G.R. No. 242133 - Agacid vs. People

Roselyn Agacid y Dejanio (Petitioner) was in a four-year relationship with Maria Alexandria Bisquerra y Nueva (Respondent.)
They broke up in March 2014.
On August 31, 2014, they met at Starbucks in Ali Mall, Cubao, Quezon City to return items.

Bisquerra intended to return personal items; Agacid believed the meeting was to reconcile.
Agacid became angry, slapped Bisquerra, and stabbed her on her right forearm causing a wound.
Bisquerra fled and sought help from Ali Mall guards.
She received medical treatment at Quezon Memorial Medical Center.
Bisquerra filed a Complaint-Affidavit at Cubao Police Station against Agacid for violation of the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act (RA 9262).

Agacid was charged with physical abuse under Section 5(a) of RA 9262.
Agacid filed a Motion to Quash the Information and to defer arraignment and pre-trial, arguing that RA 9262 applies only to male perpetrators, not women.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied the Motion to Quash, relying on Garcia v. Drilon (2013) which indicated RA 9262 could apply regardless of the perpetrator's gender.
The RTC also denied Agacid's motion for reconsideration.
Agacid filed an Amended Petition for Certiorari to the Court of Appeals (CA), which was denied.
Agacid elevated the case to the Supreme Court with a Petition for Review.

Petitioner argued that RA 9262 was intended to protect women from men, thus excluding female perpetrators.
She asserted the legislative intent was to cover heterosexual relationships (husband and wife), not female same-sex relationships.
Respondents emphasized that the law is gender-neutral and protects women victims regardless of the perpetrator's gender.
The Office of the Solicitor General stressed that the use of the term "any person" in the law includes female offenders.

Whether Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act) applies when the perpetrator is a woman and the victim is a woman.
Whether the Motion to Quash in the RTC was properly denied given the Petitioner’s claim that the law excludes female perpetrators.
Whether a Petition for Certiorari was the proper remedy to assail interlocutory orders denying the Motion to Quash.