Case Summary (G.R. No. 168852)
Issue Presented
Whether parents-in-law may be included as respondents in a petition for protective order under RA 9262, applying the principle of conspiracy in concert with the husband.
Petitioner’s Contentions
She urged a liberal construction of RA 9262 to effectuate its protective purpose and invoked Section 47’s suppletory application of the Revised Penal Code, specifically Article 8 on conspiracy, to include respondents as co-offenders acting in concert with her husband. She also argued respondents were necessary parties for complete relief.
Respondents’ Contentions
They maintained RA 9262’s Section 3 limits “offenders” to spouses, former spouses, or those in a sexual/dating relationship; parents-in-law are excluded. Any conspiracy allegations require factual proof not suitable at the petition stage.
Statutory Construction Principles
Section 4 of RA 9262 mandates liberal construction to protect victims. The maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius is ancillary and cannot defeat the clear legislative intent of victim protection.
Suppletory Application of the Revised Penal Code
Section 47 of RA 9262 provides that the Revised Penal Code shall have suppletory application. Under Article 10, RPC is supplementary to special laws unless expressly contradicted.
Application of Conspiracy Principle
Article 8, RPC defines conspiracy: when two or more agree to commit an offense, each is principal. In analogous cases, the Court has applied RPC principles suppletorily to special laws in the absence of express provisions.
RA 9262’s Recognition of “Through Another” Conduct
Section 5(h) expressly criminalizes violence “personally or through another,” and Section 8(a) extends protective orders to acts committed “personally or through another.” This language affirms liability for conspirators beyond the immediate offender.
Evidence of Conspiracy Deferred to Trial
While p
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 168852)
Facts of the Case
- Petitioner Sharica Mari L. Go-Tan married Steven L. Tan on April 18, 1999; the couple had two daughters, Kyra Danielle and Kristen Denise.
- On January 12, 2005, petitioner filed a Petition with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Protective Order (TPO) under R.A. No. 9262 against her husband Steven and her parents-in-law, Spouses Perfecto C. Tan and Juanita L. Tan, alleging verbal, psychological, economic and other abuses.
- The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 94, Quezon City, issued a TPO in petitioner’s favor on January 25, 2005.
- Respondents moved to dismiss on February 7, 2005, arguing they were not covered persons under R.A. No. 9262; petitioner opposed.
- On March 7, 2005, the RTC dismissed the case as to the parents-in-law, invoking the maxim “expressio unius est exclusio alterius.”
- Petitioner filed a Verified Motion for Reconsideration on March 16, 2005; respondents opposed.
- The RTC denied reconsideration on July 11, 2005, again ruling that in-laws are not covered by R.A. No. 9262.
Procedural History
- Petition for TPO filed: January 12, 2005.
- TPO granted: January 25, 2005.
- Motion to Dismiss by respondents: February 7, 2005.
- Comment in opposition by petitioner: February 28, 2005.
- RTC Resolution dismissing respondents: March 7, 2005.
- Verified Motion for Reconsideration: March 16, 2005.
- Comment in opposition by respondents: April 8, 2005.
- RTC Resolution denying reconsideration: July 11, 2005.
- Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 filed before the Supreme Court.
Issue
- Whether Spouses Perfecto C. Tan and Juanita L. Tan, as parents-in-law of petitioner, are included among the persons against whom a protective order may be issued under R.A. No. 9262.
Petitioner’s Contentions
- R.A. No. 9262 must be liberally construed u