SPECIAL PENAL LAWS:RA 9262 (VAWC) RELEVANTJURISPRUDENCE A.

PEOPLE v GENOSA

(Battered Woman) Marivic and Ben had a quarrel one night. Arturo, Bens friend, heard the former tell Ben that she would not hesitate tokill him. Three da s later, the neigh!orsnoticed the foul odor emanating fromt heir house. Bens decom"osing !od was found on his !ed covered with a !lanket,and with in#uries at the !ack of thehead. The "olice found a metal "i"e, witha red stain on one end. The !edroom wasnot in disarra .Marivic attacked and wounded his hus!and,which ultimatel led to his death.According to her, she did not "rovoke himwhen she got home that night, and that itwas her hus!and who !egan the"rovocation. Ben was drunk, nagged her,challenged her to a fight, and attackedher. $he was frightened that her hus!andwould hurt her, and she wanted to makesure that she would deliver her !a! safel . %n fact, she had to !e admittedlater at the &i'al Medical (entre as shewas suffering from eclam"sia andh "ertension, and the !a! was !orn"rematurel . Marivic testified thatduring her marriage she had tried toleave her hus!and at least five ())times, !ut Ben would alwa s follow herand the would reconcile. $he said thatthe reason wh Ben was violent anda!usive towards her that night was!ecause he was cra' a!out his recentgirlfriend, *ulu. After !eing interviewed! s"ecialists, Marivic was shown to !esuffering from + Battered Woman $ ndrome , .With a "lea of self-defense, she admittedthe killing of her hus!and. $he was thenfound guilt !e ond reasona!le dou!t of.arricide, with no mitigatingcircumstances and with the aggravatingcircumstance of treacher , !ecause thehus!and was attacked while he was aslee".$entenced to death. ISSUES /0) W12 Marivic acted in self-defense andin defense of her fetus.3) W12 the aggravating circumstance oftreacher !e a""lied in her case.

HELD /0) 24. The BW$ does not in itselfesta!lish the legal right of the woman tokill her a!usive "artner. 5vidence muststill !e considered in the conte6t ofself-defense. According to Marivic, therewas sufficient time interval !etween theunlawful aggression of her hus!and andher fatal attack u"on him. $he wasalread a!le to withdraw from the violent!ehavior and esca"ed to the !edroom. Benalread ceased attack and went to !ed.The danger had ended altogether, and hewas no longer an actual threat. Without the +continuous aggression,, there can !e no self-defense. And a!sence ofaggression does not warrant com"lete orincom"lete self-defense.%nstead of self-defense, the +"s chological "aral sis, that she suffered entitles her to the mitigatingfactor under "aragra"hs 7 and 08 of &.(Article 09--.A& 7/ $uch illness as would diminish thee6ercise of the will-"ower of theoffender without however de"riving him ofconsciousness of his acts..A& 08/ 4f similar nature and analogous.%n addition, she should !e credited forthe e6tenuating circumstance of havingacted u"on an im"ulse so "owerful as tohave naturall "roduced "assion ando!fuscation (the acute !attering shesuffered des"ite the fact that she was"regnant overwhelmed her and overcame herreason).3) 24. There is treacher when onecommits an of the crimes against "ersons! em"lo ing means, methods or forms inthe e6ecution thereof, without risk tooneself arising from the defense that theoffended "art might make. Thecircumstances must !e shown asindu!ita!l as the killing itself andcannot !e deduced from mere inferences,which have no "lace in the a""reciationof evidence. %t is a rule that when akilling is "receded ! an argument or aquarrel, treacher cannot !e a""reciatedas a qualif ing circumstance !ecause thedeceased ma !e said to have !eenforewarned and to have antici"ated theaggression from the assailant. %n thiscase, it was not shown that Marivicintentionall chose a s"ecific means tosuccessfull attack her hus!and withoutrisk to herself. To the contrar , thethought of using a gun onl occurred toher at a!out the same moment when shedecided to kill him. :uilt of .A&&%(%;5 (with 3 mitigatingcircumstances and no aggravatingcircumstance). .enalt reduced to "risionma or minimum (< ears, 0 da ) toreclusion tem"oral ma6imum (0= ears, >months, 0 da ).

B.DOLINA v VALLECERA (&A 73<3 not anaction for su""ort) (her l filed a case against ?allecera foran alleged violation of &A 73<3. Togetherwith the com"laint is a "ra er forTem"orar .rotection 4rder and ana""lication for financial su""ort fortheir su""osed child. @er !asis was the childs !irth certificate which listed ?allecera as the father. The man claimedthat he was not the father, that hissignature was forged, and that the suitwas intended to force him to acknowledgethe child and to harass him. &T(dismissed the case !ased on the groundthat filiation was not esta!lished. ISSUE / W12 (her l is entitled tofinancial su""ort. HELD / 24. $he filed the wrong action forsu""ort. &A 73<3 is for the "rotectionand safet of women and children who arevictims of a!use and violence. @er claimsthat she was a!used were !aseless as itturned out that she never lived with?allecera. The true o!#ect of the actionwas financial su""ort for the child !asedon the reason that he was the father. Thesame was denied. To !e entitled tosu""ort, she must, in "ro"er action,esta!lish the filiation of the child if the same is denied. $ince (her ls demand is !ased on the claim that the child wasan illegitimate child, the child is notentitled to such su""ort if not acknowledged ! ?allecera. The childs remed is to file, through her mother, a#udicial action for com"ulsor recognition. %f filiation is !e ondquestion, su""ort follows as a matter ofo!ligation. C. ANG v CA (?AW( through harassmentelements)

