SPECIAL PENAL LAWS: RA 9262 (VAWC) RELEVANT JURISPRUDENCE

A. PEOPLE v GENOSA (Battered Woman) Marivic and Ben had a quarrel one night. Arturo, Bens friend, heard the former tell Ben that she would not hesitate to kill him. Three days later, the neighbors noticed the foul odor emanating from their house. Bens decomposing body was found on his bed covered with a blanket, and with injuries at the back of the head. The police found a metal pipe, with a red stain on one end. The bedroom was not in disarray. Marivic attacked and wounded his husband, which ultimately led to his death. According to her, she did not provoke him when she got home that night, and that it was her husband who began the provocation. Ben was drunk, nagged her, challenged her to a fight, and attacked her. She was frightened that her husband would hurt her, and she wanted to make sure that she would deliver her baby safely. In fact, she had to be admitted later at the Rizal Medical Centre as she was suffering from eclampsia and hypertension, and the baby was born prematurely. Marivic testified that during her marriage she had tried to leave her husband at least five (5) times, but Ben would always follow her and they would reconcile. She said that the reason why Ben was violent and abusive towards her that night was because he was crazy about his recent girlfriend, Lulu. After being interviewed by specialists, Marivic was shown to be suffering from Battered Woman Syndrome. With a plea of self-defense, she admitted the killing of her husband. She was then found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Parricide, with no mitigating circumstances and with the aggravating circumstance of treachery, because the husband was attacked while he was asleep. Sentenced to death. ISSUES: 1) W/N Marivic acted in self-defense and in defense of her fetus. 2) W/N the aggravating circumstance of treachery be applied in her case. HELD: 1) NO. The BWS does not in itself establish the legal right of the woman to kill her abusive partner. Evidence must still be considered in the context of self-defense. According to Marivic, there was sufficient time interval between the

unlawful aggression of her husband and her fatal attack upon him. She was already able to withdraw from the violent behavior and escaped to the bedroom. Ben already ceased attack and went to bed. The danger had ended altogether, and he was no longer an actual threat. Without the continuous aggression, there can be no self-defense. And absence of aggression does not warrant complete or incomplete self-defense. Instead of self-defense, the psychological paralysis that she suffered entitles her to the mitigating factor under paragraphs 9 and 10 of RPC Article 13-PAR 9: Such illness as would diminish the exercise of the will-power of the offender without however depriving him of consciousness of his acts. PAR 10: Of similar nature and analogous. In addition, she should be credited for the extenuating circumstance of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as to have naturally produced passion and obfuscation (the acute battering she suffered despite the fact that she was pregnant overwhelmed her and overcame her reason). 2) NO. There is treachery when one commits any of the crimes against persons by employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof, without risk to oneself arising from the defense that the offended party might make. The circumstances must be shown as indubitably as the killing itself and cannot be deduced from mere inferences, which have no place in the appreciation of evidence. It is a rule that when a killing is preceded by an argument or a quarrel, treachery cannot be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance because the deceased may be said to have been forewarned and to have anticipated the aggression from the assailant. In this case, it was not shown that Marivic intentionally chose a specific means to successfully attack her husband without risk to herself. To the contrary, the thought of using a gun only occurred to her at about the same moment when she decided to kill him. Guilty of PARRICIDE (with 2 mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstance). Penalty reduced to prision mayor minimum (6 years, 1 day) to reclusion temporal maximum (14 years, 8 months, 1 day).

