I believe most of us are familiar with Republic Act 9262, or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004, more commonly known as VAWC. This is an action filed by a woman who is the spouse, former spouse, partner, or someone who has had a dating or sexual relationship with the offender for abuses committed by the latter against her. This law protects both the woman and her children and vindicates their rights against the abuser.

As such, it is common knowledge that the person who can rightfully and naturally institute the action is the woman who is the very victim of the crime. It would seem incorrect for just any person to file a case against the abuser. After all, what standing does he or she have when the law specifically requires that the crime must have been committed against a woman who has or had a relationship with the man?

In a particular case, while the wife filed a VAWC case against her husband, her untimely death prevented her from testifying in court. The husband was convicted based on the testimonies of persons other than the deceased wife. This led the accused to question their capacity to prosecute the offense charged. It is at this instance that the Supreme Court declared the nature of a VAWC action.

The High Court decreed, “Foremost, Section 25 of Republic Act 9262 categorically states that violence against women and children is a public crime:”

“SECTION 25. Public crime. — Violence against women and their children shall be considered a public offense which may be prosecuted upon the filing of a complaint by any citizen having personal knowledge of the circumstances involving the commission of the crime.”

In Garcia v. Drilon, the Court noted that the law recognizes, with factual support based on statistics, that women and children are the most vulnerable victims of violence who need legal protection. Thus, a paradigm shift was needed to change the character of domestic violence from a private affair to a public crime.

The enactment of RA 9262 aims to address the discrimination brought about by biases and prejudices against women. As emphasized by the CEDAW, or Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, addressing or correcting discrimination through specific measures focused on women does not discriminate against men.

Justice Puno correctly pointed out that “the paradigm shift changing the character of domestic violence from a private affair to a public offense will require the development of a distinct mindset on the part of the police, the prosecution, and the judges.”

Being a public offense, a case falling under Republic Act 9262 may be initiated by any citizen having personal knowledge of the circumstances involving its commission. This is to be distinguished from private crimes, such as adultery and concubinage, which may only be prosecuted upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse.

Second, Section 5, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court provides that once commenced and instituted, a criminal action is already under the direction and control of the prosecutor, as follows:

“Section 5. Who must prosecute criminal actions. — All criminal actions commenced by a complaint or information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the prosecutor. However, in Municipal Trial Courts or Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, when the prosecutor assigned thereto or to the case is not available, the offended party, any peace officer, or public officer charged with the enforcement of the law violated may prosecute the case. This authority shall cease upon actual intervention of the prosecutor or upon elevation of the case to the Regional Trial Court.”

Therefore, even if the complainant is absent or can no longer give testimony, the criminal proceedings may still proceed, so long as there are other witnesses with personal knowledge and supporting pieces of evidence to support the prosecution’s theory. Here, despite AAA268932’s death, the prosecution may still prove the commission of the crime through documentary evidence and testimonies from other witnesses.

Third, the death of a private complainant in a public crime is not one of the causes of extinguishment of criminal liability under Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code.

Finally, it is a settled rule in this jurisdiction that criminal laws are enacted to protect the State and society from dangerous transgressions. Since it is the State and society that are the real victims of a crime, and not any individual, the proceedings may continue despite the private complainant’s death:

“A crime is a liability against the State. It is prosecuted by and for the State. Acts considered criminal are penalized by law as a means to protect society from dangerous transgressions. As criminal liability involves a penalty affecting a person’s liberty, acts are only treated as criminal when the law clearly says so.”

For these reasons, the Court holds that the testimony of prosecution witnesses who saw the abusive acts and mental anguish suffered by the complainant-wife are sufficient not only to initiate the criminal action but also to constitute the very building blocks sufficient to convict the accused for violation of Republic Act 9262. Despite her death, AAA268932’s mental and emotional anguish may still be established by the documentary evidence offered by the prosecution and the testimonies of the other witnesses.

The facts and redacted portions of the decision are from Supreme Court G.R. 268392 (19 May 2025).