2/25/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 567

Carpio-Morales, Tinga, Velasco, Jr. and Brion, JJ., concur.

Petition dismissed.

Notes.—In the absence of any administrative action taken against

him by the Supreme Court with regard to a judge’s certificates of
service, an investigation conducted by the Ombudsman encroaches
into the Court’s power of administrative supervision over all courts
and its personnel, in violation of the doctrine of separation of
powers. (Maceda vs. Vasquez, 221 SCRA 464 [1993])
The Supreme Court has consistently refrained from interfering
with the exercise by the Ombudsman of his constitutionally
mandated investigatory and prosecutory powers, a rule based not
only upon constitutional considerations but also upon practical ones.
(Montebon vs. Tanglao-Dacanay, 455 SCRA 110 [2005])
——o0o——

G.R. No. 168852. September 30, 2008.*

SHARICA MARI L. GO-TAN, petitioner, vs. SPOUSES

PERFECTO C. TAN and JUANITA L. TAN, respondents.**

Anti-Violence against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 (R.A. No.
9262); Conspiracy; Words and Phrases; “Violence against Women and
Their Children,” Defined; While Section 3 of R.A. No. 9262 provides that
the offender be related or connected to the victim by marriage, former
marriage, or a sexual or dating relationship, it

_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.

** The present petition impleaded the Court of Appeals as respondent. Pursuant to Section
4, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the name of the Court of Appeals is deleted from the title.

232

232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Go-Tan vs. Tan

does not preclude the application of the principle of conspiracy under the
Revised Penal Code (RPC).—Section 3 of R.A. No. 9262 defines
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161cbb347f01c44a874003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/11
2/25/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 567

‘‘[v]iolence against women and their children’’ as “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.” While the
said provision 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
RPC.
Same; Same; If the principle of conspiracy under Article 8 of the
Revised Penal Code (RPC) is applied to B.P. 22 in the absence of a contrary
provision therein, with more reason could the same principle be applied
suppletorily to R.A. No. 9262 because of the express provision of Section 47
that the Revised Penal Code (RPC) shall be supplementary to said law.—
Most recently, in Ladonga v. People, 451 SCRA 673 (2005), the Court
applied suppletorily the principle of conspiracy under Article 8 of the RPC
to B.P. Blg. 22 in the absence of a contrary provision therein. With more
reason, therefore, 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, and the precise extent or modality of participation of each of
them becomes secondary, since all the conspirators are principals.
Same; Same; Section 5 of R.A. No. 9262 expressly recognizes that the acts
of violence against women and their children may be committed by an
offender through another.—It must be further noted that Section 5 of R.A.
No. 9262 expressly recognizes that the acts of violence against women and
their children may be committed by an offender through another, thus: SEC.
5. Acts of Violence against

233

VOL. 567, SEPTEMBER 30, 2008 233

Go-Tan vs. Tan

Women and Their Children.—The crime of violence against women and

their children is committed through any of the following acts: x  x  x (h)
Engaging in purposeful, knowing, or reckless conduct, personally or
through another, that alarms or causes substantial emotional or
psychological distress to the woman or her child. This shall include, but not
be limited to, the following acts: x x x
Same; Same; Statutory Construction; The intent of the statute is the
law.—It bears mention that the intent of the statute is the law and that this
intent must be effectuated by the courts. In the present case, the express
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161cbb347f01c44a874003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/11
2/25/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 567

language of R.A. No. 9262 reflects the intent of the legislature for liberal
construction as will best ensure the attainment of the object of the law
according to its true intent, meaning and spirit—the protection and safety of
victims of violence against women and children.
Same; Same; Same; Words and Phrases; The maxim “expressio unios
est exclusio alterius” is only an ancillary rule of statutory construction
which should be applied only as a means of discovering legislative intent
which is not otherwise manifest and should not be permitted to defeat the
plainly indicated purpose of the legislature.—Contrary to the RTC’s
pronouncement, the maxim “expressio unios est exclusio alterius” finds no
application here. It must be remembered that this maxim is only an
“ancillary rule of statutory construction.” It is not of universal application.
Neither is it conclusive. It should be applied only as a means of discovering
legislative intent which is not otherwise manifest and should not be
permitted to defeat the plainly indicated purpose of the legislature.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the resolutions of the

Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Br. 94.
   The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
  Alfred Joseph T. Jamora for petitioner.
  Jeanie S. Pulido for respondents.

