Case Summary (G.R. No. 211851)
Terms of the Initial Temporary Protection Order
The ex parte TPO (December 2011) prohibited Roberto from threatening or committing violence, harassing or communicating with Victoria or designated household members (including children and relatives), required him to vacate the family home, imposed a stay-away directive of unspecified reasonable distance, and barred him from possessing firearms.
Modification and Extension of the TPO
On January 18, 2012, the RTC denied Roberto’s counterclaims, clarified prohibited communications (any form or medium), specified the stay-away distance as two kilometers from Victoria, her children, and household help, imposed a 500-meter restriction from the village gates, and repeated the firearms surrender requirement. The TPO was extended throughout trial.
Permanence of the Protection Order
After trial, the RTC, on February 20, 2013, made the TPO permanent, adopting its modified terms in full. Roberto appealed to the CA, challenging only the inclusion of his adult children and the two-kilometer radius as excessive.
Court of Appeals Ruling
In March 2014, the CA affirmed the RTC decision. It held that Section 8(d) of RA 9262 authorizes stay-away directives covering “any designated family or household member” without age limitation, that “children” under the Rule on VAWC includes all descendants, and that evidence showed Roberto used his adult children to harass Victoria. The CA also found no grave abuse in the two-kilometer specification.
Issue on Inclusion of Adult Children
Petitioner contended adult children fall outside RA 9262’s definition of “children” (Section 3(h) – under 18 or incapable of self-care) and that including them severs family ties contrary to restorative justice and State policy favoring family unity. He proposed limiting adult-child inclusion to cases strictly necessary for the petitioning party’s protection.
Legal Framework and Purpose of RA 9262
RA 9262 addresses domestic violence within intimate relationships, recognizing women’s historic subordination and unequal power dynamics. Enacted under the 1987 Constitution’s equal-protection mandate and State policy to protect the family, it provides barangay, temporary, and permanent protection orders, to safeguard victims from further harm and help them regain autonomy.
Scope of “Family or Household Members”
Section 8(d) directs courts to require the respondent to stay away from the petitioner and any designated family or household member at a court-specified distance. The VAWC Rule defines family members broadly as husband and wife, parents and children, ascendants, descendants, and siblings. Neither text distinguishes children by age, permitting courts wide discretion to designate adult descendants when necessary to effectuate the law’s protective purpose.
Recognition of Coercive Control as Psychological Violence
The Court recognized that Roberto’s practice of sending harassing messages to his children, copy-furnished to Victoria, constituted coercive control, a form of psychological violence under Section 3(a)(C) of RA 9262. By exploiting his children to intimidate and demean his wife, he disrupted her daily life and violated the protective objectives of the law.
Consent Requirement under RA 9262
Section 8(k) (and its counterpart in the Rule) allows courts to grant “other forms of relief” upon consent of the petitioner and any designated family or household member. The Court clarified that consent is required only for reliefs not enumerated in Sections 8(a)–(j), and that stay-away directives under Section 8(d) are specific statutory reliefs not subject to the consent requirement.
Restorative Justice and Counseling Relief
The VAWC Rule, pursuant to restorative-justice principles, authorizes courts to require offenders to und
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 211851)
Facts
- Roberto Estacio y Salvosa and Ma. Victoria Estacio y Santos married on January 2, 1978, and have three children—Manuel Roberto, Maria Katrina Ann, and Sharlene Mae—all of whom were adults during the controversy.
- On December 7, 2011, Victoria filed a petition for a permanent protection order under Republic Act No. 9262 (the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004), together with an urgent prayer for a Temporary Protection Order (TPO).
- The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Parañaque City issued an ex parte TPO prohibiting Roberto from (a) committing or threatening acts of violence against Victoria, (b) harassing her directly or indirectly, (c) removing himself from the conjugal home, (d) staying away from Victoria, her children, and other household members, (e) using or possessing firearms.
- Roberto denied the allegations, counterclaimed for damages and attorney’s fees, and sought modification of the TPO.
- The RTC modified and extended the TPO several times, clarifying the stay-away distances and specifying identification of household members, including adult children and household help.
- On February 20, 2013, the RTC made the TPO permanent (Permanent Protection Order, PPO).
Procedural History
- Roberto appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), challenging terms of the PPO—particularly (1) inclusion of adult children as protected household members, and (2) the two-kilometer stay-away radius as excessive.
- The CA, in its March 19, 2014 Decision, affirmed the RTC:
• Held that Section 8(d) of RA 9262 authorizes designation of “any family or household member” without age limitation;
• Applied Rule on Violence Against Women and Their Children, defining “family members” to include husband and wife, parents and children, ascendants, descendants;
• Found factual basis—Victoria’s testim