In 2006, Rosalie Garcia filed a petition for a Permanent Protection Order (PPO) under R.A.

9262 against
her husband Jesus Garcia. Rosalie averred that she feared for her safety and the safety of her children
due to the history of violence and the imminent threat of violence from Jesus. She also prayed for the
issuance of a Temporary Protection Order (TPO). The TPO was granted. Later, Rosalie moved for the
renewal of the TPO. Jesus filed an opposition which was denied. Rosalie made subsequent motions for
the reissuance of TPOs with manifestations that Jesus was continuously violating the previous TPOs.
Judge Ray Alan Drilon of the Bacolod Family Court granted the motions of Rosalie.

While the case was still pending in the Family Court, Jesus filed a Petition for Prohibition with the Court
of Appeals seeking to enjoin the Family Court from proceeding as he averred that the Anti-Violence
Against Women and their Children Act of 2004 (R.A. No. 9262) was unconstitutional for being violative of
the Equal Protection Clause. Jesus claimed that the VAWC law was anti-male, “husband-bashing” and a
“hate-men” law. He points out that men should also be protected under the law because it is a fact that
men may also be victims of spousal/domestic abuse.
Jesus also claimed that the law is vague for it makes every spousal quarrel punishable under the law.

Jesus also questioned the ex-parte issuance of the TPO against him. He argued that the same is a
violation of due process. Jesus claimed: “On the basis of unsubstantiated allegations, and practically no
opportunity to respond, the husband is stripped of family, property, guns, money, children, job, future
employment and reputation, all in a matter of seconds, without an inkling of what happened.”

The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on the ground that Jesus did not raise the issue of
constitutionality at the earliest opportunity or at the Family Court level.

ISSUE 1: Whether or not the issue of the constitutionality of the VAWC Law was properly raised?

HELD: NO. The issue on the constitutionality of the VAWC should have been raised at the Family Court
level. Jesus explained that he did not do so because the issue on constitutionality was too complex for
the Family Court to resolve. Besides, in a petition for protection order, counterclaims are not allowed.
Jesus considered the issue on constitutionality as a counterclaim hence he did not raise the same in the
Family Court. These arguments are wrong. The Family Court is a Regional Trial Court which under the law
is clothed with authority to decide on the constitutionality of laws. The issue on constitutionality is not a
counterclaim. Hence, it is not barred from being raised in a Petition for PPO. (Note however that in this
case, the constitutionality of RA 9262 has been settled once and for all so it is unlikely that a similar
question will be raised in subsequent cases).

ISSUE 2: Whether or not R.A. 9262 is violative of the Equal Protection Clause?

HELD: NO. VAWC was based on valid classification. The Supreme Court discussed the local and global
literature which led to the creation of the VAWC. The unequal power relationship between women and
men; the fact that women are more likely than men to be victims of violence; and the widespread
gender bias and prejudice against women all make for real differences justifying the classification under
the law. Though there are men who may be victims of domestic abuse, they are few. Men, who
experience violence from their spouses are much less likely to live in fear of violence at the hands of
their spouses, and much less likely to experience sexual assault. In fact, many cases of physical violence
by a woman against a spouse are in self-defense or the result of many years of physical or emotional
abuse.

The SC further stated: “There is likewise no merit to the contention that R.A. 9262 singles out the
husband or father as the culprit. As defined above, VAWC may likewise be committed ‘against a woman
with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship.’ Clearly, the use of the gender-neutral
word ‘person’ who has or had a sexual or dating relationship with the woman encompasses even lesbian
relationships. Moreover, while the law provides that the offender be related 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 Revised Penal Code (RPC). Thus, in the case of Go-Tan v. Spouses
Tan, the parents-in-law of the victim were held to be proper respondents in the case filed by the latter
upon the allegation that they and their son (victim’s husband) had community of design and purpose in
tormenting her by giving her insufficient financial support; harassing and pressuring her to be ejected
from the family home; and in repeatedly abusing her verbally, emotionally, mentally and physically.”

ISSUE 3: Whether or not R.A. 9262 is vague?

HELD: NO. The law does not intend to make every quarrel between spouses punishable under the law.
The law particularly defined the punishable acts. The enumerations in the law were even based from
the U.N. Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women. The acts enumerated as criminal
under VAWC are easily understood and provide adequate contrast between the innocent and the
prohibited acts. There is nothing in the definition of VAWC that is vague and ambiguous that will confuse
Jesus in his defense. They are worded with sufficient definiteness that persons of ordinary intelligence
can understand what conduct is prohibited, and need not guess at its meaning nor differ in its
application.

ISSUE 4: Whether or not R.A. 9262 is violative of due process?

HELD: NO. A protection order is an order issued to prevent further acts of violence against women and
their children, their family or household members, and to grant other necessary reliefs. Its purpose is to
safeguard the offended parties from further harm, minimize any disruption in their daily life and
facilitate the opportunity and ability to regain control of their life. The rules require that petitions for
protection order be in writing, signed and verified by the petitioner thereby undertaking full
responsibility, criminal or civil, for every allegation therein. Since “time is of the essence in cases of
VAWC if further violence is to be prevented,” the court is authorized to issue ex parte a TPO after raffle
but before notice and hearing when the life, limb or property of the victim is in jeopardy and there is
reasonable ground to believe that the order is necessary to protect the victim from the immediate and
imminent danger of VAWC or to prevent such violence, which is about to recur. The victim is required not
only to verify the allegations in the petition, but also to attach her witnesses’ affidavits to the petition.

