Sharica
Mari Go-Tan vs. Spouses Perfecto and Juanita Tan
G.R.
No. 168852
September
30, 2008
Facts:
Petitioner
Sharica filed a
Petition with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Protective Order (TPO)
against her husband,Steven, and her parents-in-law, Spouses Perfecto C. Tan and
Juanita L. Tan (respondents) in violation of Section 5, paragraphs
(e)(2)(3)(4), (h)(5), and (i) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9262, otherwise known
as the "Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004."
Respondents
contend that they cannot be included in the charge since they are not among the
personalities liable as enumerated under the said law by virtue of “expresio
unius est exclusion alterius.”
Ruling:
The
Court ruled in favor of petitioner with regard to the inclusion of the
respondent spouses.
A
provision of the said law expressly provides for the suppletory application of
the RPC (Section
47 of R.A. No. 9262), which allowed legal principles developed in the RPC may
be applied in a supplementary capacity to crimes punished under special laws,
such as R.A. 9262.
Citing
jurisprudence, the court held that the “principle of conspiracy under Article 8
of the RPC may be applied suppletorily to R.A. No. 9262 because of the express
provision of Section 47 that the RPC shall be supplementary to said law. Thus,
general provisions of the RPC, which by their nature, are necessarily
applicable, may be applied suppletorily. Thus, the principle of conspiracy may
be applied to R.A. No. 9262. For once conspiracy or action in concert to
achieve a criminal design is shown, the act of one is the act of all the
conspirators”.
Furthermore,
Section 5 of R.A. 9262 recognizes the acts of violence against women and their
children may be committed by an offender through another
The maxim "expressio
unios est exclusio alterius" finds no application in the case at bar since it is
only an
"ancillary
rule of statutory construction” and not of universal application nor is it
conclusive. It should be applied only as a means of discovering legislative
intent when not plainly indicated.
However, proving
conspiracy is a matter of evidence and can be best decided after fullblown
trial on the merits.
0 comments:
Post a Comment