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

168852
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 ralted or
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.

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 aprayer 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.

RATIO:
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 or 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.

Rosal Hubilla y Carillo vs. People

G.R. No. 176102. November 26, 2014
Note: The focus of the case is on the penalty
imposed to the accused
FACTS:Rosal Hubille was only 17 year, 4 months and 2 days old when he killed Jayson Espinola with a knife. He was charged with
Homicide. RTC - convicted him of homicide and imposed the penalty of indeterminate sentence of imprisonment of four years and one day
of prision correcional as minimum, to eight years and one day of prision mayor, as maximum. CA – Rosal’s sentence was modified in that he
was sentenced to six months and one day of prision correctional as minimum, to six years and one day of prision mayor, as maximum.
Thecivil aspect was also modified On motion for reconsideration, the CA partially granted the appeal and imposed on him the penalty of six
months and one day of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight years and
one day of prision mayor, as maximum.
Issue:
WON the CA should have suspended Rosal’s sentence in accordance with RA 9344; that he is entitled to probation or suspension of sentence
Held:
Article 249 of the RPC prescribes the penalty of reclusion temporal for homicide. His minority was a privileged mitigating circumstance that
lowered the penalty to prision mayor.In Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum of
the indeterminate sentence should be within the penalty next lower than the imposable penalty, which, herein, was prision correccional. So
the CA imposed the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of six months and one day of
prision correccional, as minimum, to eight years and one day of prision mayor, as maximum. Petitioner insists that the maximum of his
indeterminate sentence should be reduced to only six years of prision correccional to enable
him to apply for probation under PD 968.A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC - the restrictions on the personal liberty of the child shall be limited to the
minimum Sec. 38 of RA 9344 which allows the suspension of the sentence is available only until the child offender turns 21 years of age.
Since he is over 23 years of age at the time of his conviction in the RTC, suspension was no longer feasible. RA 9344 reveals that
imprisonment of children in conflict with the law is by no means prohibited. Restrictions on the imposition of imprisonment: (a) the detention
or imprisonment is a
disposition of last resort, and (b) the detention or imprisonment shall be for the shortest appropriate period of time
Imprisonment was imposed on the petitioner as a last recourse after holding him to be disqualified from probation and from the suspension
of his sentence, and the term of his imprisonment was for the shortest duration permitted by the law.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________