MELGAR v. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 223477, FEBRUARY 14, 2018.

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

FACTS: An Information was filed before the RTC charging Melgar with violation Section 5 of RA 9262 the
said accused, having the means and capacity to give financial support, with deliberate intent, did then
and there commit acts of economic abuse against one AAA, and her minor son, BBB (12 years old), by
depriving them of financial support, which caused mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or
humiliation, to AAA and her son. After arraignment wherein Melgar pleaded not guilty to the charge
against him, he and AAA entered into a compromise agreement on the civil aspect of the case. After
approval of the compromise agreement by the Court, the criminal aspect of the case was provisionally
dismissed with Melgar's conformity. However, one (1) year later, Melgar sold the property, which was
supposed to, among others, answer for the support-in-arrears of his son, BBB, from 2001 to 2010
pursuant to their compromise agreement. Consequently, the RTC revived the criminal aspect of the case
and allowed the prosecution to present its evidence. The RTC found Melgar guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of violating Section 5 (e) of RA 9262. The RTC found Melgar to have committed economic abuse
against AAA and their son, BBB, when he stopped supporting them. The CA affirmed Melgar's conviction.

ISUSE: Whether or not the CA correctly upheld Melgar's conviction for violation of Section 5 (e) of RA
9262.

HELD: In this case, the courts a quo correctly found that all the elements of violation of Section 5 (e) of
RA 9262 are present, as it was established that: (a) Melgar and AAA had a romantic relationship,
resulting in BBB's birth; (b) Melgar freely acknowledged his paternity over BBB; (c) Melgar had failed to
provide BBB support ever since the latter was just a year old; and (d) his intent of not supporting BBB
was made more apparent when he sold to a third party his property which was supposed to answer for,
among others, his support-inarrears to BBB. In this case, while the prosecution had established that
Melgar indeed deprived AAA and BBB of support, no evidence was presented to show that such
deprivation caused either AAA or BBB any mental or emotional anguish. Therefore, Melgar cannot be
convicted of violation of Section 5 (i) of RA 9262. This notwithstanding – and taking into consideration
the variance doctrine which allows the conviction of an accused for a crime proved which is different
from but necessarily included in the crime charged – the courts a quo correctly convicted Melgar of
violation of Section 5 (e) of RA 9262 as the deprivation or denial of support, by itself and even without
the additional element of psychological violence, is already specifically penalized therein.
Facts:
Complainant testified that she and Accused were married on October 5, 1989 at Malate Catholic Church. She had
no marital issues with Accused until he went to Zamboanga City for their networking business. Accused was
formerly working as an Overseas Filipino Worker but decided to stop in 1993 to join complainant in her business.

One day, she received a text message informing her that her accused-husband is having an affair with their best
friend. At first, she did not believe them. However, that information brought complainant to Zamboanga to see for
her herself whether it was true. Indeed she was able to confirm that her husband was living with another woman.

She instituted a complaint against the accused and his alleged mistress for Concubinage at the Philippine National
Police. The case was subsequently amicably settled after the parties executed an Agreement whereby accused and
mistress committed themselves never to see each other again.

After the case was settled accused lived with complainant. However, it was only for a short time. Without saying a
word, accused left complainant. She was looking for the accused and out of desperation, she sought the help of the
NBI to search for him. To her surprise, the accused had returned to live with his mistress again.
The complainant went emotionally depressed and anxious She was suffering from insomnia and asthma. Allegedly,
she is still hurting and crying. She is took anti-depressant and sleeping pills to cope with her severe emotional and
psychological turmoil brought about by the accused marital infidelity and having children with his mistress.

A case was filed against the accused for Violence Against Women and their Children on Psychological Violence
caused by his infidelity. RTC found accused guilty of the said offense. Accused appeal the case to the CA to which it
affirmed the decision of the RTC in toto.

Issue:
Whether the CA erred in ruling that Araza committed psychological violence upon his wife AAA by committing
marital infidelity, which caused AAA to suffer emotional anguish and mental suffering.

Held:
Yes, Psychological violence is an indispensable element of violation of Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262. Equally
essential is the element of emotional anguish and mental suffering, which are personal to the complainant.
Psychological violence is the means employed by the perpetrator, while emotional anguish or mental suffering are
the effects caused to or the damage sustained by the offended party. The law does not require proof that the
victim became psychologically ill due to the psychological violence done by her abuser. Rather, the law only
requires emotional anguish and mental suffering to be proven. To establish emotional anguish or mental suffering,
jurisprudence only requires that the testimony of the victim to be presented in court, as such experiences are
personal to this party.

In order to establish psychological violence, proof of the commission of any of the acts enumerated in Section 5(i)
or similar of such acts, is necessary.

The prosecution has established Araza’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt by proving that he committed psychological
violence upon his wife by committing marital infidelity. AAA’s testimony was strong and credible. She was able to
confirm that Araza was living with another woman. Marital infidelity, which is a form of psychological violence, is
the proximate cause of AAA’s emotional anguish and mental suffering, to the point that even her health condition
was adversely affected.