GO-TAN vs TAN FACTS: ,SS-.: /ON #arents-in-law may &e incl$ded in the #etition - 0.S 1.

0.S 1.23: /hile the said #rovision #rovides that the offender &e related or connected to the victim &y marria!e" former marria!e" or a se $al or datin! relationshi#" it does not #recl$de the a##lication of the #rinci#le of cons#iracy $nder the '%C. S.C. 45. S$##letory A##lication. - For #$r#oses of this Act" the 'evised %enal Code and other a##lica&le laws" shall have s$##letory a##lication. %arenthetically" Article 67 of the '%C #rovides: A'T. 67. Offenses not s$&8ect to the #rovisions of this Code. + Offenses which are or in the f$t$re may &e #$nisha&le $nder s#ecial laws are not s$&8ect to the #rovisions of this Code. This Code shall &e s$##lementary to s$ch laws" $nless the latter sho$ld s#ecially #rovide the contrary. 1ence" le!al #rinci#les develo#ed from the %enal Code may &e a##lied in a s$##lementary ca#acity to crimes #$nished $nder s#ecial laws" s$ch as '.A. No. ()*)" in which the s#ecial law is silent on a #artic$lar matter. /ith more reason" therefore" the #rinci#le of cons#iracy $nder Article 9 of the '%C may &e a##lied s$##letorily to '.A. No. ()*) &eca$se of the e #ress #rovision of Section 45 that the '%C shall &e s$##lementary to said law. Th$s" general provisions of the RPC, which by their nature, are necessarily applicable, may be applied suppletorily. Th$s" the principle of conspiracy may be applied to R.A. No. 92 2. !or 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 e"tent or modality of participation of each of them becomes secondary, since all the conspirators are principals. Sharica Mari Go-Tan and Steven Tan were married. They have two female children Barely si years after marria!e"#etitioner filed #etition with #rayer for iss$ance of T%O a!ainst steven and her #arents-in-law She alle!ed that Steven" in cons#iracy with res#ondents" were ca$sin! ver&al" #sycholo!ical" and economic a&$ses $#on her in violation of 'A ()*) %arents-in-law o##osed &eca$se accordin! to them they were not covered &y 'A ()*) %etitioner said they were covered $nder li&eral inter#retation thereof aimed at #romotin! the #rotection and safety of victims of violence. 'TC + dismissed. %arents-in-law not covered.

,t m$st &e f$rther noted that Section : of '.A. No. ()*) e #ressly reco!ni;es that the acts of violence a!ainst women and their children may be committed by an offender through another. the #rotection order that may &e iss$ed for the #$r#ose of #reventin! f$rther acts of violence a!ainst the woman or her child may include individuals other than the offending husband" Section 4 of '.A. No. ()*) calls for a liberal construction of the law. ,t &ears mention that the intent of the stat$te is the law and that this intent m$st &e effect$ated &y the co$rts. ,n the #resent case" the e #ress lan!$a!e of '.A. No. ()*) reflects the intent of the le!islat$re for li&eral constr$ction as will &est ens$re the attainment of the o&8ect of the law accordin! to its tr$e intent" meanin! and s#irit - the #rotection and safety of victims of violence a!ainst women and children.