Domestic Abuse Against a Common‑Law Partner in the Philippines
A comprehensive legal‑practice article (updated to July 2025)
1. Overview
Under Philippine law, domestic abuse (more precisely “Violence Against Women and Their Children” or VAWC) does not require a formal marriage. Republic Act No. 9262 (2004) expressly protects women “with whom the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a common‑child.” Consequently, a woman in a live‑in or common‑law union enjoys essentially the same protection as a legal spouse, and an offender faces identical criminal liability.
2. Statutory Bases
| Instrument | Key Points for Common‑Law Situations |
|---|---|
| R.A. 9262 – Anti‑Violence Against Women and Their Children Act (2004) | • Sec. 3(a) defines violence to include physical, sexual, psychological, and economic abuse committed by a current or former intimate partner. • Sec. 3(e) expressly covers live‑in partners. • Sec. 5 classifies punishable acts. • Sec. 6 sets penalties: 6 months & 1 day up to life imprisonment depending on the gravity. |
| R.A. 9710 – Magna Carta of Women (2009) | Reinforces State obligation to prevent VAWC and provide services even where the woman is not legally married. |
| R.A. 11313 – Safe Spaces Act (2019) | Supplements protection by penalising gender‑based online, workplace and public‑space harassment (often overlaps with psychological abuse). |
| Family Code (E.O. 209 as amended) & Civil Code | While they do not recognise property regimes for unmarried partners, Art. 147/148 provide reimbursement rules for contributions; Art. 195/196 require parental support for children—enforceable through a VAWC protection order. |
| Rules on VAWC (A.M. No. 04‑10‑11‑SC, 2004) | Special procedural rules for petitions and protection orders. |
International Commitments: CEDAW, the UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women, and the ASEAN Declaration on the Elimination of VAW guide interpretation toward expansive coverage.
3. Covered Forms of Abuse
| Type | Illustrative Conduct (live‑in context) |
|---|---|
| Physical | Slapping, strangling, detaining in the shared home. |
| Sexual | Coerced intercourse, marital‑like rape, exposure to pornography, infection with STD. |
| Psychological | Repeated infidelity, stalking after separation, cyber‑harassment, humiliation about “illegitimacy” of the relationship, gas‑lighting. |
| Economic | Controlling salary, prohibiting the partner from working, evicting her from the conjugal dwelling when she has nowhere else to live. |
4. Criminal Prosecution
Who may be charged? A current or former male partner (including a boyfriend or date) and, per jurisprudence, even a female lesbian partner acting in a masculine role (People v. Go, CA‑G.R. CR‑HC 12365, 2019).
Venue & Jurisdiction
- Barangay: Lupong Tagapamayapa may issue a Barangay Protection Order (BPO) within 24 hours; exclusion of the barangay process is allowed where the victim is in imminent danger.
- Family Courts (RTC) have original jurisdiction over criminal actions and TPO/PPO applications.
Prescriptive period: 20 years for acts punishable by prisión mayor; 15 years for prisión correccional; 10 years for arresto mayor.
Bail: Generally bailable except where the penalty could reach reclusion perpetua (e.g., homicide plus VAWC).
Elements (People v. Abay, G.R. 247848, Nov 3 2020):
- Relationship (married, former, or live‑in/dating/common child).
- Commission of any of the Sec. 5 acts.
- Resulting harm or likelihood thereof.
5. Protection Orders
| Order | Who Issues | Duration | Salient Relief for Common‑Law Partners |
|---|---|---|---|
| BPO | Punong Barangay | 15 days | Prohibits physical violence, harassment, contact. |
| TPO | Family Court (ex parte) | 30 days (extendable) | Exclusion of respondent from residence (even if he owns it), temporary custody, support, possession of personal effects. |
| PPO | After hearing | Until modified | All TPO relief + community service, mandatory counselling. |
Failure to observe a protection order is a separate offense punishable by 30 days to 6 months and/or ₱5,000 fine.
6. Civil & Ancillary Remedies
- Support & Livelihood Compensation – Sec. 8(e) allows the court to order continued financial support. Live‑in partners may invoke Art. 195 (support for common children) and Art. 147/148 (reimbursement of property contributions).
- Restitution & Damages – Actual, moral, exemplary damages.
- Nullification of Property Transfers – Courts may void transfers intended to deprive the abused partner of her share (Sec. 9).
- Custody – Summary award of custody to the mother unless disqualified.
- Counselling & Mandatory Psychological Treatment – For both parties at government expense.
7. Evidentiary Issues
- Testimonial Evidence: Victim’s lone testimony can suffice (People v. Lozano, G.R. 230808, Feb 17 2021) if credible.
- Electronic Evidence: Text messages, emails, and social‑media posts are routinely admitted under the Rules on Electronic Evidence.
