Dear IBP Davao,
Tungod sa kalisud year 2013 nag abroad siya para maharuhay among panginabuhi ug mahatag ang maayo nga kinabuhi sa among tatlo ka anak. Sa 1st year nya sa gawas maayo pa iyang padala hantud sa ang iyang padala sa amoa nagka anam ug kagamay na ug naabot pa jud sa punto nga sa iyahang mama na xa gapadala samtang kami pa nya atong higayuna kada naa q pangayoon para sa among mga anak muadto ko sa iyaha para mangayo ug naa xa ipa pirma kanako pamatuod nga ako nakadawat ug usa ka libo..hantud sa wala na jud muhatag para sa tatlo ka bata. Minglabay ang pila ka tuig ming uli siya dri sa pinas.akong gebuhat nag adto ko sa pao office para ddto nlang mi husayon ug makabuhat ug legal nga kasabotan para sa suporta sa among tulo ka anak.samtang naa mi sa sulod sa office sa atty nga muhusay namu gestoryahan siya nga unsay planu nya sa iyang tatlo ka anak kay iyaha namang gelimutan ming storya ko sa akong gusto na mahitabo apan nag walk in kini atubangan sa atty. nangusog nlang ko nga kasuhan siya ug violence against women and children kay dli gyud siya musugod minggawas iyang warrant gebalewala nya kini hantud sa naabot karon ang panahon nga iyahang mama mismo ang nagpatawag sa among barangay kay gusto nya ipa withdraw ang kaso. mangayo kog tabang atty. Unsa maayo buhaton.
Maria
Dear Maria,
Republic Act No. 9262, known as the ANTI-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004, was approved and signed by President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo on March 8, 2004.
The said law is a declaration that the State values the dignity of women and children and guarantees full respect for human rights. It also recognizes the need to protect the family and its members particularly women and children , from violence (physical, sexual, psychological and economic abuse) and threats to their personal safety and security.
When the above law was passed, women, especially the victims of different forms of violence or abuse were given that ray of hope, that finally, their plight would be alleviated in a way. But this also gave way for some scheming women to use the law for other motives. Still, this law’s “noble intent” was not diminished. But the question which comes to one’s mind is, “does it have teeth”?
The scenario painted by the wife (and her three children, whose ages were not divulged, whether they are minors or not) who was later on financially deprived of the material support she and her children need by their head of the family, sadly, is not uncommon anymore. As more and more “fathers” go abroad to work to improve the financial status of their family, they have forgotten the reason why they opted to be away from their families.
Let us focus on Section 5 (i) of Republic Act No. 9262, which is a form or act of economic abuse/violence where it states, as follows:
“5 (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 xxx”
Section 6 (f) of the same law specifically states that acts falling under Section 5 (h) and 5(i) shall be punished by prision mayor (imprisonment of six years and one day to twelve years) WHICH GETS IT OUT OF THE AMBIT OF THE PROBATION LAW. Further, the law further provides that, “IN ADDITION TO IMPRISONMENT, the perpetrator shall PAY A FINE in the AMOUNT OF NOT LESS THAN ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS ( P 100,000.00) BUT NOT MORE THAN THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P 300,000.00).” The law even mandates mandatory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment and should report compliance to the court. The above provisions seemingly give teeth to the law. Note that violation under Section 5 (i) of the law cited has a prescriptive period of ten (10) years. (see Section 24)
Additionally, the provision under Section 37 of the same law, provides for the issuance of a HOLD DEPARTURE ORDER, to wit: THE COURT SHALL EXPEDITE THE PROCESS OF ISSUANCE OF A HOLD DEPARTURE ORDER IN CASES PROSECUTED UNDER THIS ACT. This provision is dreaded by the erring accused who fails to support their families and is about to get out of the country, especially OFWs who may not be able to get out and be deployed again abroad if they do not give the support due their families.
From the narration of the client asking for help or advise, it would appear that a WARRANT OF ARREST had been issued against her husband and most likely a concomitant HOLD DEPARTURE ORDER, was issued against him. This would explain why he would let his mother appear for him in the barangay to pressure his wife to withdraw the case against him.
In this situation, it would be advisable for the client to tell her mother-in-law to have her son post a bail first before they discuss any settlement as the case is already in court. The government prosecutor which may stand as counsel for the complainant will intervene to protect her interest. If complainant chooses to settle the civil aspect of support, the probable conditions may be recommended by the prosecutor, to wit: the drafting of an agreement for support between the parties, the release of the cash bond in favor of the complainant (if in cash), PROVISIONAL/TEMPORARY dismissal of the case for the client’s protection as accused may renege on the agreement ( which will become final after two years from date of dismissal, but without prejudice to filing a new case for a new cause of action or violation by accused) and the lifting of the HOLD DEPARTURE ORDER.
Although, it would appear that the parties seem to be trifling with the law, but the harsh reality is that, the needs of the family for their subsistence and the expenses for education of the children cannot be ignored. Most women are constrained to amicably settle the case since most are not economically empowered and due to the protracted pace of the trial/proceedings in court for reasons sometimes beyond the control of the parties or courts. Please send your comments and questions to ibpdavao@gmail.com.
