R.A. 9262 ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN & THEIR CHILDREN 6. inflicting/threatening to inflict phys.
icting/threatening to inflict phys. Harm on oneself to control her axns or
Violence – any act or a series of acts committed by any person w/c will likely result to
physical, sexual, psychological harm/suffering, or economic abuse including threats of
such, battery (inflicting physical harm resulting to physical, psychological or emotional
distress), assault, coercion, harassment, or arbitrary deprivation of lib. Types:
1. Physical – bodily/physical harm
2. Sexual violence – sexual in nature (rape, sexual harassment, making
sexually suggestive remarks, forcing one to watch indecent shows, forcing
wife & mistress to live under one roof; force/threaten one to engage in
sexual act, prostituting)
3. Psychological – acts/omissions that may cause mental/emotional suffering
(intimidation, harassment, stalking {intentional, done knowingly & w/o lawful
justification, follow woman/child or put them under surveillance), verbal
abuse, allowing one to witness phys/sexual/psych’l abuse of a member of
one’s family, unwanted deprivation of rt.to custody)
4. Economic Abuse – make/attempt to make woman financially dependent
(w/draw financial support, prevent victim from engaging in any legit
profession/occupation/biz/activity, deprivation/threat of deprivation of
financial resources, destroying household prop, controlling victim’s own
money/prop)
Woman –
1. wife
2. former wife
3. one you had dating relations with – live-in or romantically involved over time
on a continuing basis
4. one you had sexual relations with – single sexual act w/ or w/o bearing of
common child
5. one you have common child with
Children
1. below 18 y.o.
2. older than 18 but can’t take care of themselves
3. biological, whether legit or illegit
4. all children under her care
Acts of Violence against women & their children
1. causing physical harm
2. threatening to cause phys. Harm
3. attempting to cause phys.harm
4. placing them in fear of imminent phys.harm
5. compel/attempt to compel them to (a) do something they have right to desist
from or (b) compel them to desist from doing something they have rt.to
engage in or (c) attempt to restrict/restrict their freedom of mov’t by force,
threat of force, phys or other harm, intimidation
a. threaten to deprive/deprive her of custody to family
b. deprive/threaten to deprive her/kids of financial support legally due them
c. deprive/threaten to deprive of legal rt.
d. prevent her from engaging in any legit profession, occupation, biz or
activity or controlling her money /prop or solely controlling
conjugal/common money/prop
decisions
7. causing/attempting to cause them to engage in sexual act not constituting
rape by force, phys. Harm or intimidation of immediate family
8. engaging in purposeful, knowing, or reckless conduct that alarms/causes
substantial emotional/psychological distress to them
a. stalking/following them in priv. places
b. peering in window or lingering outside residence
c. entering/remaining in dwelling/prop against owner’s will
d. destroying prop & personal belongings or inflicting harm to their
animals/pets
e. harassment/violence
9. causing mental/emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation (repeated
verbal & emotional abuse & denial of financial support/custody of minor kids
& denial of access to woman’s kid/s)
*PRESCRIPTION: 1-6: 20 yrs. And 5-9: 10 yrs.
Remedy: Protection orders w/c can:
1. prohibit one from threatening to commit/committing above-mentioned acts
2. prohibit one from harassing, annoying, telephoning,
contacting/communicating w/ petitioner
3. removal & exclusion of one from petitioner’s residence regardless of owner
4. direct one to stay away from petitioner/family mem w/in court prescribed
distance, or from school, house, office, etc.
5. direct lawful possession & use by petitioner of car & other essential personal
effects, regardless of ownership
6. grant temporary/permanent custody of kids to petitioner
7. direct respondent to support woman &/or child if entitled to legal support.