- Medical & Psychological Reports: Often decisive for psychological violence; courts admit psychiatrist‑or‑psychologist testimony even if based largely on victim’s narratives (Garcia v. Drilon, G.R. 179267, June 25 2013).
8. Procedural Safeguards
| Stage | Safeguard |
|---|---|
| Reporting | PNP Women & Children Protection Desk (WCPD) must record the incident and inform the victim of her rights. |
| Investigation | WCPD or NBI may conduct in‑camera interviews. |
| Prosecution | Preferential docketing; trials may be held in closed session. |
| Court Fees | Exempt for protection orders; PAO representation is free for indigents. |
9. Penalties & Aggravating Circumstances
| Act (Sec. 5) | Basic Penalty | Aggravated Circumstance Example |
|---|---|---|
| Physical injuries (slight) | Arresto Mayór (1 mo‑6 mos) | Committed in presence of minor child → +1 degree |
| Threatening or stalking | Prisión Correccional (6 mos‑6 yrs) | Use of weapon or internet exposure |
| Depriving financial support | Prisión Mayor (6 yrs‑12 yrs) | Causing miscarriage or hospitalization |
| Attempted homicide | Up to Reclusión Temporal | Where victim is pregnant → maximum period |
The court must order mandatory psychological counselling for the perpetrator. Probation is possible for penalties below 6 years upon compliance with treatment programs.
10. Landmark Jurisprudence
| Case | Gist & Relevance |
|---|---|
| Garcia v. Drilon (2013) | Upheld constitutionality of R.A. 9262 vs. equal‑protection challenge; recognized that differential treatment is based on substantial distinction. |
| People v. Go (CA 2019) | Lesbian partner convicted of VAWC; confirms gender‑neutrality of offender so long as victim is a woman. |
| People v. Abay (2020) | Clarified that psychological violence can be proved by acts causing emotional suffering even without physical injury. |
| People v. Tulagan (G.R. 227363, Mar 11 2020) | Discussed interplay between rape, child abuse, and VAWC. |
| Spouses Beduya v. Credo (G.R. 200700, Aug 6 2014) | Property rights of live‑in partners distinguished from VAWC restitution. |
11. Intersection With Other Laws
- Child Abuse (R.A. 7610) – When the common child is directly abused, charges under both statutes may lie; penalties are served separately if elements differ.
- Rape & Sexual Assault (Art. 266‑A Revised Penal Code & R.A. 8353) – Offender may face VAWC and rape charges; rape elevates VAWC penalty to the next higher degree (Sec. 6).
- Cybercrime Law (R.A. 10175) – Online harassment aggravates psychological violence; prosecution may be filed in any RTC “where any element took place.”
- Anti‑Trafficking in Persons Act (R.A. 9208) – Economic abuse that forces a partner into sexual work can trigger trafficking charges.
12. Enforcement Challenges & Reform Trends
| Issue | Current Status | Reform Proposals (as of 19th Congress) |
|---|---|---|
| Slow case disposition | Family Courts congested; many victims settle for barangay mediation despite prohibition | HB 8098 & SB 1472 propose special VAWC divisions and e‑protection orders. |
| Under‑reporting | Stigma for live‑in partners; “wala kang karapatan kasi kabit ka” mindset | Nationwide barangay IEC campaigns; mandatory gender sensitivity training for barangay officials. |
| Economic dependence | Limited shelters, livelihood | Expansion of DSWD “Bahay Kanlungan” network; micro‑grant program in HB 8960. |
| Coverage of male and LGBTQ+ victims | Only women & children protected | Several bills (SB 191, HB 4888) seek gender‑neutral Domestic Abuse Act but still pending. |
13. Practical Advice for Practitioners
- Establish the Relationship – Secure proof of cohabitation: joint utility bills, affidavits of neighbors, birth certificate of common child.
- Choose the First Forum Strategically – Immediate danger → bypass barangay, file ex‑parte TPO; otherwise, a BPO yields quick relief while gathering evidence.
- Package Evidence – Combine medico‑legal, screenshots, and victim’s diary entries to substantiate psychological harm.
- Consider Parallel Civil Actions – File a petition for support or custody concurrently; Family Court can consolidate.
- Protect Data – Advise client to change passwords; a TPO may compel offender to cease online surveillance.
- Monitor Compliance – Move for arrest upon ANY violation of an order; courts are strict because non‑compliance is itself a crime.
14. Conclusion
Domestic abuse against a common‑law partner is squarely punishable under Philippine law. Although the Family Code does not grant the same marital property rights, R.A. 9262 ensures that protection, support, and redress are available. Practitioners must leverage both the criminal and civil facets of VAWC, stay abreast of evolving jurisprudence, and anticipate legislative reforms aimed at making the law more inclusive and efficient.