Many people believe that Republic Act No. 9262, also known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 (Anti-VAWC Law), applies only to husbands, partners, or boyfriends. At first glance, this seems true because the law focuses on violence committed by a person against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or someone with whom he has or had a dating or sexual relationship, or with whom he has a common child.
Under Section 3 of the Anti-VAWC Law, “violence against women and their children” refers to acts that cause or are likely to cause physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse, including threats, harassment, coercion, and deprivation of liberty.Because the law mentions relationships such as husband-wife or dating partners, it may appear that other persons such as a mother-in-law or father-in-law—cannot be held liable under the Anti-VAWC Law.
However, the Supreme Court has clarified that this is not always the case.
In Go-Tan v. Spouses Tan (G.R. No. 168852, 30 September 2008), the Supreme Court ruled that while the Anti-VAWC Law requires that the offender be connected to the victim through marriage or a dating relationship, this does not prevent the application of the principle of conspiracy under the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
In that case, the wife filed a petition for the issuance of a Temporary Protection Order not only against her husband, but also against her parents-in-law. She alleged that her husband, together with his parents, committed acts of verbal, psychological, and economic abuse against her.
The parents-in-law argued that they could not be held liable because they were not covered by the Anti-VAWC Law, claiming that the law applies only to husbands or partners.
The Supreme Court rejected their argument. It ruled that the parents-in-law may still be held liable as conspirators if they participated in the abusive acts. The Court explained that Section 47 of the Anti-VAWC Law provides that the Revised Penal Code applies suppletory, meaning that principles under the RPC may be used to fill gaps when the Anti-VAWC Law is silent on a particular issue.
Because the Anti-VAWC Law does not specifically discuss conspiracy, the Court held that the principle of conspiracy under Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code may be applied. This means that any person who cooperates, participates, or acts together with the main offender may also be held liable, even if they are not the husband or partner.
Comments are closed