G.R. No. 211851 . September 16, 2020.
ROBERTO ESTACIO Y SALVOSA, PETITIONER, VS. MA. VICTORIA ESTACIO Y SANTOS, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Roberto Estacio and respondent Ma. Victoria Estacio have been married since 1978 and have three adult children. On December 7, 2011, Victoria filed a Petition for a permanent protection order under Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004) with a prayer for a temporary protection order (TPO). The Regional Trial Court (RTC) issued an ex-parte TPO, which was later modified in a January 18, 2012 Order. The modified TPO included directives: (1) prohibiting Roberto from committing acts of violence or harassing Victoria through any means; (2) ordering him to remove himself from the family residence; (3) ordering him to stay away from Victoria, her children (Manuel Roberto, Maria Katrina Ann, and Sharlene Mae), and other household members at a distance of no less than two kilometers, and from specified places; (4) staying away from the entrance/exit gates of their village; and (5) surrendering any firearms. The RTC later made the TPO permanent in a February 20, 2013 Decision. Roberto appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), contesting the inclusion of his adult children in the stay-away order and arguing that the two-kilometer radius was excessive. The CA affirmed the RTC Decision, prompting Roberto to file a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether a stay-away directive in a protection order under Republic Act No. 9262 may validly cover the couple’s adult children.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court denied the Petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals Decision. The Court held that a stay-away directive in a protection order may cover members of the household, including a couple’s common children, if it is shown that the offender commits violence against the victim through these household members. The Court found that Roberto used the children to harass Victoria, such as by sending them derogatory text messages about her, which were also furnished to Victoria, constituting psychological violence. The children also witnessed Roberto’s physical and verbal abuse against Victoria and received messages from him manifesting suicidal intent. The Court ruled that the term “children” in Section 8(d) of Republic Act No. 9262 is not limited to those below 18 years old, as the law’s protective coverage extends to “any designated family or household member.” The Court also upheld the two-kilometer radius as a reasonable exercise of judicial discretion to ensure the victim’s safety, noting that Roberto had violated the TPO and continued to harass Victoria and the children. The Permanent Protection Order was deemed necessary to preserve the remaining respect and bond between the father and his children.