Go-Tan v. Spouses Tan (2008): VAWC Against In-Laws

Sharica Mari Go-Tan married her husband on April 18, 1999, and they had two daughters. On January 12, 2005, she filed a petition for a temporary protection order (TPO) against her husband and his parents, Spouses Perfecto and Juanita Tan. She alleged that her husband, in conspiracy with his parents, was causing her verbal, psychological and economic abuse in violation of Section 5 of RA 9262.

On January 25, 2005, the Regional Trial Court granted the TPO. The parents-in-law moved to dismiss, arguing that RA 9262 does not cover parents-in-law. On March 7, 2005, the trial court dismissed the case as to them. It reasoned that the law did not include them as respondents, applying the rule that the express mention of one thing excludes others ("expressio unius est exclusio alterius"). It denied her motion for reconsideration on July 11, 2005. She went directly to the Supreme Court on a pure question of law.

May the parents-in-law be included in a petition for a protection order under RA 9262?

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the wife and reversed the dismissal as to the parents-in-law.

The definition does not rule out conspiracy. Section 3 of RA 9262 defines violence against women and their children as acts committed by a person against his wife, former wife, or a woman with whom he has or had a sexual or dating relationship or a common child. The Court said that while this requires the offender to be related to the victim in that way, "it does not preclude the application of the principle of conspiracy under the RPC."

The Revised Penal Code fills the gaps. Section 47 of RA 9262 says the Revised Penal Code and other applicable laws "shall have suppletory application." Article 10 of the Code also says it is supplementary to special laws. The Court cited earlier cases where Code provisions were applied to special laws. It held: "With more reason, therefore, the principle of conspiracy under Article 8 of the RPC may be applied suppletorily to R.A. No. 9262." Under Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code, once conspiracy is shown, the act of one is the act of all.

The law itself covers acts done through others. Section 5(h) of RA 9262 punishes certain conduct done "personally or through another," and Section 8(a) allows a protection order to prohibit the respondent from committing such acts "personally or through another." Section 4 says the law "shall be liberally construed to promote the protection and safety of victims of violence against women and their children." So the maxim relied on by the trial court did not apply.

Conspiracy must still be proved. The Court said that "conspiracy is an evidentiary matter which should be threshed out in a full-blown trial on the merits," and that it is not a trier of facts. It did not decide whether the parents-in-law actually conspired.

The order. The trial court's resolutions were partly reversed and set aside, insofar as they dismissed the petition against the parents-in-law.

The principle of conspiracy under Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code applies suppletorily to RA 9262 through its Section 47, so persons alleged to have conspired with the offender may be included in a petition under RA 9262 even if they are not related to the victim as Section 3 describes; whether they conspired is decided at trial.

Go-Tan answers a common question in family disputes: whether a protection order case can include relatives who allegedly took part in the abuse. Under Go-Tan, the case is not dismissed against them just because they are in-laws; the woman still has to prove the conspiracy. The ruling was made in a petition for a protection order. For the kinds of protection orders, see BPO vs TPO vs PPO.

Here is a made-up illustration, with invented names. Liza files for a protection order against her husband, Paolo, and his mother. She says Paolo and his mother acted together to pressure her to leave the family home and to withhold support. Under Go-Tan, the petition against the mother may not be dismissed only because she is an in-law; whether the two acted together would be decided on the evidence.

For a plain answer, read How to file a VAWC case. If you are in danger, see where to find legal help.