G.R. No. 239215 , July 12, 2022
RANDY MICHAEL KNUTSON, ACTING ON BEHALF OF MINOR RHUBY SIBAL KNUTSON, PETITIONER, VS. HON. ELISA R. SARMIENTO-FLORES, IN HER CAPACITY AS ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 69, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, TAGUIG CITY, AND ROSALINA SIBAL KNUTSON, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

This case originated from a Petition for Temporary and Permanent Protection Orders under Republic Act No. 9262 , the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act, filed by Randy Michael Knutson on behalf of his minor daughter, Rhuby, against her mother, Rosalina Sibal Knutson. Randy alleged that Rosalina neglected Rhuby and inflicted psychological and physical harm, creating an environment deleterious to the child’s development. He consequently prayed for protection orders and an award of custody.
The Regional Trial Court dismissed the petition. It ruled that protection and custody orders under R.A. 9262 are not available against a mother who allegedly abuses her own child, as the mother cannot be considered an “offender” under the specific framework of that law. The RTC further cited jurisprudence stating that a protection order cannot be issued in favor of Randy, as he is not a “woman victim of violence.” Randy’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting the present petition.

ISSUE

Whether a mother can be considered an offending party against whom protection and custody orders under R.A. 9262 may be issued for alleged abuse committed against her own child.

RULING

No. In her dissenting opinion, Justice Singh held that R.A. 9262 does not apply when the alleged perpetrator is a mother abusing her own biological child. The ponencia‘s contrary conclusion, based on a gender-neutral reading of the term “person” in the law’s definition of violence, constitutes an unconstitutional judicial expansion of the statute’s scope. The dissent emphasized that the legislative intent of R.A. 9262 is unequivocally to address violence committed against women and their children, not violence perpetrated by women against their own children.
The dissent clarified the proper application of the Court’s precedent in Garcia v. Drilon. That case recognized that a woman may be an offending party under R.A. 9262 only in two specific contexts: first, in a same-sex relationship where one woman inflicts violence on her partner or the partner’s child; and second, where there is conspiracy, such as when in-laws conspire with a husband to commit violence. The law’s framework presupposes a female victim. Applying it to a scenario where a mother abuses her child distorts this fundamental design and encroaches upon legislative power.
Justice Singh concluded that the petitioner is not without recourse. An allegation of child abuse by a parent is properly governed by Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act) and, for custody issues, by A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC (The Rule on Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in Relation to Custody of Minors). The case should therefore be remanded to the trial court for proceedings under the correct rules, not under R.A. 9262.