Can be automatically deducted from wage per court order
8. prohibit respondent from using/possessing firearm/deadly weapon
9. compensate victim for actual damages caused by violence
10. direct DSWD or other similar agencies to provide petitioner w/needs
11. other forms of relief, court can come up w/as long as approved by petitioner
& designated family mem
*even in the absence of decrees of leg.sep., annulment, absolute nullity
Custody of children - if below 7 or older but has mental or physical disabilities,
MOM, followed even if mom’s suffering from BWS
Battered Woman syndrome – scientifically defined pattern of psych’l & behavioral
symptoms of battered women due to cumulative abuse ; valid defense
JULIETA NARAG VS. ATTY. DOMINADOR NARAG
• Dominador taught at St. Louis College of Tuguegarao, CAS & grad school
• 1984 – he met Gina Espita, his first year 17-year old student
• Dominador & Gina had illicit relationship
• Dominador abandoned his family to live w/Gina
• Dominador used power as Sangguniang Panlalawigan to secure employment for
Gina at the DTI
TRINA JOY A. SOLIDON I-A
4690021.doc
1
• 11/13/89 – Julieta filed administrative complaint for his disbarment for violating
Canons/Code of Ethics
• 12/18/89 – SC referred case to IBP for investigation, report & recommendation
• 6/26/90 – Julieta wanted to seek dismissal of other complaints & sent affidavit of
desistance saying:
1. she fabricated allegations in complaint to humiliate & spite husband
2. love letters bet 2 guilty were forged
3. she suffered from emotional confusing due to extreme jealousy
4. denied Gina & Dominador ever had a rel.
5. Dominador never left the family
• 10/8/91 – IBP dismissed complaint for failure to prosecute
• 11/25/91 – Julieta sent another letter reviving appeal for Dominador’s disbarment
due to his continuous threats
• 7/6/92 – Dominador requested that IBP decision be affirmed
1. he never threatened, harassed, or intimidated her
2. he never abandoned family, he loves them. He protected & preserved family.
Julieta & 2 sons drove him out of their house.
3. Julieta is emotionally disturbed – incurably jealous & possessive, violent,
vindictive, scandalous.
4. Julieta’s rich & she abhors poor. He is poor
5. he was beaten, battered, brutalized, tortured, abused & humiliated by Julieta
in public & at home physically, mentally & emotionally thus he filed for
annulment coz they can’t exist together
6. She has disgraced, shamed & humiliated him by telling everyone
everywhere that he’s worthless, good-for-nothing, evil & immoral
7. denied relationship w/ Gina. No kids either.
8. love letters: inadmissible as evidence
9. he’s old thus, unfit to do things alleged by Julieta.
• Investigating officer: indefinite suspension from practice of law. He never denied
love letters, didn’t disprove adulterous relationship. Denying 2 kids ground for
disciplinary action.
• IBP: affirmed investigating officer’s recommendation & granted disbarment
ISSUE: WON Dominador should be disbarred
HELD: Yes. Disbarred.
RATIO:
1. Lawyer should not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral (shameless showing
indifference to opinion of good mems of society) or deceitful conduct (Code of
Professional Responsibility Rule 1.01), should not behave in scandalous manner,
in public or in private to the discredit of the legal profession (Rule 7.03). These
are continuing requirements/qualification of all members of bar. This includes
prohibition against adulterous relationships.
2. Burden of proof of gross immorality for abandoning his family: Julieta. She proved
this by presenting witnesses who attested to adulterous relationship between
Gina & Dominador. Even Gina’s brother admitted that Gina & Dominador had 2
children. Even though Julieta has burden of proof, he needs to show that he is
morally fit to remain a mem of bar. His denials without proof are insufficient. His
accusations against Julieta were not proven. Providing for his family, giving them
a comfortable life, his being a successful lawyer & seasoned politician do not
necessarily mean that he’s morally fit.
3. He has duties to his children (support, educate, instruct accdg to rt. Precepts &
good example, give love, companionship, understanding, moral & spiritual
guidance) and to his wife (observe mutual love, respect & fidelity & render help &
support). He failed to fulfill these duties. He was away most of the time because
of his paramour not because of work as he alleges. Son’s testimony proved that
he abandoned his family which even affected his son’s own family. Dominador
did not merely contract a marriage, he should have been a partner who lived up
to his promise to love & respect his wife & remain faithful to her until death.
WARREN VS. STATE (nov. 85)
Daniel Warren was convicted for rape & aggravated sodomy of his wife while they
were living together as husband & wife. He appealed to dismiss the indictment.
His grounds:
1. Rape statute implies marital exclusion thus husband can’t be guilty of raping wife.
2. Aggravated sodomy statute provides for marital exclusion too.
3. Interpreting the above-mentioned laws otherwise would be tantamount to new
interpretations & application of such would deny him of his due process rts.
ISSUE: WON marital exclusion is implied in the rape & aggravated sodomy statutes
HELD: No. Conviction affirmed.
