Violence Against Women and Their Children

Questionnaire
Prepared by: Jasmin D. Miroy

1. M and F have been married for ten (10) years since 2004. On about the 2nd year of their
marriage, M inflicted slight physical injuries to F when he came home drunk one night. On
October 3, 2014, they got into a heated argument which led F file a case for VAWC against M
based on the physical injuries she received on the night narrated. Will the case prosper?

a. Yes. The crime of VAWC is imprescriptible.

b. No. The proper felony is physical injuries under the RPC appreciating the
circumstance of alcoholism.
c. Yes. The crime has not yet prescribed.
d. None of the above

2– 3. M and F are childhood friends. In 2005, the two started dating. In 2007, M due to a series
of heated arguments, M threatened F that if F would leave her, he will kill himself.

A. If F would file a case for VAWC against M will her case prosper?
a. No. A mere threat is not punishable by the statute.
b. Yes. It is punishable under sec. 5 (f) of RA 9262.
c. No. The threat is on M’s own person and not against F.
d. None of the above

B. If the parties were not dating partners but mere “Fuck Buddies” would your answer
change?
a. Yes. Since there is no existing romantic/intimate relationship which is required by the
law.
b. No. The scope of RA 9262 extends to sexual relationships of partners.
c. Yes. F does not have legal standing to for VAWC.
d. Both A and C

4. M and F are newlyweds. One night, M came home and the two got into a heated argument
which led M to cause damage to F’s property. Can F file a case of VAWC against her husband?

a. No. no harm was inflicted on the person of F

b. No. A husband is exempt from the crime pursuant to the rules of malicious mischief
c. Yes. Damage to the separate property of F is violative of sec 5 of RA 9262
d. None of the above

5. M and F have been dative for 5 months. One day, without any intention whatsoever, due to
some cause, M inflicted physical injuries to F. Is he liable for VAWC?

a. Yes. In RA 9262, intention is immaterial.

b. No. Intention is a material element of the crime.
c. No. They have only been dating for 5 months; therefore, F has no legal standing.
 d. None of the above

6 - 7. M and F have been married for 5 years. Since M was conservative, he prevented F from
engaging in her profession for the past 4 years. N, a concerned citizen, with personal knowledge
of the circumstances, filed a Protection Order solely against M claiming that his acts constitute a
violation of RA 9262.

A. Can N, who is of good moral character, file for a Protection Order (PO]?
a. No. He is a stranger to M and F’s marriage and therefor he does not have the legal
standing
b. Yes. RA 9262 is a public crime, therefore anyone can file for a PO
c. No. The act is not punishable.
d. None of the above

B. Would your answer change if two (2] concerned citizens, both of good moral
character, filed for the PO?
a. Yes. They have complied with sec 9.
b. No. Since they are not parties in interest nor heirs of the couple
c. No. The act is not one of those enumerated in sec 5 of RA 9262
d. Both B and C

8 - 9. F, with the help of K, a barangay kagawad, filed a case against M who stalks their
illegitimate child. However, no RTC is located in their area. K instead filed with the MTC.

A. Will the case prosper?

a. Yes. Since, in the absence of a RTC, RA 9262 allows the filing in the MTC.
b. No. RTC has original and exclusive jurisdiction over RA 9262 cases
c. No. K should refer it to the Women’s Help Desk found in Police Stations
d. None of the above

B. If there was a RTC in their area, let’s say Paranaque, but the stalking occurred in
Makati, will the case prosper if the case is filed in Paranaque?
a. Yes. According to sec 7 of RA 9262, the proper venue to file a case would be the
RTC where the plaintiff resides
b. No. Reconciliation must be made first
c. No. RA 9262 is a penal statute, therefore venue is jurisdictional
d. None of the above

1O. M and F are a married couple. However, during the course of their marriage, F filed for
Legal Separation under Art. 55 par. 1 of the Family Code. Without complying with Art. 58 of the
same Code, the court proceeded with hearing the case. M objected stating that the 6 month
reconciliation period is mandatory. Is his contention correct?

a. Yes. Art 58 is a mandatory law. The non – observance of which shall invalidate the
proceedings
b. No. Art 58 is directory, therefore it is merely discretionary
 c. No. RA 9262 waives the observance of Art 58 in case of Legal Separation cases that
involves acts of violence against women
d. None of the above

11 - 12. M and F have been dating for 3 years. During the span of their relationship, M has been
undermining F, occasionally humiliating her in public. Upon having knowledge of this, S, F’s
sister, filed a case for the violation of RA 9262 against M.

A. Will the case prosper?

a. No. The acts done by M do not constitute a violation of VAWC.
b. Yes. RA 9262 classifies the act as psychological violence, an act which is
punishable by the said law.
c. No. S does not have any legal standing.
d. Both a and b

B. When M found out about S, he retaliated and threatened the life of S if she would not
withdraw the case. Is M liable for VAWC against S?
a. Yes. He can be charged for VAWC in a separate case
b. No. S is not one of those enumerated in sec 3 of RA 9262
c. No. he is liable for grave threats under the RPC
d. Both b and c

13. M had a one night stand with F. When M woke up, he got irritated with B, F’s child, who
was crying loudly and having tantrums. M got annoyed and spanked B. F saw what happened
and filed a case against M for violating VAWC. Are her contentions correct?

a. No. they have no relationship which is an element in the crime of VAWC.

b. No. It is an isolated case.
c. Yes. Under sec. 5 of RA 9262, in relation to sec. 3, he has committed an act which
violates the statute.
d. Both a and b

14. According to RA 9262, in order to constitute a violation, the act must be frequent. True or
false?

a. True. The act must be done more than 3 times.

b. False. Regardless whether the act is done only once, for as long as it is one of
those enumerated in Sec. 5 of the law and the accused has a relationship with the
plaintiff under Sec. 3
c. False. It is not the frequency but the gravity of the act which is material.
d. Both b and c

15. All punishable acts under RA 9262 prescribe in 2O years. True or false?

a. False. Since it is a special penal law, Act 3326, a special law which provides for the
prescriptive periods of other special penal laws, shall apply
b. False. Sec 5 (g] to (i] prescribes in 10 years.
 c. False. The prescriptive periods provided for by the RPC shall apply since the law
does provide for its own prescriptive period.
d. True. Sec 24 provides that acts done in violation of RA 9262 shall prescribe in 2O
years

16. The following are the acts of VAWC, except:

a. threatening to cause physical harm to the man’s own child

b. causing physical harm to their common child
c. attempting to cause physical harm to their common child
d. inflicting physical harm on oneself for the purpose of controlling the woman’s actions

17. The venue for filing an action for VAWC shall be:
a. MTC, if the act complained of constitutes an attempted stage.
b. RTC, having appellate jurisdiction over cases of VAWC.
c. MTC, since the penalty for violation of VAWC is arresto mayor.
d. RTC, designated as family court has original and exclusive jurisdiction.

18. The following are the aggravating circumstances, except:

a. Acts of violence committed while the woman or the child is pregnant
b. Acts of violence committed in the presence of her child
c. Habitual alcoholism
d. None of the above

19. Violence Against Women and Their Children is considered a:

a. Public crime
b. Crime against persons
c. Crime against chastity
d. Crime against honor

20. The following statements are correct, except:

a. A TPO is enforceable only within the locality of the court that issued the same.
b. A PPO is enforceable anywhere in the Philippines.
c. A BPO is enforceable only within the barangay that issued the same.
d. None of the above