Violence Against Women & Children (VAWC) by Justine cedrick Bautista

bautistajustinecedrick — 2024-08-20 05:16:40 UTC

SC convicts man of VAWC after abandoning spouse

-June 4, 2024 - 7:13pm

bautistajustinecedrick — 2024-08-20 05:38:15 UTC

Violence Against Women and Children (VAWC) refers to any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering to women and children. It includes threats of such acts, coercion, or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or private life. VAWC covers a wide range of behaviors, including domestic violence, sexual assault, harassment, trafficking, and exploitation.

In many countries, laws and regulations have been established to prevent and address VAWC, providing protection and support for victims, and imposing penalties on perpetrators. For example, in the Philippines, the "Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004" (Republic Act No. 9262) is a significant piece of legislation that specifically addresses VAWC, offering protection orders and legal remedies for victims.

bautistajustinecedrick — 2024-08-20 05:44:47 UTC

The Supreme Court recently addressed a case involving the suffering of a wife at the hands of her husband, highlighting the obligations a husband has to cohabit with, love, respect, and support his spouse. According to the Court’s decision, failure to fulfill these duties can have legal repercussions under the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children (Anti-VAWC) law.

However, the case also featured a significant dissenting opinion from Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen. He argued that the husband, referred to as "XXX," could not be convicted under the Anti-VAWC law because there was no evidence of deliberate intent to inflict emotional anguish on his wife or child. Justice Leonen emphasized that the law requires more than just the act of abandonment to secure a conviction; it demands proof that the accused specifically intended to cause mental or emotional suffering.

bautistajustinecedrick — 2024-08-20 05:48:31 UTC

Justice Leonen's dissenting opinion stated, "Apart from the act of abandonment, there must be proof of the accused's intent to inflict mental or emotional anguish on the abandoned spouse. Hurt feelings are not enough for conviction." He further elaborated that while he did not dismiss the pain and emotional distress experienced by the wife, known as "AAA," the prosecution did not establish the necessary element of deliberate intent to harm, which is crucial for a conviction under Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262.

Leonen’s position highlights a critical aspect of the Anti-VAWC law: the need for clear and intentional infliction of emotional or mental harm. His opinion underscores that the law does not criminalize the mere act of abandonment unless it is accompanied by a clear intent to cause emotional suffering.