RATIO:
1. There has never been an express marital exemption in Georgia rape statute.
Theories/bases for thinking that marital exclusion exists in rape statute: (a) Lord
Hale – by giving matrimonial consent, wife gave up herself in this kind unto
husband & she can’t take that back (b) subsequent marriage doctrine of English
law - if marriage bet. A rapist & his victim extinguishes criminal liabilities then
corollary, rape w/in marital relationship should be given that immunity (c) medieval
time – wife is husband’s chattel or property thus rape = man using his own property
(d) unity of person theory – husband & wife become one, with wife incorporating
her existence to that of the husband, thus husband can’t be convicted of raping
himself. Justifications: (a) prevent fabricated charges (b) prevent wives from using
rape charges for revenge (c) prevent state intervention so as not to thwart possible
reconciliation. All of these theories & justifications are passé. Equal protection of
the laws is being practiced now.
Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge w/a female forcibly & against her
will. It violates the moral sense & personal integrity & autonomy of the female
victim. Implied consent to such in marriage conflicts is absurd & against the
constitution. During era of slavery, rape was seen negatively & not acceptable even
to chattels.
2. Sodomy is the carnal knowledge & connection against the order of nature by man
w/man or in same unnatural manner w/woman. There has been no implied marital
exemption under this statute even in earlier times. Consent is not a defense unlike
in rape. Anyone who voluntarily participates is guilty.
3. There is due process. Due process merely requires that law give sufficient warning
so men may avoid what is forbidden. Statutes concerned are plain & broadly
TRINA JOY A. SOLIDON I-A
4690021.doc
2
 written. This may be the first application to this particular set of facts but it’s not an
unforeseeable judicial enlargement of criminal statutes that are narrowly drawn.
PEOPLE VS. LIBERTA (dec. 84)
• 1978 – Mario & Denise Liberta were married. Had one son
• Oct. 1978 – Mario began to beat Denise
• 1980 – Denise sought a temporary order of protection from Mario. Granted on
April 30, 1980 ordering (a) Mario to move out (b) remain away from family home
(c) stay away from Denise (d) can visit kid once each weekend
• March 24, 1981 – Mario wanted to visit son but Denise didn’t allow him to go the
house so they met instead in the motel where Mario was staying on the condition
that they be accompanied by a friend. However, the friend left upon their arrival
at the motel. Mario then attacked Denise, threatened to kill her & forced her to
perform fellatio on him & to engage in sexual intercourse w/him. 2 ½ y.o. son was
there all the time & Mario even forced Denise to tell their son to watch what was
happening. They were allowed to leave afterwards.
• Denise filed a felony complaint against Mario
• July 15, 1981 – Mario was convicted for rape & sodomy both in their 1st degrees
• Mario says:
1. they’re married thus he’s covered by marital exemption to rape & sodomy.
2. Rape & sodomy statutes are unconsti’l because it treats married &
unmarried persons differently.
ISSUES: WON Mario is covered by the marital exemption
WON the statutes are unconsti’l for violating equal protection clause
HELD: Conviction affirmed.
RATIO:
1. NO. Male guilty of rape when he engages in sexual intercourse w/female by
forcible compulsion. Female is any female person not married to actor. Sodomy
means engaging in deviate sexual intercourse (sexual conduct bet.persons not
married to each other consisting of contact bet.penis & anus, mouth & penis, or
mouth & vulva. Not married phrase means there is marital exemption for both.
But it has exemptions. One of which is when spouses are living apart pursuant to
a valid & effective (a) order issued by court of competent jurisdiction requiring
such living apart (b) decree of separation (c) written agreement of separation,
they are considered to be not married. Thus, forcible rape or sodomy in this
instance would be punishable. In this case, Denise & Mario were technically, not
married, by virtue of the temporary order of protection.