234

234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Go-Tan vs. Tan

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Resolution1 dated March
7, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 94, Quezon City
in Civil Case No. Q-05-54536 and the RTC Resolution2 dated July
11, 2005 which denied petitioner’s Verified Motion for
Reconsideration.
The factual background of the case:
On April 18, 1999, Sharica Mari L. Go-Tan (petitioner) and
Steven L. Tan (Steven) were married.3 Out of this union, two female
children were born, Kyra Danielle4 and Kristen Denise.5 On January
12, 2005, barely six years into the marriage, petitioner filed a
Petition with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Protective
Order (TPO)6 against Steven and her parents-in-law, Spouses
Perfecto C. Tan and Juanita L. Tan (respondents) before the RTC.
She alleged that 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)7 of
Republic Act (R.A.)

_______________

1 Penned by Judge Romeo F. Zamora, Records, p. 209.

2 Id., at p. 501.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161cbb347f01c44a874003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/11
2/25/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 567

3 Records, p. 21.
4 Id., at p. 22.
5 Id., at p. 23.
6 Id., at p. 1.
7 SEC. 5. Acts of Violence against Women and Their Children.—The crime of
violence against women and their children is committed through any of the following
acts:
x x x x
(e) Attempting to compel or compelling the woman or her child to engage in
conduct which the woman or her child has the right to desist from or to desist from
conduct which the woman or her child has the right to engage in, or attempting to
restrict or restricting the woman’s or her child’s freedom of movement or conduct by
force or threat of force, physical or other harm or threat of physical or other harm, or
intimidation directed against the woman

235

VOL. 567, SEPTEMBER 30, 2008 235

Go-Tan vs. Tan

No. 9262,8 otherwise known as the “Anti-Violence against Women

and Their Children Act of 2004.”
On January 25, 2005, the RTC issued an Order/Notice9 granting
petitioner’s prayer for a TPO.
On February 7, 2005, respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss with
Opposition to the Issuance of Permanent Protection

_______________

or her child. This shall include, but not limited to, the following acts committed with
the purpose or effect of controlling or restricting the woman’s or child’s movement or
conduct:

x x x x
(2) Depriving or threatening to deprive the woman or her children of financial
support legally due her or her family, or deliberately providing the woman’s children
insufficient financial support;
(3) Depriving or threatening to deprive the woman or her child of a legal right;
(4) Preventing the woman in engaging in any legitimate profession, occupation,
business or activity, or controlling the victim’s own money or properties, or solely
controlling the conjugal or common money, or properties;
x x x x
(h) Engaging in purposeful, knowing, or reckless conduct, personally or through
another, that alarms or causes substantial emotional or psychological distress to the
woman or her child. This shall include, but not be limited to, the following acts:
x x x x
(5) Engaging in any form of harassment or violence;
(i) Causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to the
woman or her child, including, but not limited to, repeated verbal and emotional
abuse, and denial of financial support or custody of minor children or denial of access
to the woman’s child/children.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161cbb347f01c44a874003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/11
2/25/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 567

8 Entitled “AN ACT DEFINING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR

CHILDREN PROVIDING FOR PROTECTIVE MEASURES FOR VICTIMS,
PRESCRIBING PENALTIES THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.”
9 Records, p. 26.

236

236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Go-Tan vs. Tan

Order Ad Cautelam and Comment on the Petition,10 contending that

the RTC lacked jurisdiction over their persons since, as parents-in-
law of the petitioner, they were not covered by R.A. No. 9262.
On February 28, 2005, petitioner filed a Comment on
Opposition11 to respondents’ Motion to Dismiss arguing that
respondents were covered by R.A. No. 9262 under a liberal
interpretation thereof aimed at promoting the protection and safety
of victims of violence.
On March 7, 2005, the RTC issued a Resolution12 dismissing the
case as to respondents on the ground that, being the parents-in-law
of the petitioner, they were not included/covered as respondents
under R.A. No. 9262 under the well-known rule of law “expressio
unius est exclusio alterius.”13
On March 16, 2005, petitioner filed her Verified Motion for
Reconsideration14 contending that the doctrine of necessary
implication should be applied in the broader interests of substantial
justice and due process.
On April 8, 2005, respondents filed their Comment on the
Verified Motion for Reconsideration15 arguing that petitioner’s
liberal construction unduly broadened the provisions of R.A. No.
9262 since the relationship between the offender and the alleged
victim was an essential condition for the application of R.A. No.
9262.

