Ellen Adarna's Paparazzimoves case is not VAWC
#PAParazzimoves.
This has been trending on Twitter after a minor called out Ellen Adarna on her mistaken assumption. The minor says she was simply taking a video of her food, not her.
After this claim, there were calls for a case to be filed against Ellen Adarna. They said this incident falls within the ambit of Violence Against Women and Children (VAWC). I've read so many mentions of VAWC that I felt I should help in raising awareness on the scope of VAWC.
RA 9262, otherwise known as the "Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004," was enacted to protect women and their children from their sexual and dating partners. Thus, "violence against women and their children" has been defined as:
"Violence against women and their children" refers to any act or a series of acts committed by any person against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a common child, or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the family abode, which result in or is likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse including threats of such acts, battery, assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty.
Note the phrase "sexual or dating relationship." The scenario for VAWC would be if John abuses Ellen and her child. That's VAWC. In the Paparazzi incident, it is more of a child abuse under RA 7610. But the more appropriate charge would be Cyberlibel. Ellen alleges that the minor is a paparazzo, which the minor denies.
What if what Ellen was claiming is true? She can demand that the minor's parent pay her for Damages. It is, in other words, a civil case. The minor can actually likewise file a civil case only for Damages but some lawyers like filing criminal cases because of the possibility of imprisonment.
In my opinion, this incident is better mediated without the interference of the public. Both the minor and Ellen will be undergoing a long and stressful process. It's much better to talk behind closed doors. Perhaps pay some money as settlement.
This has been trending on Twitter after a minor called out Ellen Adarna on her mistaken assumption. The minor says she was simply taking a video of her food, not her.
After this claim, there were calls for a case to be filed against Ellen Adarna. They said this incident falls within the ambit of Violence Against Women and Children (VAWC). I've read so many mentions of VAWC that I felt I should help in raising awareness on the scope of VAWC.
RA 9262, otherwise known as the "Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004," was enacted to protect women and their children from their sexual and dating partners. Thus, "violence against women and their children" has been defined as:
"Violence against women and their children" refers to any act or a series of acts committed by any person against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a common child, or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the family abode, which result in or is likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse including threats of such acts, battery, assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty.
Note the phrase "sexual or dating relationship." The scenario for VAWC would be if John abuses Ellen and her child. That's VAWC. In the Paparazzi incident, it is more of a child abuse under RA 7610. But the more appropriate charge would be Cyberlibel. Ellen alleges that the minor is a paparazzo, which the minor denies.
What if what Ellen was claiming is true? She can demand that the minor's parent pay her for Damages. It is, in other words, a civil case. The minor can actually likewise file a civil case only for Damages but some lawyers like filing criminal cases because of the possibility of imprisonment.
In my opinion, this incident is better mediated without the interference of the public. Both the minor and Ellen will be undergoing a long and stressful process. It's much better to talk behind closed doors. Perhaps pay some money as settlement.
Comments
Post a Comment