2. Constitutionality of Marital Exemption - Married man ordinarily can’t be convicted
of forcibly raping/sodomizing his wife (marital exemption). State is allowed to
make classifications as long as there is a rational basis for doing so & it does not
arbitrarily burden a particular group. No rational basis for distinguishing
bet.marital & non-marital rape. Rationales are archaic. (See P vs. Liberta
explanations on theories). Imposing a marital exemption does not further the
cause it purportedly protects which is marital privacy. (ex. Prevent state
interference to protect privacy – not justified by allowing husband to forcibly rape
his wife; Disrupt marriage – the act of rape/sodomy in itself would disrupt the
marriage & reconciliation is quite impossible; wife will present fabricated info –
crim’l justice sys can take care of this). Marital rape is more violent & traumatic
than non-marital one. IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
3. Constitutionality of Exemption for Females – Only males can be convicted of rape
in the 1st degree. Reason: it aims to protect chastity of women & their prop value
to father/husbands. Treating people differently based on gender can only be
justified by its substantial relation to the achievement of an impt gov’tal obj. State
defense (a) only females can become pregnant – it’s not the main purpose (b)
female faces probability of medical, sociological & psych’l probs unique to her
gender – archaic & overbroad generalization (c) women can’t actually rape men
or if it happens, it’s rare – not tenable either. They need to present an
exceedingly persuasive justification for classification. Show that gender-based
law serves the government’s interest better than a gender-neutral one. As it is,
only females who forcibly rape males benefit from the present statute.
LIKEWISE, IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
4. Strike out only the unconstitutional parts since the statute is of major importance.
It’s not entirely void anyway.
5. Due process is observed. His act was already criminal when he attacked Denise.
TRACEY THURMAN VS. CITY OF TORRINGTON (OCT. 84)
• Charles & Tracey Thurman were married but they became estranged after some
time. They have one child Charles, Jr. They have separated already.
• Oct. 82 – Charles attacked Tracey at the home of Judy Bentley & Richard St.
Hilaire. Judy & Richard filed complaint & requested efforts to keep Charles off
their prop
• Nov. 5, 82 – Charles returned & forcefully took their son. Tracey & Richard filed
complaint but was not accepted even on ground of trespassing
• Nov. 9, 82 – Charles threatened Tracey while she was in her car & she even
broke her windshield. He was arrested & convicted of breach of peace. Allowed
conditional discharge w/conditions: 1) stay completely away from Tracey 2) from
Judy & Richard’s house 3) no more crimes. Police were informed.
• Dec. 31, 82 – Charles returned & threatened her. Tracey called police dept but
they made no attempt to look for him/arrest him
• Jan. 1 – May 4, 83 – police dept. got several calls re threats of violence to Tracey
& Charles, Jr. They requested for his arrest. He violated the probation terms.
• May 4 & 5, 83 – Tracey requested for arrest warrant for her husband due to
threats that he would shoot them. Complaint was refused. Told to return after 3
weeks for warrant.
• May 6, 83 – Tracey filed for restraining order against Charles. Court issued such
forbidding Charles from assaulting, threatening & harassing Tracey. Police were
informed.
• May 27, 83 – Tracey returned to police dept. to secure warrant & requested for
police protection. Asked to call back on may 31.
• May 31, 83 – still no warrant. They were told that Charles would be arrested on
June 8, 83, didn’t happen.
• June 10, 83 – Charles returned & Tracey called police dept. to pick him up.
Tracey spoke to husband but she was stabbed repeatedly in the chest, neck &
TRINA JOY A. SOLIDON I-A
4690021.doc
3
 throat. Tracey called police once again. One police arrived yet he didn’t arrest
Charles immediately. He even let him kick Tracey in the head.
• Tracey alleges that:
1. Charles worked as a counterman in a diner where he served members of the
police department & he bragged to them that he would get Tracey & kill her.
2. City of Torrington has a policy of indifference/affording lesser protection
when the victim is assaulted by someone with whom she has close domestic
relations such as a woman abused by a boyfriend/spouse and a kid abused
by dad/stepdad.
ISSUE: WON such policy violates equal protection of the laws
HELD: YES.
RATIO:
1. Equal protection of laws is not restricted to racial discriminations, it also involves
alien-based classifications, discriminatory legislative actions & discriminatory
administration & enforcement of law by the gov’t. Classifications/discriminations
can only be justified by a compelling or overriding state interest. Thus, police
action is subject to this. Police officers are expected to preserve the law & order
& to protect the personal safety of everyone in the community including women
assaulted by people w/whom they have a domestic relation. The inaction of the
police during all those times that Tracey has complained is proof that this has
been a pattern/practice and is tantamount to an administrative classification
employing discriminatory application of law. State failed to present a compelling
interest in applying such discrimination.
2. The reason advanced by the state, the notion that it is in the husband’s
prerogative to physically discipline his wife is outdated. One is not allowed to
physically abuse or endanger a woman simply because he is her husband. And
thus, police can’t refuse to interfere and automatically decline to make an arrest
simply because involved parties are married. Refusal to interfere does not
promote domestic harmony.