_______________

10 Records, p. 36.
11 Id., at p. 147.
12 Id., at p. 209.
13  Latin maxim meaning “The expression of one thing is the exclusion of
another.” (San Miguel Corporation Employees Union-Phil. Transport and General
Workers Org. v. San Miguel Packaging Products Employees Union-Pambansang
Diwa ng Manggagawang Pilipino, G.R. No. 171153, September 12, 2007, 533 SCRA
125, 152).
14 Records, p. 316.
15 Id., at p. 376.

237

VOL. 567, SEPTEMBER 30, 2008 237

Go-Tan vs. Tan
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161cbb347f01c44a874003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/11
2/25/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 567

On July 11, 2005, the RTC issued a Resolution16 denying

petitioner’s Verified Motion for Reconsideration. The RTC reasoned
that to include respondents under the coverage of R.A. No. 9262
would be a strained interpretation of the provisions of the law.
Hence, the present petition on a pure question of law, to wit:

WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENTS-SPOUSES PERFECTO &

JUANITA, PARENTS-IN-LAW OF SHARICA, MAY BE INCLUDED IN
THE PETITION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A PROTECTIVE ORDER, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9262, OTHERWISE
KNOWN AS THE “ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR
CHILDREN ACT OF 2004.”17

Petitioner contends that R.A. No. 9262 must be understood in the

light of the provisions of Section 47 of R.A. No. 9262 which
explicitly provides for the suppletory application of the Revised
Penal Code (RPC) and, accordingly, the provision on “conspiracy”
under Article 8 of the RPC can be suppletorily applied to R.A. No.
9262; that Steven and respondents 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; that respondents should be included as indispensable
or necessary parties for complete resolution of the case.
On the other hand, respondents submit that they are not covered
by R.A. No. 9262 since Section 3 thereof explicitly provides that the
offender should be related to the victim only by marriage, a former
marriage, or a dating or sexual relationship; that allegations on the
conspiracy of respondents require a factual determination which
cannot be

_______________

16 Id., at p. 510.
17 Rollo, p. 8.

238

238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Go-Tan vs. Tan

done by this Court in a petition for review; that respondents cannot

be characterized as indispensable or necessary parties, since their
presence in the case is not only unnecessary but altogether illegal,
considering the non-inclusion of in-laws as offenders under Section
3 of R.A. No. 9262.
The Court rules in favor of the petitioner.
Section 3 of R.A. No. 9262 defines ‘‘[v]iolence against women
and their children’’ as “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
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161cbb347f01c44a874003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/11
2/25/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 567

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.”
While the said provision 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 RPC.
Indeed, Section 47 of R.A. No. 9262 expressly provides for the
suppletory application of the RPC, thus:

“SEC. 47. Suppletory Application.—For purposes of this Act, the

Revised Penal Code and other applicable laws, shall have suppletory
application.” (Emphasis supplied)

Parenthetically, Article 10 of the RPC provides:

“ART. 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions of this Code.—

Offenses which are or in the future may be punishable under special laws
are not subject to the provisions of this Code. This Code shall be
supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should specially provide
the contrary.” (Emphasis supplied)

