Case Digest (A.M. No. P-18-3843 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 16-4612-P) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In G.R. No. 187175 decided on July 6, 2022 under the 1987 Constitution, XXX challenged the Permanent Protection Order (PPO) granted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 207 of xxxxxxxxxxxxxx in Civil Case No. 07-104 in favor of AAA and their children BBB and minor CCC under Republic Act No. 9262 (the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004). AAA and XXX began a live-in relationship in 1982 despite XXX’s existing marriage to EEE; their union produced three children—BBB (b. 1986), DDD (b. 1989, died age 8), and CCC (b. 1990). Following allegations of physical, sexual, psychological, and economic abuse, AAA filed criminal charges in October 2007 before the Office of the City Prosecutor (I.S. No. 07J-03232) and concurrently sought a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) and PPO before the RTC. The RTC issued the TPO on November 16, 2007, granted support pendente lite, extended the TPO, and on March 6, 2009 made it permanent. Meanwhile, the City Prosecutor found pr... Case Digest (A.M. No. P-18-3843 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 16-4612-P) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Background of the Parties
- XXX (Petitioner) and AAA (Respondent) were longtime live-in partners since 1982; they had three children:
- BBB (b. February 13, 1986)
- DDD (b. January 23, 1989; died of brain cancer at age 8)
- CCC (b. October 31, 1990)
- AAA was aged 20 and employed when they met; XXX was already married to EEE but led AAA to believe they would marry.
- AAA’s Complaint under RA 9262 (I.S. No. 07J-03232)
- Physical Violence: forbade work, restricted friends and clothing, raised hand in threat, hit AAA’s face during argument.
- Psychological Violence: verbal insults (“malandi ka,” threats to kill), accusations of infidelity.
- Economic Abuse: abandonment after arguments, sending minimal weekly support (PHP 1,000–2,000).
- Sexual Violence: forced rough and anal sex during pregnancy and daughter’s terminal illness; forced oral sex post-surgery.
- Demand Letter: AAA’s counsel formally sought PHP 50,000,000 for support, damages, and children’s legitimes.
- XXX’s Defense and Countersuits
- Denied abuses; cited purchase of multiple properties (lands, house, condominium, Taguig property), alleged increased support (PHP 230,000 monthly; total PHP 1,086,823.35).
- Claimed AAA forced loans (PHP 5,000,000), deeds of sale, and harassment when he resisted.
- Filed motions to dismiss RA 9262 complaint as void or non-retroactive, questioned AAA’s compliance with procedural remedies.
- Trial Court Proceedings (Civil Case No. 07-104)
- October 23, 2007: AAA and children filed for Ex Parte Temporary Protection Order (TPO) and support pendente lite.
- November 16, 2007: TPO granted—stay-away, custody pendente lite, exclusive possession of residence, PHP 279,650 weekly support.
- February 8, 2008: support pendente lite modified to PHP 50,000 per child monthly.
- March 6, 2009: TPO made Permanent Protection Order (PPO)—extended stay-away (500 m), custody, exclusive residence use; violation punishable.
- Criminal Proceedings on Economic Abuse (Crim. Case No. 08-347)
- City Prosecutor initially dismissed all RA 9262 counts but later found probable cause for economic abuse (Section 5(e)(2)).
- XXX moved to quash information; RTC vacillated but ultimately (Nov 26, 2008) found probable cause and set arraignment.
Issues:
- Constitutionality of RA 9262
- Is RA 9262 valid legislation?
- Does RA 9262 violate XXX’s right to equal protection?
- Does RA 9262 infringe XXX’s right to due process?
- Is the enactment of RA 9262 an improper exercise of police power?
- Scope and Application of Protection Orders
- Should a PPO be issued in favor of AAA (a live-in “paramour”)?
- Should a PPO cover BBB and CCC (now of age)?
- Does RA 9262 conflict with SC-promulgated rules on custody (A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC), mediation (A.M. No. 01-10-5-SC-PHILJA), and support pendente lite (Rule 61)?
- Interpretation of “Economic Abuse”
- Does intermittent or mere failure to provide support constitute economic abuse under Section 5(e)(2)?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)