Case Summary (G.R. No. 188400)
Key Dates and Procedural History
Incident and complaint: August 31, 2014 (complainant sought medical treatment and filed Complaint‑Affidavit). RTC orders denying motion to quash and setting arraignment/pre‑trial: February 17 and March 20, 2017. Court of Appeals decision denying certiorari petition: August 24, 2018. Supreme Court decision affirming the CA and RTC actions: April 16, 2024. Petitioner sought relief by successive petitions: motion to quash and to defer arraignment/pre‑trial at the RTC; reconsideration; amended certiorari petition to the Court of Appeals; petition for review to the Supreme Court.
Facts
The complainant and petitioner had a four‑year intimate relationship that ended in March 2014. On August 31, 2014, they met at a Starbucks in Ali Mall, Cubao, Quezon City, for the return of items. The complainant insisted on maintaining the breakup. The petitioner allegedly reacted by slapping the complainant and stabbing her right forearm with a sharp object, producing a laceration. The complainant sought medical treatment at Quezon Memorial Medical Center and then filed a Complaint‑Affidavit at the Cubao Police Station.
Information and Criminal Charge
The Information charged petitioner with violation of Section 5(a) of RA 9262 for willfully, unlawfully and feloniously committing physical abuse upon Maria Alexandria Bisquerra y Nueva (described as her former lover and live‑in partner) by slapping and stabbing, causing laceration to the right forearm. The Information alleged the acts constituted physical abuse under RA 9262, contrary to law.
Motion to Quash: Grounds and Trial Court Ruling
Petitioner moved to quash the Information and to defer arraignment/pre‑trial on the ground that RA 9262 does not apply when the alleged perpetrator is a woman; she argued the statute was intended to protect women and children from abusive acts of men. The RTC denied the motion to quash (Feb 17, 2017) and denied reconsideration (Mar 20, 2017), relying in part on prior Supreme Court pronouncements (Garcia v. Drilon) holding that the statute’s use of the word “person” encompasses offenders regardless of gender.
Court of Appeals Proceedings and Ruling
Petitioner sought certiorari relief before the Court of Appeals. The CA confined its review to the propriety of the remedy and denied the petition, holding that certiorari under Rule 65 was not the proper avenue to challenge interlocutory rulings of the trial court where an adequate remedy exists (i.e., enter a plea, proceed to trial, and raise the denial of the motion to quash on appeal from final judgment). The CA also found no showing of grave abuse of discretion by the RTC in resolving the motion to quash.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
Primary legal issues: (1) whether RA 9262 covers lesbian (woman‑to‑woman) intimate relationships such that a woman may be prosecuted for violence against a woman under the statute; and (2) whether the petitioner properly invoked certiorari to assail interlocutory RTC orders or demonstrated grave abuse of discretion.
Statutory Text and Plain‑Meaning Analysis
The Court emphasized RA 9262 Section 3(a) definition: violence against women and their children refers to 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…” The Court stressed the unqualified phrase “any person” as gender‑neutral and dispositive. Where statutory language is clear, the Court applied the statute as written and found no need for further interpretation to effect legislative intent.
Precedent and Binding Authority
The Court relied on its prior decision in Garcia v. Drilon, which observed that the use of the gender‑neutral term “person” in Section 3(a) “encompasses even lesbian relationships.” The Court also invoked the subsequent Jacinto v. Fouts decision, which applied Garcia in affirming that RA 9262 may be used to prosecute women alleged to have abused their female intimate partners. The Court treated these decisions as controlling authority that the statute is not limited to male perpetrators.
Legislative Intent and Bicameral Conference Records
The Court considered the bicameral conference committee transcript of congressional deliberations, which contains statements by legislators clarifying that the intended coverage of RA 9262 includes relationships other than heterosexual ones and that “any person” could be male or female. The recorded exchanges show legislators expressly discussed and agreed that the statute should cover woman‑to‑woman abusive relationships. The Court found these records confirm the plain meaning of the statute and rendered any contrary interpretive construction unnecessary.
Policy Considerations and Constitutional Equal Protection
The Court framed the statute’s purpose as protecting women from intimate partner violence and noted that such violence is properly understood as a power dynamic rather than solely a male‑perpetrator phenomenon. Excluding women in same‑sex relationships from protection would create an unjustified and discriminatory classification, denying equal protection to an identifiable class of victims. The Court observed that victims in same‑sex relationships suffer equivalent harms and vulnerabilities (including ad
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 188400)
Case Caption, Decision and Panel
- En Banc decision of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, G.R. No. 242133, dated April 16, 2024.
- Decision authored by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen (ponencia).
- Concurrence by Chief Justice Gesmundo and Justices Caguioa, Hernando, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, Zalameda, M. Lopez, Gaerlan, Rosario, J. Lopez, Dimaampao, Marquez, and Kho, Jr.
- Separate concurring opinion by Justice Singh.
