Conspiracy and the Anti-VAWC law

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 Pecto Yan and Ramona Yan before the RTC. She alleged that Steven, in conspiracy with her parents-in-law, were causing verbal, psychological and economic abuses upon her 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.”

However, the RTC dismissed the case 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.”
Are parents-in-law covered by R.A. No. 9262?


SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes. The SC ruled that “while RA 9262 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.

Hence, legal principles developed from the Penal Code may be applied in a supplementary capacity to crimes punished under special laws, such as R.A. No. 9262, in which the special law is silent on a particular matter.

“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, fellester.blogspot.com 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."

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 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.

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. (Tan vs. Tan, G.R. No. 168852, September 30, 2008)