3. Charles Jr. can’t claim that he was denied equal protection of the laws. He was
rarely present during assaults thus he didn’t suffer from police inaction unlike his
mom. He was not part of the court orders.
4. Municipality/city can be sued along with the police dept. Tracey’s testimony shows
a pattern/custom/policy on the part of the municipality. Actually, single brutal
incident is sufficient to suggest a link bet. A violation of consti’l rts. & pattern of
police misconduct.
5. Unidentified police officers can be sued even if they had not been properly served.
Partial identification is sufficient.
NATURAL RIGHTS & NATURAL ROLES
• Women, limited to private sphere (home).
• Though a lot of people were fighting for women’s rights, they saw things
differently. They advanced different causes. Some even accepted the
subordination & traditional roles.
• Anti suffragists for instance, often advanced more realistic causes than
suffragists who often lost sight of what they were fighting for. But they paved the
way for activating & uniting women. Women gained recognition, self-esteem &
political skills.
• Entry into public sphere was opposed by many. They might disturb existing
power structures in voting or they may pave the way for prohibition of liquors. It
would be difficult to reconcile family w/ public life. They might lose their identity.
• Judiciary didn’t help either. They were unwilling to provide remedies & they were
not prepared to vest women w/political rts.
• Discrimination against women in admission to bar & other professions. Ex. Belva
Lockwood, etc.) Women were not fit for occupations of civil life due to their
timidity & delicacy but they never explained why these made women unfit.
• Women’s property acts – In reality, these were limited. They didn’t really put
women in equal footing w/their husbands. Husband’s power to manage/deplete
family assets still existed. When women work, some of their earnings were seen
as extension of husbands’ thus used to pay for husbands’ purchases. Wives
continued to be dependent on husbands’ support.
• Marital relationships – wife limited to take custody over the home. Husband to
decide domicile. Limited rts for women in gaining custody of small children.
Husband obliged to support their families but court rarely enforced that oblig.
Wife-beating was allowed as long as he didn’t kill or maim (injure/mutilate) her.
Judiciary was relatively tolerant of brutality. They refused to hear “trivial”
complaints. Better to keep it private than to expose it to public curiosity &
criticism. Even divorce was biased. Grounds were limited. Mostly, males were
entitled to initiate the proceedings. Women often lacked funds for the judicial
proceedings.
• In general, women became more separate than equal.
EFFECTS OF EPA
• Age of marriage (minimum age allowed) & age of consent (marriage w/o consent
already permitted) should be the same for both male & female. Reasons for
difference: 1) maturity 2) males should not be disturbed while they prepare to
earn a living
• Name change: can’t require woman to take husbands’ name even thru leg.
Presumption. You can allow them to pick same last name, either one of theirs or
a third last name or ask judge to decide won to allow woman to use maiden
name or take new name. Kids can take parent’s name, parents can choose on of
their name or have no rule at all.
• Domicile – woman should be given equal rt. To choose domicile as much as man
can choose. Woman can’t be compelled to follow husband’s domicile. Refusal
should no longer be tantamount to abandonment and ground for divorce. For
kids, family residence, domicile of parent he lives with if separated, let child
decide.
• Rights of consortium – both can recover for loss of spouse’s services &
companionship, gender-neutral definitions of conjugal functions (both should be
tasked to do housework, available for sexual relations, provide for support.
• Allocation of family support bet. Husband & wife – extend duty to women or
based on current resources, earning pow, etc.
• Ownership of community property – decide jointly, who earns more has rt, joint
control of mixed prop
TRINA JOY A. SOLIDON I-A
4690021.doc
4
• Ownership of common law prop – have separate props, give equal rts to
surviving husband similar to what surviving wife gets (part of estate, allowance)
• Grounds for divorce – non support either eliminate it or oblige wife to support
husband too. Pregnancy – justifications: difficult to identify the father except
when father acknowledges and presumption that woman’s child is her husband’s
thus he should support child & give him his name. Solution: abolish it or give
women rt to file for divorce if she didn’t know about her husband impregnating
another woman at time of marriage
• Alimony – available equally or based on who’s working, who stays at home to
care for kids (parental function, marital contribution, ability to pay) determine their
capacity too
• Custody of children – no gender-based grants

TRINA JOY A. SOLIDON I-A

4690021.doc
5