Professional Documents
Culture Documents
AAA Vs BBB GR No. 212448
AAA Vs BBB GR No. 212448
~upreme QCourt
;fffilanila
FIRST DIVISION
SERENO, C.J,
Chairperson,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
- versus - DEL CASTILLO,
JARDELEZA, and
TIJAM, JJ.
Promulgated:
BBB,*
Respondent. JAN 11 20I
x-----------------------------------------.;.-:..,_.;:.~::. ___ _
DECISION
TIJAM, J.:
·Section 44 of Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of
2004) requires the confidentiality of all records pertaining to cases of violence against women and their
children. Per said section, all public officers and employees are prohibited from publishing or causing to be
published in any format the name and other identifying information of a victim or an immediate family
member. The penalty of one (I) year imprisonment and a fine of not more than Five Hundred Thousand
pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon those who violate the provision. Pursuant thereto, in the courts'
promulgation of decisions, final resolutions and/or final orders, the names of women and children victims
shall be replaced by fictitious initials, and their personal circumstances or any information, which tend to
identify them, shall likewise not be disclosed.
1
AN ACT DEFINING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN,
PROVIDING FOR PROTECTIVE MEASURES FOR VICTIMS, PRESCRfBING PENALTIES
THEREFORE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. Approved on March 8, 2004. /
~
<"' I•
Contrary to law.
AAA claimed, albeit not reflected in the Information, that BBB sent
little to no financial support, and only sporadically. This allegedly
compelled her to fly extra hours and take on additional jobs to augment her
income as a flight attendant. There were also allegations of virtual
abandonment, mistreatment of her and their son CCC, and physical and
sexual violence. To make matters worse, BBB supposedly started having an
affair with a Singaporean woman named Lisel Mok with whom he allegedly
has been living in Singapore. Things came to a head on April 19, 2011
when AAA and BBB had a violent altercation at a hotel room in Singapore
during her visit with their kids. 8 As can be gathered from the earlier cited
2
Rollo, pp. 19-45.
3
Rendered by Presiding Judge Maria Rowena Modesto-San Pedro; id. at 49-52.
4
Id. at 53.
j Id. at 4 and 26.
6
Id. at 57.
7
Id. at 57-58. !"'
8
Id. at 58-59.
\\
Decision 3 G.R. No. 212448
.,.~. ' ' .' ... ·.
~
Here, while the Court maintains its 28 October 2011 ruling that
probable cause exists in this case and that [BBB] is probably guilty of the
crime charged, considering, however, his subsequent clear showing that
the acts complained of him had occurred in Singapore, dismissal of this
case is proper since the Court enjoys no jurisdiction over the offense
charged, it having transpired outside the territorial jurisdiction of this
Court.
xx xx
9
Id. at 26.
~
10
Id. at 27.
11
Id. at 49.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 212448
In his Comment 13 filed on January 20, 2015, BBB contends that the
grant of the motion to quash is in ertcct an acquittal; that only the civil
aspect of a criminal case may be appealed by the private offended party; and.
that this petition should be dismissed outright for having been brought
12
Id. at 50-51.
11
Id. at 154-160. /
'\\
Decision 5
.... ;~ ,........ 'T,'~ ~
G.R. No. 212448
before this Court by AAA instead of the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG) as counsel for the People in appellate proceedings. BBB furthermore
avers that the petition was belatedly filed.
We tackle first the threshold issue of whether or not this Court should
entertain the petition.
In AAA's motion for extension of time, it was mentioned that she was
awaiting the OSG's response to her Letter 16 dated May 26, 2014 requesting
for representation. Since, the OSG was unresponsive to her plea for
assistance in filing the intended petition, AAA filed the present petition in
her own name before the lapse of the extension given her by this Court or on
June 25, 2014. · .
14
Id. at 3-6.
15
Id. at 17-A.
16
Id. at 15-17.
17
775 Phil. 192 (20 l5).
18
ld.at215-216. f
19
~
Morillo v. People, et al., supra.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 212448
Indubitably, "the Rules do not prohibit any of the parties from filing a
Rule 45 Petition with this Court, in case only questions of law are raised or
involved." 22 "There is a question of law.when the issue does not call for an
examination of the probative value of the evidence presented or of the truth
or falsehood of the facts being admitted, and the doubt concerns the c01Tect
application of law and jurisprudence on the matter." 23
20
Id. at 212, citing People v. Salico, 84 Phi I. 722, 732-733 ( 1949).