Hence, legal principles developed from the Penal Code may be

applied in a supplementary capacity to crimes punished
239

VOL. 567, SEPTEMBER 30, 2008 239

Go-Tan vs. Tan

under special laws, such as R.A. No. 9262, in which the special law
is silent on a particular matter.
Thus, in People v. Moreno,18 the Court applied suppletorily the
provision on subsidiary penalty under Article 39 of the RPC to cases
of violations of Act No. 3992, otherwise known as the “Revised
Motor Vehicle Law,” noting that the special law did not contain any
provision that the defendant could be sentenced with subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency.
In People v. Li Wai Cheung,19 the Court applied suppletorily the
rules on the service of sentences provided in Article 70 of the RPC
in favor of the accused who was found guilty of multiple violations
of R.A. No. 6425, otherwise known as the “Dangerous Drugs Act of
1972,” considering the lack of similar rules under the special law.
In People v. Chowdury,20 the Court applied suppletorily Articles
17, 18 and 19 of the RPC to define the words “principal,”
“accomplices” and “accessories” under R.A. No. 8042, otherwise
known as the “Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of
1995,” because said words were not defined therein, although the

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161cbb347f01c44a874003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/11
2/25/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 567

special law referred to the same terms in enumerating the persons

liable for the crime of illegal recruitment.
In Yu v. People,21 the Court applied suppletorily the provisions on
subsidiary imprisonment under Article 39 of the RPC to Batas
Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 22, otherwise known as the “Bouncing Checks
Law,” noting the absence of an express provision on subsidiary
imprisonment in said special law.
Most recently, in Ladonga v. People,22 the Court applied
suppletorily the principle of conspiracy under Article 8 of the

_______________

18 60 Phil. 712 (1934).

19 G.R. Nos. 90440-42, October 13, 1992, 214 SCRA 504.
20 G.R. Nos. 129577-80, February 15, 2000, 325 SCRA 572.
21 G.R. No. 134172, September 20, 2004, 438 SCRA 431.
22 G.R. No. 141066, February 17, 2005, 451 SCRA 673.

240

240 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Go-Tan vs. Tan

RPC to B.P. Blg. 22 in the absence of a contrary provision therein.

With more reason, therefore, 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, and
the precise extent or modality of participation of each of them
becomes secondary, since all the conspirators are principals.23
It must be further noted that Section 5 of R.A. No. 9262
expressly recognizes that the acts of violence against women and
their children may be committed by an offender through another,
thus:

“SEC. 5. Acts of Violence Against Women and Their Children.—The

crime of violence against women and their children is committed through
any of the following acts:
x x x
(h) Engaging in purposeful, knowing, or reckless conduct, personally
or through another, that alarms or causes substantial emotional or
psychological distress to the woman or her child. This shall include, but not
be limited to, the following acts:
(1) Stalking or following the woman or her child in public or private
places;
(2) Peering in the window or lingering outside the residence of the
woman or her child;
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161cbb347f01c44a874003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/11
2/25/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 567

_______________

23  Ladonga v. People, supra note 22; People v. Felipe, G.R. No. 142505, December 11,
2003, 418 SCRA 146, 176; People v. Julianda, Jr., G.R. No. 128886, November 23, 2001, 370
SCRA 448, 469; People v. Quinicio, G.R. No. 142430, September 13, 2001, 365 SCRA 252,
266.

241

VOL. 567, SEPTEMBER 30, 2008 241

Go-Tan vs. Tan

(3) Entering or remaining in the dwelling or on the property of the

woman or her child against her/his will;
(4) Destroying the property and personal belongings or inflicting harm
to animals or pets of the woman or her child; and
(5) Engaging in any form of harassment or violence; x x x.” (Emphasis
supplied)

In addition, the protection order that may be issued for the

purpose of preventing further acts of violence against the woman or
her child may include individuals other than the offending husband,
thus:

“SEC. 8. Protection Orders.—x x x The protection orders that may be

issued under this Act shall include any, some or all of the following reliefs:
(a) Prohibition of the respondent from threatening to commit or
committing, personally or through another, any of the acts mentioned in
Section 5 of this Act;
(b) Prohibition of the respondent from harassing, annoying,
telephoning, contacting or otherwise communicating with the petitioner,
directly or indirectly; x x x” (Emphasis supplied)

Finally, Section 4 of R.A. No. 9262 calls for a liberal

construction of the law, thus:

“SEC. 4. Construction.—This Act shall be liberally construed to

promote the protection and safety of victims of violence against women and
their children.” (Emphasis supplied)

It bears mention that the intent of the statute is the law24 and that this
intent must be effectuated by the courts. In the present case, the
express language of R.A. No. 9262 reflects

_______________

24 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., G.R. No. 160528,

October 9, 2006, 504 SCRA 90, 101; Eugenio v. Drilon, 322 Phil. 112; 252 SCRA
106 (1996); Philippine National Bank v. Office of the President, 322 Phil. 6, 14; 252
SCRA 5, 11 (1996); Ongsiako v. Gamboa, 86 Phil. 50, 57 (1950); Torres v. Limjap, 56
Phil. 141, 145-146 (1931).

