Dear PAO,

I filed a criminal action for violation of RA 9262 against my husband. His mistress has been creating scenarios that have caused me emotional pain and suffering. I found out that any person may be held liable for VAWC upon reading the law on Anti-Violence Against Women, so my question is, can my husband’s mistress also be held liable for possible violation of RA 9262?

Talita

Dear Talita,

In general, violence against women and children may be committed by any person. This is in consonance with Section 3 (a) of Republic Act (RA) 9262 or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 which provides that:

“Violence against women and their children” refers to any act or a series of acts committed by any person against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a common child, or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the family abode, which result in or is likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse including threats of such acts, battery, assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty. Xxxx xxx”

In XXX vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 252739, April 16, 2024, the Supreme Court speaking through Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando stated that

“The law specifically protects women from violence committed in the context of an intimate relationship, which can be physical violence, sexual violence, psychological violence, or economic abuse. This also includes those committed against the woman’s child.”

While it is true that any person may commit the abuses punishable under RA 9262, it follows also that such person must have sexual or dating relationship with the victim. This is in consonance with the case entitled Garcia vs. Drilon and Jaype-Garcia, G.R. No. 179267, June 25, 2013, which was penned by Supreme Court Honorable Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe:

“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 Sharica Mari L. Go-Tan, the victim, were held to be proper respondents in the case filed by the latter upon the allegation that they and their son (Go-Tan’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.”

Applying the above-quoted decision to your situation, you are partially correct in your statement that any person may be held liable for violation of RA 9262. However, it is important to emphasize that the “person” must be related or connected to the victim by marriage, former marriage, or a sexual or dating relationship. If there is no intimate relationship, then such person should have acted in conspiracy with the perpetrator of the abuse under RA 9262. Thus, the mistress may not be held liable for violation of RA 9262 because the element of intimate relationship with the victim is lacking, unless it can be proven that she acted in conspiracy with the perpetrator.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Thank you for your continued trust and support.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]