B. DOLINA v VALLECERA (RA 9262 not an action for support) Cheryl filed a case against Vallecera for an alleged violation of RA 9262. Together with the complaint is a prayer for Temporary Protection Order and an application for financial support for their supposed child. Her basis was the childs birth certificate which listed Vallecera as the father. The man claimed that he was not the father, that his signature was forged, and that the suit was intended to force him to acknowledge the child and to harass him. RTC dismissed the case based on the ground that filiation was not established. ISSUE: W/N Cheryl is entitled to financial support. HELD: NO. She filed the wrong action for support. RA 9262 is for the protection and safety of women and children who are victims of abuse and violence. Her claims that she was abused were baseless as it turned out that she never lived with Vallecera. The true object of the action was financial support for the child based on the reason that he was the father. The same was denied. To be entitled to support, she must, in proper action, establish the filiation of the child if the same is denied. Since Cheryls demand is based on the claim that the child was an illegitimate child, the child is not entitled to such support if not acknowledged by Vallecera. The childs remedy is to file, through her mother, a judicial action for compulsory recognition. If filiation is beyond question, support follows as a matter of obligation. C. ANG v CA (VAWC through harassment elements) Irish and Rustan were classmates at Wesleyan University in Aurora. They became on-and-off sweethearts towards the end of 2004. Irish learned that Rustan had taken a live-in partner (now his wife), whom he had gotten pregnant. She broke up with him. Before Rustan got married, he tried to convince Irish to elope with him. Irish rejected the proposal. Irish changed her cellphone number but Rustan managed to get hold of it and sent her text messages. He used two cellphone numbers. Irish asked him to leave her alone. One day, she received, via multimedia message service (MMS), a picture of a naked woman with spread legs and with Irishs face superimposed on the figure. The sender was one of the numbers that Rustan used. He boasted that it would be easy for him to create similarly scandalous pictures of her, and he threatened to spread the picture on the internet. Irish sought the help of the

vice mayor of Aurora who referred her to the police. Under police supervision, she contacted Rustan through the numbers he used, and asked him to meet her at a resort. While Rustan was walking towards Irish, police officers intercepted and arrested him. They searched him and seized his cellphone and several SIM cards. Rustan admitted that he courted Irish. He claimed that after their relationship ended, it was Irish who wanted to reconcile. Sometime later, he received a message from her, asking him to meet up as she needed his help in selling her cellphone. When he arrived at the place, two police officers approached him, seized his phone and the contents of his pockets, and brought him to the police station. Rustan further claims that Irish asked him to help her identify a prankster who was sending her malicious text messages. He got the senders number and, pretending to be Irish, contacted the person. According to him, he received obscene messages from the prankster, which he forwarded to Irish from his cellphone. This is why the obscene messages appeared to have originated from him. Rustan claims that it was Irish herself who sent the obscene photo. He presented six pictures of a woman whom he identified as Irish. RTC found Rustan guilty of the violation of Section 5(h) of R.A. 9262. On appeal, CA affirmed the RTC decision. ISSUE: Whether or not Rustan is guilty of the violation of RA 9262. HELD: YES. The prosecution proved each and every element of the crime. The provisions of RA 9262 indicate that the elements of the crime of violence against women through harassment are: 1. The offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship with the offended woman; 2. The offender, by himself or through another, commits an act or series of acts of harassment against the woman; and 3. The harassment alarms or causes substantial emotional or psychological distress to her. Section 3(e) provides that a dating relationship includes a situation where the parties are romantically involved over time and on a continuing basis during the course of the relationship. Rustan claims that being romantically involved, implies sexual relations. R.A. 9262 provides in Section 3 that violence against women refers to any act or a series of acts committed by any person against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship.

The law itself distinguishes a sexual relationship from a dating relationship. Rustan argues that the one act of sending an offensive picture should not be considered a form of harassment. The law punishes any act or series of acts that constitutes violence against women. 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. Rustan alleges that todays women, like Irish, are so used to obscene communications that her getting one could not possibly have produced alarm in her or caused her substantial emotional or psychological distress. He claims having previously exchanged obscene pictures with Irish such that she was already desensitized by them. Court cannot measure the trauma that Irish experienced. What is obscene and injurious to an offended woman can of course only be determined based on the circumstances of each case. Here, the naked woman on the picture, her legs spread open and bearing Irishs head and face, was clearly an obscene picture and, to Irish a revolting and offensive one. Surely, any woman like Irish, who is not in the pornography trade, would be scandalized and pained if she sees herself in such a picture. What makes it further terrifying is that, as Irish testified, Rustan sent the picture with a threat to post it in the internet for all to see. Rustan admitted having sent the malicious text messages to Irish. His defense was that he himself received those messages from an unidentified person who was harassing Irish and he merely forwarded the same to her, using his cellphone. But Rustan never presented the number of the unidentified person who sent the messages to him to authenticate the same.

AYN RUTH NOTES