242

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161cbb347f01c44a874003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/11
2/25/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 567

242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Go-Tan vs. Tan

the intent of the legislature for liberal construction as will best

ensure the attainment of the object of the law according to its true
intent, meaning and spirit - the protection and safety of victims of
violence against women and children.
Thus, contrary to the RTC’s pronouncement, the maxim
“expressio unios est exclusio alterius” finds no application here. It
must be remembered that this maxim is only an “ancillary rule of
statutory construction.” It is not of universal application. Neither is it
conclusive. It should be applied only as a means of discovering
legislative intent which is not otherwise manifest and should not be
permitted to defeat the plainly indicated purpose of the legislature.25
The Court notes that petitioner unnecessarily argues at great
length on the attendance of circumstances evidencing the conspiracy
or connivance of Steven and respondents to cause verbal,
psychological and economic abuses upon her. However, conspiracy
is an evidentiary matter which should be threshed out in a full-blown
trial on the merits and cannot be determined in the present petition
since this Court is not a trier of facts.26 It is thus premature for
petitioner to argue evidentiary matters since this controversy is
centered only on the determination of whether respondents may be
included in a petition under R.A. No. 9262. The presence or absence
of conspiracy can be best passed upon after a trial on the merits.
Considering the Court’s ruling that the principle of conspiracy
may be applied suppletorily to R.A. No. 9262, the Court will no
longer delve on whether respondents may be

_______________

25  Coconut Oil Refiners Association, Inc. v. Torres, G.R. No. 132527, July 29,
2005, 465 SCRA 47, 78; Dimaporo v. Mitra, Jr., G.R. No. 96859, October 15, 1991,
202 SCRA 779, 792; Primero v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 48468-69, November
22, 1989, 179 SCRA 542, 548-549.
26  Superlines Transportation Company, Inc. v. Philippine National Construction
Company, G.R. No. 169596, March 28, 2007, 519 SCRA 432, 441; Insular Life
Assurance Company, Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126850, April 28, 2004, 428
SCRA 79, 85.

243

VOL. 567, SEPTEMBER 30, 2008 243

Go-Tan vs. Tan

considered indispensable or necessary parties. To do so would be an

exercise in superfluity.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The assailed
Resolutions dated March 7, 2005 and July 11, 2005 of the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 94, Quezon City in Civil Case No. Q-05-54536

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161cbb347f01c44a874003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/11
2/25/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 567

are hereby PARTLY REVERSED and SET ASIDE insofar as the

dismissal of the petition against respondents is concerned.
SO ORDERED.

Ynares-Santiago (Chairperson), Chico-Nazario, Nachura and

Reyes, JJ., concur.

Petition granted, assailed resolutions partly reversed and set

aside.

Notes.—A battered woman has been defined as a woman “who is

repeatedly subjected to any forceful physical or psychological
behavior by a man in order to coerce her to do something he wants
her to do without concern for her rights. Battered women include
wives or women in any form of intimate relationship with men.
Furthermore, in order to be classified as a battered woman, the
couple must go through the battering cycle at least twice. Any
woman may find herself in an abusive relationship with a man once.
If it occurs a second time, and she remains in the situation, she is
defined as a battered woman.” (People vs. Genosa, 419 SCRA 537
[2004])
There is no conspiracy in just being married to an erring spouse
—for a spouse or any person to be a party to a conspiracy as to be
liable for the acts of the others, it is essential that there be intentional
participation in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the
common design. (Teves vs. Sandiganbayan, 447 SCRA 309 [2004])

© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161cbb347f01c44a874003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/11