Title
Agacid vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 242133
Decision Date
Apr 16, 2024
Roselyn Agacid challenged charges under the Anti-Violence Against Women Act, arguing it doesn't cover women offenders, but the court upheld the protection extends to lesbian relationships.
violence against women
lesbian relationship
physical abuse

Case Summary (G.R. No. 242133)

Factual Background

On August 31, 2014, Maria Alexandria Bisquerra y Nueva went to the Cubao Police Station and filed a Complaint-Affidavit recounting that she and Roselyn Agacid had been in a four-year relationship that ended in March 2014. They met again at Starbucks, Ali Mall, Cubao, Quezon City at about 4:00 p.m. on that date for the return of items. According to the Complaint-Affidavit, Agacid became angry when Bisquerra insisted on maintaining the break-up, slapped Bisquerra, and stabbed her on the right forearm with a sharp object, causing a laceration. Bisquerra sought medical treatment at Quezon Memorial Medical Center and then filed the complaint at the police station.

Information and Criminal Charge

The Office of the Prosecutor filed an Information in the Regional Trial Court charging Agacid with violation of Section 5(a) of Republic Act No. 9262, alleging that on August 31, 2014, in Quezon City, the accused willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously committed physical abuse upon Maria Alexandria Bisquerra y Nueva by slapping and stabbing her on the right forearm, causing laceration, contrary to law.

Motion to Quash and Trial Court Orders

Agacid moved to quash the Information and to defer arraignment and pre-trial, arguing that Republic Act No. 9262 does not apply to female perpetrators and that the law was intended to protect women from abusive acts of men only. The Regional Trial Court denied the Motion to Quash by Order dated February 17, 2017 and denied reconsideration by Order dated March 20, 2017. The trial court set the case for arraignment and pre-trial.

Court of Appeals Proceedings

Agacid filed an amended petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals challenging the interlocutory trial court Orders. The Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No. 151014, confined its review to the propriety of the remedy and denied the petition in an August 24, 2018 Decision, finding no grave abuse of discretion and noting the availability of ordinary remedies at trial and on appeal.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

The central legal question presented to the Supreme Court was whether Republic Act No. 9262 applies to lesbian relationships, and thus whether a woman may be charged as the perpetrator under the statute when the victim is a woman. The procedural question of whether certiorari was a proper remedy to challenge the denial of the Motion to Quash was also raised.

Petitioner’s Contentions

Agacid maintained that the statute’s protection was intended only for women abused by men and that the law’s language and legislative history supported a heteronormative reading. She argued that the Court of Appeals erred in relying on alleged obiter dictum in Garcia v. Drilon and that the trial court should have examined legislative intent rather than the statute’s plain text. She pointed to phrases such as “husband and wife” and provisions referring to common children as evidence the law presupposed male perpetrators.

Respondent’s Contentions

The People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, argued that certiorari was not the proper remedy because the accused had the plain, speedy, and adequate remedy of pleading not guilty, proceeding to trial, and appealing any adverse judgment. Substantively, the Office of the Solicitor General contended that the statute’s plain language uses the gender-neutral term “any person” as offender and thus encompasses both male and female perpetrators. The Office also relied on this Court’s pronouncements in Garcia v. Drilon and subsequent jurisprudence.

Applicable Statutory Text

Section 3(a) of Republic Act No. 9262 defines “violence against women and their children” as “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… which result in or is likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse…” The statute thus employs the phrase “any person” when referring to the offender.

Precedents and Their Application

This Court relied principally on Garcia v. Drilon, which interpreted the term “person” in Section 3(a) to encompass lesbian relationships and observed that the statute does not single out the husband or father as the sole culprit. The Court further cited Jacinto v. Fouts, in which the Court applied Garcia and held that Republic Act No. 9262 applies to lesbian relationships while reiterating the procedural rule that the denial of a motion to quash is interlocutory and not properly assailed by certiorari when remedies at trial and on appeal exist.

Legislative History and Intent

The Court examined the Bicameral Conference Committee proceedings on the bills that became Republic Act No. 9262, which contain explicit discussion that the term “any person” was intended to permit coverage of both men and women as offenders and to include lesbian relationships. Congressional delegates recorded in the Bicameral Journal discussed that the statute’s language and the definition of “dating relationship” would cover woman-to-woman relationships and that the offender could be either a man or a woman.

Constitutional and Policy Considerations

The Court emphasized that the statutory interpretation that extends protection to all women is consistent with the Constitution’s guarantees and with the policy goals of the Anti-VAWC Act to protect women from intimate partner violence. The Court observed that distinguishing between abused women in heterosexual and lesbian relationships would create an invalid and unjust classification and would deny protection to a class of women who suffer comparable harms. The Court noted that the dynamics of power and abuse can exist irrespective of the genders of the parties.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court DENIED the Petition for Review and AFFIRMED the Court of Appeals Decision dated August 24, 2018. The Court held that Republic Act No. 9262 applies when the victim is a woman regardless of the gender of the perpetrator, and that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the Motion to Quash. The Court ordered the Regional Trial

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms