Social Leg Cases for digest (midterms):

1. NORMA A. DEL SOCORRO, FOR AND IN BEHALF OF HER MINOR

CHILD RODERIGO NORJO VAN WILSEM v. ERNST JOHAN
BRINKMAN VAN WILSEM
G.R. No. 193707, December 10, 2014, THIRD DIVISION, (Peralta, J.)

FACTS:
Foreign law should not be applied when its application would work undeniable injustice to the citizens or
residents of the forum. Norma A. Del Socorro and Ernst Van Wilsem contracted marriage in Holland. They
were blessed with a son named Roderigo Norjo Van Wilsem. Unfortunately, their marriage bond ended by
virtue of a Divorce Decree issued by the appropriate Court of Holland. Thereafter, Norma and her son
came home to the Philippines. According to Norma, Ernst made a promise to provide monthly support to
their son. However, since the arrival of petitioner and her son in the Philippines, Ernst never gave support
to Roderigo. Norma filed a complaint against Ernst for violation of R.A. No. 9262 for the latter’s unjust
refusal to support his minor child with petitioner. The trial court dismissed the complaint since the facts
charged in the information do not constitute an offense with respect to the accused, he being an alien.

ISSUE:
Does a foreign national have an obligation to support his minor child under Philippine law?

HELD:
Yes, since Ernst is a citizen of Holland or the Netherlands, we agree with the RTC that he is subject to the
laws of his country, not to Philippine law, as to whether he is obliged to give support to his child, as well
as the consequences of his failure to do so. This does not, however, mean that Ernst is not obliged to
support Norma’s son altogether. In international law, the party who wants to have a foreign law applied to
a dispute or case has the burden of proving the foreign law. In the present case, Ernst hastily concludes
that being a national of the Netherlands, he is governed by such laws on the matter of provision of and
capacity to support. While Ernst pleaded the laws of the Netherlands in advancing his position that he is
not obliged to support his son, he never proved the same. It is incumbent upon Ernst to plead and prove
that the national law of the Netherlands does not impose upon the parents the obligation to support their
child. Foreign laws do not prove themselves in our jurisdiction and our courts are not authorized to take
judicial notice of them. Like any other fact, they must be alleged and proved. Moreover, foreign law should
not be applied when its application would work undeniable injustice to the citizens or residents of the
forum. To give justice is UST Law Review, Vol. LIX, No. 1, May 2015 the most important function of law;
hence, a law, or judgment or contract that is obviously unjust negates the fundamental principles of
Conflict of Laws. Applying the foregoing, even if the laws of the Netherlands neither enforce a parent’s
obligation to support his child nor penalize the non-compliance therewith, such obligation is still duly
enforceable in the Philippines because it would be of great injustice to the child to be denied of financial
support when the latter is entitled thereto.

1
2. GR 168852, Go-Tan vs. Spouses Tan

Title: Go-Tan v. Spouses Tan, G.R. No.

Subject Matter: Applicability of the doctrine of conspiracy under the Revised Penal Code to
R.A. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Children Act of 2004)

FACTS:
On April 18, 1999, Sharica Mari Go-Tan and Steven Tan were married. Out of this union, two female
children were born, Kyra Danielle and Kristen Denise. On January 12, 2005, barely six years into the
marriage, petitioner Go-Tan filed a petition with prayer for the issuance of a Temporary Protective Order
(TPO) against Steven, in conspiracy with respondents, were causing verbal, psychological, and economic
abuses upon her in violation of Section 5, paragraphs (e) (2) (3) (4), (h) (5) and (i) of Republic Act No. 9262.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondents-spouses, Perfecto and Juanita, parents-in-law of Sharica, may be included in
the petition for the issuance of a protective order, in accordance with RA 9262.

HELD:
Yes, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner. While the provisions of RA 9262 provides that the offender
be connected 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 RPC. In Section 47 of RA 9262, it has
expressly provides for the suppletory application of the RPC. Hence, legal principles developed from the
Penal Code may be applied in a supplementary capacity to crimes punished under special laws, such as
RA 9262 in which the special law is silent on a particular matter.

2
3. Garcia vs. J. Drilon and Garcia, G. R. No. 179267, 25 June 2013

Nature of the Case: Petition for Review of Republic Act (R.A.) 9262

FACTS:
Private respondent Rosalie filed a petition before the RTC of Bacolod City a Temporary Protection Order
against her husband, Jesus, pursuant to R.A. 9262, entitled “An Act Defining Violence Against Women
and Their Children, Providing for Protective Measures for Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefor, and for
Other Purposes.” She claimed to be a victim of physical, emotional, psychological and economic violence,
being threatened of deprivation of custody of her children and of financial support and also a victim of
marital infidelity on the part of petitioner.

The TPO was granted but the petitioner failed to faithfully comply with the conditions set forth by the said
TPO, private-respondent filed another application for the issuance of a TPO ex parte. The trial court issued
a modified TPO and extended the same when petitioner failed to comment on why the TPO should not be
modified. After the given time allowance to answer, the petitioner no longer submitted the required
comment as it would be an “axercise in futility.”

Petitioner filed before the CA a petition for prohibition with prayer for injunction and TRO on, questioning
the constitutionality of the RA 9262 for violating the due process and equal protection clauses, and the
validity of the modified TPO for being “an unwanted product of an invalid law.”

The CA issued a TRO on the enforcement of the TPO but however, denied the petition for failure to raise
the issue of constitutionality in his pleadings before the trial court and the petition for prohibition to
annul protection orders issued by the trial court constituted collateral attack on said law.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied. Thus, this petition is filed.

ISSUES:
WON the CA erred in dismissing the petition on the theory that the issue of constitutionality was not
raised at the earliest opportunity and that the petition constitutes a collateral attack on the validity of the
law.

WON the CA committed serious error in failing to conclude that RA 9262 is discriminatory, unjust and
violative of the equal protection clause.

WON the CA committed grave mistake in not finding that RA 9262 runs counter to the due process clause
of the Constitution

WON the CA erred in not finding that the law does violence to the policy of the state to protect the family
as a basic social institution

WON the CA seriously erredin declaring RA 9262 as invalid and unconstitutional because it allows an
undue delegation of judicial power to Brgy. Officials.

HELD:
1. Petitioner contends that the RTC has limited authority and jurisdiction, inadequate to tackle the
complex issue of constitutionality. Family Courts have authority and jurisdiction to consider the
constitutionality of a statute. The question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possible time
so that if not raised in the pleadings, it may not be raised in the trial and if not raised in the trial court, it
may not be considered in appeal.

2. RA 9262 does not violate the guaranty of equal protection of the laws. Equal protection simply requires
that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and

3
responsibilities imposed. In Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workerkers’ Union, the Court ruled that all that is
required of a valid classification is that it be reasonable, which means that the classification should be
based on substantial distinctions which make for real differences; that it must be germane to the purpose
of the law; not limited to existing conditions only; and apply equally to each member of the class.
Therefore, RA9262 is based on a valid classification and did not violate the equal protection clause by
favouring women over men as victims of violence and abuse to whom the Senate extends its protection.

3. RA 9262 is not violative of the due process clause of the Constitution. The essence of due process is in
the reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit any evidence one may have in support of one’s
defense. The grant of the TPO exparte cannot be impugned as violative of the right to due process.

4. The non-referral of a VAWC case to a mediator is justified. Petitioner’s contention that by not allowing
mediation, the law violated the policy of the State to protect and strengthen the family as a basic
autonomous social institution cannot be sustained. In a memorandum of the Court, it ruled that the court
shall not refer the case or any issue therof to a mediator. This is so because violence is not a subject for
compromise.

5. There is no undue delegation of judicial power to Barangay officials. Judicial power includes the duty
of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and
enforceable and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction on any part of any branch of the Government while executive power is the power
to enforce and administer the laws. The preliminary investigation conducted by the prosecutor is an
executive, not a judicial, function. The same holds true with the issuance of BPO. Assistance by Brgy.
Officials and other law enforcement agencies is consistent with their duty executive function.

The petition for review on certiorari is denied for lack of merit.

4
4. GR 201043, Republic vs. Yahon

FACTS:

ISSUE:

HELD:

5
5. MAGNO VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. GR No. 171542, April 6, 2011

FACTS:
Before the Court is a petition for certiorari and prohibition assailing the Orders of the (RTC) of Angeles
City, Branch 59 which denied petitioner’s Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause with
Motion to Quash the Information. Petitioner was charged with Violation of Section 5(a) of RA 9262 before
the RTC of Angeles City, Branch 59, in anInformation: “xx the above named accused, being then the
boyfriend of the complainant, . . . did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously use personal
violence on the complainant, by pulling her hair, punching complainant’s back, shoulder and left eye,
thereby demeaning and degrading the complainant’s intrinsic worth and dignity as a human being, in
violation of Section 5(a) of the Republic Act 9262. RTC found probable cause and consequently, issued a
warrant of arrest. The latter posted a cash bond and on August 12, 2010, filed a Motion for Judicial
Determination of Probable Cause with Motion to Quash the Information. Petitioner averred that at the
time of the alleged incident on July 13, 2009, he was no longer in a dating relationship with private
respondent, hence, RA 9262 was inapplicable. In her affidavit, private respondent admitted that her
relationship with petitioner had ended prior to the subject incident. She narrated that she sought
payment of the money she lent to the petitioner, but the latter could not pay. She then inquired from the
petitioner if he was responsible for spreading rumours about her which he admitted. Thereupon, private
respondent slapped petitioner causing the latter to inflict on her physical injuries alleged in the
information. The RTC denied petitioner’s motion. The status of their dating relationship is immaterial.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Information alleging a fact contrary to what has been admitted should be quash.

HELD:
Yes. Sec. 14 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court provides that information may be amended, in form or in
substance, without leave of court, at any time before the accused enters his plea.

6
6. RUSTAN ANG y PASCUA, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
and IRISH SAGUD, Respondents.
G.R. No. 182835; April 20, 2010

FACTS:
After receiving from the accused Rustan via multimedia message service (MMS) a picture of a naked
woman with her face superimposed on the figure, Complainant filed an action against said accused for
violation of the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act or Republic Act (R.A.) 9262. The
sender’s cellphone number, stated in the message, was 0921-8084768, one of the numbers that Rustan
used. Irish surmised that he copied the picture of her face from a shot he took when they were in Baguio
in 2003. The accused said to have boasted that it would be easy for him to create similarly scandalous
pictures of her and threatened to spread the picture he sent through the internet. The trial court later
found Rustan guilty of the violation of Section 5(h) of R.A. 9262. On Rustan’s appeal to the Court of
Appeals (CA), the latter rendered a decision affirming the RTC decision. The CA denied Rustan’s motion for
reconsideration in a resolution dated April 25, 2008. Thus, Rustan filed the present for review on
certiorari.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the RTC properly admitted in evidence the obscene picture presented in the case?

HELD:
Yes. The Supreme Court affirms the decision of the CA. Rustan claims that the obscene picture sent to
Irish through a text message constitutes an electronic document. Thus, it should be authenticated by
means of an electronic signature, as provided under Section 1, Rule 5 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence
(A.M. 01-7-01-SC). However, Rustan is raising this objection to the admissibility of the obscene picture for
the first time before the Supreme Court. The objection is too late since he should have objected to the
admission of the picture on such ground at the time it was offered in evidence. He should be deemed to
have already waived such ground for objection. Moreover, the rules he cites do not apply to the present
criminal action. The Rules on Electronic Evidence applies only to civil actions, quasi-judicial proceedings,
and administrative proceedings. In conclusion, the Court finds that the prosecution has proved each and
every element of the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt.

7
7. DOLINA V. VALLECERA
GR No. 182367- [December 15, 2010]

DOCTRINE:
To be entitled to legal support, petitioner must, in proper action, first establish the filiation
of the child, if the same is not admitted or acknowledged. If filiation is beyond question,
support follows as matter of obligation.

FACTS:
In 2008, Cherryl Dolina filed a petition with a prayer for the issuance of a temporary protection order
against Glenn Vallecera before RTC for alleged woman and child abuse under RA 9262. In the pro forma
complaint cherryl added a prayer for support for their supposed child. She based such prayer on the
latter’s certificate of live birth which listed Vallecera ‘s employer, to withhold from his pay such amount of
support as the RTC may deem appropriate.
Vallecera opposed petition and claimed that Dolina’s petition was essentially one for financial support
rather than for protection against woman and child abuses, that he was not the child’s father and that the
signature in the birth certificate was not here. He also added that the petition is a harassment suit
intended to for him to acknowledge the child as his and therefore give financial support.
RTC dismissed petition.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the RTC correctly dismissed Dolina’s action for temporary protection and denied her
application for temporary support for her child?

HELD:
Yes. Dolina evidently filed the wrong action to obtain support for her child. The object of R.A. 9262 under
which she filed the case is the protection and safety of women and children who are victims of abuse or
violence. Although the issuance of a protection order against the respondent in the case can include the
grant of legal support for the wife and the child, this assumes that both are entitled to a protection order
and to legal support. In this case neither her nor her child lived with Vallecera.
To be entitled to legal support, petitioner must, in proper action, first establish the filiation of the child, if
the same is not admitted or acknowledged. Since Dolina’s demand for support for her son is based on her
claim that he is Vallecera’s illegitimate child, the latter is not entitled to such support if he had not
acknowledged him, until Dolina shall have proved his relation to him. The child’s remedy is to file through
her mother a judicial action against Vallecera for compulsory recognition. If filiation is beyond question,
support follows as matter of obligation. In short, illegitimate children are entitled to support and
successional rights but their filiation must be duly proved.
Dolina’s remedy is to file for the benefit of her child an action against Vallecera for compulsory recognition
in order to establish filiation and then demand support. Alternatively, she may directly file an action for
support, where the issue of compulsory recognition may be integrated and resolved.

8
8. RICKY DINAMLING v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 199522 June 22, 2015

FACTS:
Petitioner Ricky Dinamling was charged in two criminal information for violation of R.A. No. 9262. It is
alleged in the information that he feloniously inflicts psychological violence upon a woman with whom he
has two children, resulting to mental and emotional anguish and public humiliation by repeated verbal
and emotional abuse consisting of several bad and insulting utterance directed against the victim.
Dinamling pleaded not guilty to both charges.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of violation of RA No. 9262.

HELD:
The elements of the crime are;
(1) The offended party is a woman and/or her child or children
(2) The woman is either the wife or former wife of the offender, or is a woman with whom the offender has
or had a sexual or dating relationship, or is a woman with whom such offender has a common child. As
for the woman’s child or children, they may be legitimate or illegitimate, or living within or without the
family abode.
(3) The offender causes on the woman and/or child mental or emotional anguish; and
(4) The anguish is caused through the acts of public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal and
emotional abuse, denial of financial support or custody of minor children or access to the children or
similar acts or omissions.

In this case, the elements have been proven and duly established. It is undisputed that thevictim is a
woman who has then in a five-year ongoing relationship with Dinamling and had two common children.
The woman is often in fear of petitioner due to latter’s physical and verbal abuse.

Psychological violence is an element of violation of Section 5 (RA No. 9262) just like the mental or
emotional anguish caused on the victim. It is the means employed by the perpetrator, while mental or
emotional anguish is the effect caused to or the damage sustained by the offended party. To establish
psychological violence as the element of the crime, it is necessary to show proof of commission of any of
the acts enumerated in Section 5(i) or similar acts. And to establish mental or emotional anguish, it is
necessary to present a testimony of the victim as such experiences are personal to this party.

In fact, neither the physical injuries suffered by the victim nor the actual physical violence done by the
perpetrator are necessary to prove the essential elements of the crime as defined in Section 5(i) of RA
9262. The only exception is, as in the case at bar, when the physical violence done, petitioner Dinamling's
acts of publicly punching, kicking and stripping her pants and underwear, although obvious acts of
physical violence, are also instances of psychological violence since it was alleged and proven that they
resulted in the victim’s public ridicule. Accused is alleged to have caused the mental and emotional
suffering; in which case, such acts of physical violence must be proven. In this instance, the physical
violence was a means of causing mental or emotional suffering. As such, whether or not it led to actual
bodily injury, the physical violence translates to psychological violence since its main effect was on the
victim's mental or emotional well-being.

9
9. RICKY DINAMLING v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 19952 June 22, 2015

FACTS:
Petitioner Ricky Dinamling was charged in two criminal information for violation of R.A. No. 9262. It is
alleged in the information that he feloniously inflicts psychological violence upon a woman with whom he
has two children, resulting to mental and emotional anguish and public humiliation by repeated verbal
and emotional abuse consisting of several bad and insulting utterance directed against the victim.
Dinamling pleaded not guilty to both charges.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of violation of RA No. 9262.

HELD:
The elements of the crime are;
(1) The offended party is a woman and/or her child or children
(2) The woman is either the wife or former wife of the offender, or is a woman with whom the offender has
or had a sexual or dating relationship, or is a woman with whom such offender has a common child. As
for the woman’s child or children, they may be legitimate or illegitimate, or living within or without the
family abode.
(3) The offender causes on the woman and/or child mental or emotional anguish; and
(4) The anguish is caused through the acts of public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal and
emotional abuse, denial of financial support or custody of minor children or access to the children or
similar acts or omissions.

In this case, the elements have been proven and duly established. It is undisputed that thevictim is a
woman who has then in a five-year ongoing relationship with Dinamling and had two common children.
The woman is often in fear of petitioner due to latter’s physical and verbal abuse.

Psychological violence is an element of violation of Section 5 (RA No. 9262) just like the mental or
emotional anguish caused on the victim. It is the means employed by the perpetrator, while mental or
emotional anguish is the effect caused to or the damage sustained by the offended party. To establish
psychological violence as the element of the crime, it is necessary to show proof of commission of any of
the acts enumerated in Section 5(i) or similar acts. And to establish mental or emotional anguish, it is
necessary to present a testimony of the victim as such experiences are personal to this party.

In fact, neither the physical injuries suffered by the victim nor the actual physical violence done by the
perpetrator are necessary to prove the essential elements of the crime as defined in Section 5(i) of RA
9262. The only exception is, as in the case at bar, when the physical violence done, petitioner Dinamling's
acts of publicly punching, kicking and stripping her pants and underwear, although obvious acts of
physical violence, are also instances of psychological violence since it was alleged and proven that they
resulted in the victim’s public ridicule. Accused is alleged to have caused the mental and emotional
suffering; in which case, such acts of physical violence must be proven. In this instance, the physical
violence was a means of causing mental or emotional suffering. As such, whether or not it led to actual
bodily injury, the physical violence translates to psychological violence since its main effect was on the
victim's mental or emotional well-being.

10
10. GR 173491, Cabila vs. People

FACTS:

ISSUE:

HELD:

11
11. GR No. 169533, March 20, 2013
BONGALON vs. PEOPLE

FACTS:
On May 11, 2002, Jayson Dela Cruz (Jayson) and Roldan, his older brother, both minors, joined the
evening procession for the Santo Niño at Oro Site in Legazpi City; that when the procession passed in
front of the petitioner’s house, the latter’s daughter Mary Ann Rose, also a minor, threw stones at Jayson
and called him “sissy”; that the petitioner confronted Jayson and Roldan and called them names like
“strangers” and “animals”; that the petitioner struck Jayson at the back with his hand, and slapped
Jayson on the face; that the petitioner then went to the brothers’ house and challenged Rolando dela
Cruz, their father, to a fight, but Rolando did not come out of the house to take on the petitioner; that
Rolando later brought Jayson to the Legazpi City Police Station and reported the incident; that Jayson
also underwent medical treatment at the Bicol Regional Training and Teaching Hospital; that the doctors
who examined Jayson issued two medical certificates attesting that Jayson suffered contusions.

Petitioner denied having physically abused or maltreated Jayson. He explained that he only talked with
Jayson and Roldan after his minor daughters had told him about Jayson and Roldan’s throwing stones at
them and about Jayson’s burning Cherrylyn’s hair. He denied shouting invectives at and challenging
Rolando to a fight, insisting that he only told Rolando to restrain his sons from harming his daughters.

Crime charged: child abuse, an act in violation of Section 10(a) of R.A. 7610

ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner was guilty of the crime charged and that even assuming that he was guilty,
his liability should be mitigated because he had merely acted to protect her two minor daughters (ONLY
SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES; PENALTY IS MITIGATED)

HELD:
Although the Court affirms the factual findings of fact by the RTC and the CA to the effect that the
petitioner struck Jayson at the back with his hand and slapped Jayson on the face, it disagrees with their
holding that his acts constituted child abuse within the purview of Section 3 (b) of Republic Act No. 7610.

The records did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that his laying of hands on Jayson had been
intended to debase the “intrinsic worth and dignity” of Jayson as a human being, or that he had thereby
intended to humiliate or embarrass Jayson. The records showed the laying of hands on Jayson to have
been done at the spur of the moment and in anger, indicative of his being then overwhelmed by his
fatherly concern for the personal safety of his own minor daughters who had just suffered harm at the
hands of Jayson and Roldan. With the loss of his selfcontrol, he lacked that specific intent to debase,
degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being that was so essential in
the crime of child abuse.

It is not trite to remind that under the well-recognized doctrine of pro reo, every doubt is resolved in favor
of the petitioner as the accused. Thus, the Court should consider all possible circumstances in his favor.
Considering that Jayson’s physical injury required five to seven days of medical attention, the petitioner
was liable for slight physical injuries under Article 266(1) of the Revised Penal Code.

The penalty for slight physical injuries is arresto menor, which ranges from one day to 30 days of
imprisonment. In imposing the correct penalty, however, the Court has to consider the mitigating
circumstance of passion or obfuscation under Article 13(6) of the Revised Penal Code, because the
petitioner lost his reason and self-control, thereby diminishing the exercise of his will power. It is relevant
to mention, too, that in passion or obfuscation, the offender suffers a diminution of intelligence and
intent.

12
Arresto menor is prescribed in its minimum period in the absence of any aggravating circumstance that
offset the mitigating circumstance of passion. Accordingly, with the Indeterminate Sentence Law being
inapplicable due to the penalty imposed not exceeding one year, the petitioner shall suffer a straight
penalty of 10 days of arresto menor.

13
12. GR 182521, People vs. Fragante

FACTS:

ISSUE:

HELD:

14