21
Id. at 211.
22
Del Socorro v. Van Wi/sem, 749 Phil. 823, 832 (2014), citing Rep. of the Phils., et ol. v. Sunvar
Realty Development Corp., 688 Phil. 616, 630(2012).
23
Id. at 832.
24
Morillo v. People, et al., supra.
15
Id. at 214.
"'
Decision 7 G.R. No. 212448
We are not called upon in this case to determine the truth or falsity of
the charge against BBB, much less weigh the evidence, especially as the
case had not even proceeded to a full-blown trial on the merits. The issue
for resolution concerns the correct application of law and jurisprudence on a
given set of circumstances, i.e., whether or not Philippine courts are
deprived of territorial jurisdiction over a criminal charge of psychological
abuse under R.A. No. 9262 when committed through marital infidelity and
the alleged illicit relationship took place outside the Philippines.
The novelty of the issue was even recognized by the RTC when it
opined that there is still as yet no jurisprudence on this score, prompting it to
quash the Information even as it maintained its earlier October 28, 2011
ruling that probable cause exists in the case. 26 Calling the attention of
Congress to the arguments on jurisdiction spawned by the law, 27 the RTC
furnished copies of the assailed order to the House of Representatives and
the Philippine Senate through the Committee on Youth, Women and Public
Relations, as well as the Committee on Justice and Human Rights. 28
26
Rollo, p. 50.
27
ld. at 51.
28
ld. at 52.
29
<https ://psa.gov. ph/contenUtotal-number-ofws-esti mated-22-mi 11 ion-results-20 16-survey-
overseas-filip inos> (visited October 30, 2017).
10
~
~
Garcia v. Judge Drilon, et al., 712 Phil. 44, 94 (2013).
Decision 8 G.R. No. 212448
r...
(a) "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. It includes, but is not limited to, the following acts:
XX)(~
xx xx
xx xx
xx xx
xx xx
~
Decision 10 G.R. No. 212448
present the testimony of the victim as such experiences are personal to this
party. xx x. 32 (Citations omitted and emphasis ours)
The place where the crime was committed determines not only
the venue of the action but is an essential clement of jurisdiction. It is
a fundamental rule that for jurisdiction to be acquired by courts in criminal
cases, the offense should have been committed or any one of its essential
ingredients should have taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the
court. Territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases is the territory where the
court has jurisdiction to take cognizance or to try the offense allegedly
committed therein by the accused. Thus, it cannot take jurisdiction over a
person charged with an offense allegedly.Gommitted outside of that limited
territory. Furthermore, the jurisdiction of a court over the criminal case
is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information. And
once it is so shown, the court may validly take cognizance of the case.
However, if the evidence adduced during the trial shows that the
offense was committed somewhere else, the court should dismiss the
1
action for want of .iurisdiction. ~ (Emphasis in the original)
·
12
Id. at Jn-376.
/
~
31
680 Phil. 368 (20 I2).
"id. at 380, citing Isip I'. People, 5'12 Phil "lf:6, ROl-802 (2007).
Decision 11 G.R. No. 212448
~~· ,,~:. ;,. !··
What may be gleaned from Section 7 of R.A. No. 9262 is that the law
contemplates that acts of violence against women and their children may
manifest as transitory or continuing crimes; meaning that some acts material
and essential thereto and requisite in their consummation occur in one
municipality or territory, while some. occur in another. In such cases, the
court wherein any of the crime's essential and material acts have been
committed maintains jurisdiction to try the case; it being understood that the
first court taking cognizance of the same excludes the other. Thus, a person
charged with a continuing or transitory,:crime may be validly tried in any
municipality or territory where the offense.
. ": ..
was in part cmmnitted. 36
.
committed abroad, the same does not place a prosecution under R.A. No.
9262 absolutely beyond the reach of Philippine courts.
SO ORDERED.
~/
N~TIJAM
Asso~Hate Justice
WE CONCUR:
~~t,~
TERESITA .J. LEONARDO-OE C.ASTRO
&~~
~&~~C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate Justice Associate Justice
F'RANCI~ZA
Justice
Associate
Decision 13t .,..~. ~·-;- .•.
G.R. No. 212448
CERTIFICATION