respondent
physically and emotionally wounded. All emotional and psychological
turmoil drove private respondent to the brink of despair. She
attempted suicide by cutting her wrist. She was determined to
separate from petitioner but she was afraid he would take away their
children and deprive her of financial support. He warned her that if
she pursues legal battle, she would not get a single centavo from him.
RTC issued a series of Temporary Protection Orders pursuant to R.A.
9262. Petitioner then challenged the challenged the constitutionality
of R.A. 9262 on making a gender-based classification.

Issue: Whether or not R.A. 9262 is discriminatory, unjust, and

violative of the equal protection clause.

Ruling: No. The equal protection clause in our Constitution does not
guarantee an absolute prohibition against classification. The non-
identical treatment of women and men under R.A. 9262 is justified to
put them on equal footing and to give substance to the policy and aim
of the state to ensure the equality of women and men in light of
biological, historical, social, and culturally endowed differences
between men and women.
Karlo Angelo Dabalos vs. Regional Trial Court, Branch 59, Angeles
City, Pampanga
G.R. No. 193960
January 7, 2013

Facts: Petitioner used personal violence on the complainant by pulling

her hair, punching complainant’s back, shoulder and left eye, thereby
demeaning and degrading the complainant’s intrinsic worth and
dignity as a human being, in violation of Section 5(a) of the Republic
Act 9262. In her affidavit, private respondent admitted that her
relationship with petitioner had ended prior to the subject incident.
She narrated that she had sought payment for the money she had lent
to petitioner but the latter could not pay. She then inquired from
petitioner if he was responsible for spreading rumors about her which
he admitted. Thereupon, private respondent slapped petitioner
causing the latter to inflict on her the physical injuries alleged in the
Information. The RTC denied petitioner’s motion. It did not consider
material the fact that the parties’ dating relationship had ceased prior
to the incident.

Issue: Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over the offense.

Ruling: Yes. The law is broad in scope but specifies two limiting
qualifications for any act or series of acts to be considered as a crime
of violence against women through physical harm namely: 1) it is
committed against a woman or her child and the woman is the
offender’s wife, former wife, or with whom he has or had sexual or
dating relationship or with whom he has a common child; and 2) it
results in or is likely to result in physical harm or suffering. Notably,
while it is required that the offender has or had a sexual or dating
relationship with the offended woman, for R.A. 9262 to be applicable,
it is not indispensable that the act of violence be a consequence of
such relationship. Nowhere in the law can such limitation be inferred.
Hence, applying the rule on statutory construction that when the law
does not distinguish, neither should the courts, then, clearly, the
punishable acts refer to all acts of violence against women with whom
the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship. As correctly
ruled by the RTC, it is immaterial whether the relationship had ceased
for as long as there is sufficient evidence showing the past or present
existence of such relationship between the offender and the victim
when the physical harm was committed.
Maximo Calalang vs. A.D. Williams
G.R. No. 47800
December 2, 1940

Facts: It is alleged in the petition that the National Traffic

Commission, in its resolution, resolved to recommend to the
Director of the Public Works and to the Secretary of Public Works
and Communications that animal-drawn vehicles be prohibited
from passing along Rosario Street
Republic of the Philippines vs. Daisy R. Yahon
G.R. No. 201043
June 16, 2014