%rish and &ustan were classmates atWesle an Aniversit in Aurora. The !ecame +on -andoff, sweethearts t owardsthe end of 388=. %rish learned that&ustan had taken a live-in "artner (nowhis wife), whom he had gotten "regnant.$he !roke u" with him. Before &ustan gotmarried, he tried to convince %rish toelo"e with him. %rish re#ected the"ro"osal. %rish changed her cell"honenum!er !ut &ustan managed to get hold ofit and sent her te6t messages. @e usedtwo cell"hone num!ers. %rish asked him toleave her alone. 4ne da , she received,via multimedia message service (MM$), a"icture of a naked woman with s"read legs and with %rishs face su"erim"osed on the figure. The sender was one of the num!ersthat &ustan used. @e !oasted that itwould !e eas for him to create similarl scandalous "ictures of her, and hethreatened to s"read the "icture on theinternet. %rish sought the hel" of thevice ma or of Aurora who referred her tothe "olice. Ander "olice su"ervision, shecontacted &ustan through the num!ers heused, and asked him to meet her at aresort. While &ustan was walking towards%rish, "olice officers interce"ted andarrested him. The searched him andsei'ed his cell"hone and several $%Mcards. &ustan admitted that he courted%rish. @e claimed that after theirrelationshi" ended, it was %rish whowanted to reconcile. $ometime later, hereceived a message from her, asking himto meet u" as she needed his hel" inselling her cell"hone. When he arrived atthe "lace, two "olice officers a""roachedhim, sei'ed his "hone and the contents ofhis "ockets, and !rought him to the"olice station. &ustan further claimsthat %rish asked him to hel" her identif a "rankster who was sending her maliciouste6t messages. @e got the senders num!er and, "retending to !e %rish, contactedthe "erson. According to him, he receivedo!scene messages from the "rankster,which he forwarded to %rish from hiscell"hone. This is wh the o!scenemessages a""eared to have originated fromhim. &ustan claims that it was %rishherself who sent the o!scene "hoto. @e"resented si6 "ictures of a woman whom heidentified as %rish.&T( found &ustan guilt of the violationof $ection )(h) of &.A. 73<3. 4n a""eal,(A affirmed the &T( decision. ISSUE: Whether or not &ustan is guilt ofthe violation of &A 73<3.

HELD: B5$.

The "rosecution "roved eachand ever element of the crime.

The"rovisions of &A 73<3 indicate that theelements of the crime of violence againstwomen through harassment are/0. The offender has or had a se6ual ordating relationshi" with the offendedwomanC3. The offender, ! himself or throughanother, commits an act or series of actsof harassment against the womanC and9. The harassment alarms or causessu!stantial emotional or "s chologicaldistress to her. $ection 9(e) "rovides that a +datingrelationshi", includes a situation where the "arties are romanticall involvedover time and on a continuing !asisduring the course of the relationshi".&ustan claims that !eing +romanticall involved,, im"lie s se6ual relations. &.A.73<3 "rovides in $ection 9 that violenceagainst women refers to an act or aseries of acts committed ! an "ersonagainst a woman with whom the "erson hasor had a se6ual or dating relationshi". The law itself distinguishes a se6ualrelationshi" from a dating relationshi".&ustan argues that the one act of sendingan offensive "icture should not !econsidered a form of harassment. The law "unishes +an act or series of acts, that constitutes violence against women. Asingle act of harassment, whichtranslates into violence, would !eenough. The o!#ect of the law is to"rotect women and children. .unishingonl violence that is re"eatedl committed would license isolated ones. &ustan alleges that toda s women, like %rish, are so used to o!scenecommunications that her getting one couldnot "ossi!l have "roduced alarm in heror caused her su!stantial emotional or"s chological distress. @e claims having"reviousl e6changed o!scene "ictureswith %rish such that she was alread desensiti'ed ! them. (ourt cannotmeasure the trauma that %rishe6"erienced. What is o!scene andin#urious to an offended woman can ofcourse onl !e determined !ased on thecircumstances of each case. @ere, thenaked woman on the "icture, her legss"read o"e n and !earing %rishs head and

face, was clearl an o!scene "icture and,to %rish a revolting and offensive one.$urel , an woman like %rish, who is notin the "ornogra"h trade, would !escandali'ed and "ained if she seesherself in such a "icture. What makes itfurther terrif ing is that, as %rishtestified, &ustan sent the "icture with athreat to "ost it in the internet for allto see. &ustan admitted having sent themalicious te6t messages to %rish. @isdefense was that he himself receivedthose messages from an unidentified"erson who was harassing %rish and hemerel forwarded the same to her, usinghis cell"hone. But &ustan never "resentedthe num!er of the unidentified "erson whosent the messages to him to authenticatethe same.