Go-Tan v. Tan
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Sharica Mari L. Go-Tan and Steven L. Tan were married on April 18, 1999, and had two children. On January 12, 2005, petitioner filed a Petition for a Temporary Protective Order (TPO) against her husband, Steven, and her parents-in-law, Spouses Perfecto C. Tan and Juanita L. Tan (respondents), alleging verbal, psychological, and economic abuses in violation of R.A. No. 9262. Procedural History: The RTC issued a TPO on January 25, 2005. Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that as parents-in-law, they were not covered by R.A. No. 9262. Petitioner countered that the law should be liberally interpreted. On March 7, 2005, the RTC dismissed the case against respondents, citing the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius. Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was denied on July 11, 2005, with the RTC stating that including respondents would be a strained interpretation. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the RTC's dismissal of the case against respondents.
Issue(s)
Whether respondents-spouses Perfecto & Juanita, parents-in-law of Sharica, may be included in a petition for the issuance of a protective order, in accordance with Republic Act No. 9262, considering the potential application of conspiracy. Whether the principle of conspiracy under the Revised Penal Code can be suppletorily applied to R.A. No. 9262, and the evidentiary requirements for establishing conspiracy in the context of a protective order petition.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The assailed Resolutions dated March 7, 2005, and July 11, 2005, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 94, Quezon City are PARTLY REVERSED and SET ASIDE insofar as the dismissal of the petition against respondents is concerned.
Ratio Decidendi
On the inclusion of parents-in-law under R.A. No. 9262 and the suppletory application of the Revised Penal Code: The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner. While Section 3 of R.A. No. 9262 defines the offender as one related to the victim by marriage, former marriage, or a sexual or dating relationship, it does not preclude the application of the principle of conspiracy under the Revised Penal Code (RPC). Section 47 of R.A. No. 9262 expressly provides for the suppletory application of the RPC and other applicable laws. This principle has been consistently applied in previous cases where special laws were silent on certain matters, such as subsidiary penalties or rules on service of sentences. Therefore, the principle of conspiracy, which states that the act of one conspirator is the act of all, can be suppletorily applied to R.A. No. 9262. Furthermore, Section 5(h) of R.A. No. 9262 itself recognizes that acts of violence can be committed through another, and Section 8(a) and (b) of the same Act allow protection orders to prohibit respondents from acting personally or through another, or communicating indirectly. The law also mandates liberal construction under Section 4 to promote the protection and safety of victims. Consequently, the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius does not apply here as it would defeat the plainly indicated purpose of the legislature for liberal interpretation and broad protection. On the evidentiary matters of conspiracy: The Court noted that petitioner unnecessarily argued at length on the attendance of circumstances evidencing conspiracy or connivance. Conspiracy is an evidentiary matter that should be threshed out in a full-blown trial on the merits and cannot be determined in the present petition, which is centered on the determination of whether respondents may be included under R.A. No. 9262. The presence or absence of conspiracy can be best passed upon after a trial on the merits.
Main Doctrine
The principle of conspiracy under Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code may be applied suppletorily to Republic Act No. 9262, the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004, in the absence of a contrary provision, to include parents-in-law as respondents in a petition for a protection order, consistent with the law's intent for liberal construction to promote the protection and safety of victims.