- Procedural posture: Petition for Review challenging Court of Appeals decision which affirmed Regional Trial Court orders denying a Motion to Quash and denying reconsideration; Supreme Court DENIED the Petition for Review and AFFIRMED the Court of Appeals and RTC orders, ordering trial to proceed with utmost dispatch.
Factual Background
- On August 31, 2014, Maria Alexandria Bisquerra (also referred to in parts of the record as "Maria Alexandra Bisquerra y Nueva" or "Maria Alexandria Bisquera") went to Cubao Police Station to file a Complaint-Affidavit against her ex-partner Roselyn Agacid (also cited in parts of the rollo as "Roselyn Agacid y Dejano").
- Bisquerra alleged she and Agacid had a four-year relationship until their breakup in March 2014; they met on August 31, 2014 at Starbucks, Ali Mall, Cubao, Quezon City around 4:00 p.m. so Bisquerra could return items given during the relationship.
- Bisquerra alleged that when she insisted on the breakup, Agacid became angry, slapped her, and stabbed her on the right forearm with a sharp object (a cutter), causing a wound; Bisquerra fled, sought help from mall guards, went to Quezon Memorial Medical Center for treatment, then filed the complaint at the police station.
- Agacid allegedly escaped after the incident; Bisquerra later initiated criminal proceedings.
Criminal Information and Charge
- Criminal Information filed before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City charged Agacid with violation of Section 5(a) of Republic Act No. 9262.
- The Information alleged that on or about August 31, 2014 in Quezon City, the accused willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously committed physical abuse upon Maria Alexandria Bisquerra y Nueva, her former lover and live-in partner, by slapping and stabbing her on the forearm with a cutter causing a laceration, "CONTRARY TO LAW."
Motion to Quash, Relief Sought and Grounds
- Agacid filed a Motion to Quash with Motion to Defer Arraignment and Pre-trial before the RTC.
- Principal contention: the allegations in the Information did not constitute an offense under RA 9262 because, according to petitioner, "a woman cannot be charged with violation of Republic Act No. 9262"—the law was, in her view, "intended to protect women and their children from the abusive acts of men [and] not women."
- Petitioner relied on purported interpretations of legislative intent and on pronouncements in Garcia v. Drilon to argue that RA 9262 was meant to address male perpetrators against women and not same-sex relationships.
Regional Trial Court Proceedings and Orders
- RTC Branch 229 (Presiding Judge Cleto R. Villacorta III) issued an Order dated February 17, 2017 denying the Motion to Quash and set the dates for arraignment and pre-trial.
- Petitioner moved for reconsideration, again arguing RA 9262 covers only dating relationships between men and women; RTC denied reconsideration in its March 20, 2017 Order.
- RTC reasoning (as quoted in the ponencia): RA 9262's purpose is to "protect and rescue women and their children from distinct and unique forms of violence" which arise from domestic, private, hidden, and intimate relationships; exclusion of lesbians from RA 9262 would create an "artificially and arbitrarily privileged section of domestic violence exempt from scrutiny" and the same imbalanced power relations and abusive tactics can infect lesbian relationships.
Court of Appeals Proceedings and Ruling
- Petitioner filed a certiorari petition (Amended Petition for Certiorari) before the Court of Appeals assailing the RTC interlocutory orders.
- The Court of Appeals (Special Seventeenth Division) denied the petition in an August 24, 2018 Decision (CA-G.R. SP No. 151014), affirming the RTC Orders dated February 17, 2017 and March 20, 2017.
- The Court of Appeals emphasized the impropriety of a certiorari petition to attack interlocutory denials of motions to quash where plain, speedy, and adequate remedies exist — specifically: entering a plea at arraignment, going to trial, and, if convicted, assailing the denial on appeal from final judgment.
- The Court of Appeals confined itself primarily to the procedural question and found petitioner failed to show grave abuse of discretion by the RTC.
Issue Before the Supreme Court
- Whether Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004) covers lesbian relationships such that a woman may be charged under RA 9262 for violence committed against another woman.
- Ancillary procedural issue: whether a petition for certiorari was the proper remedy to assail the RTC's interlocutory orders denying the Motion to Quash.
Parties’ Main Contentions on the Merits
- Petitioner (Agacid):
- Argued certiorari to the Court of Appeals was proper to assail interlocutory RTC orders.
- Asserted RA 9262 was intended to protect women from abusive acts of men and not from women; statutory language and legislative history allegedly support a male perpetrator focus.
- Claimed the RTC and CA improperly relied on an alleged obiter dictum in Garcia v. Drilon which, petitioner argued, did not involve lesbian relationships; petitioner contended Garcia explained "why the law limited its protection to women [and their children] against their male partners."
- Relied on legislative deliberations, the use of phrases like "husband and wife," and references to common children to support an argument that the law covers heterosexual relationships only.
- Respondent (People of the Philippines, Office of the Solicitor General):
- Argued certiorari was not the proper remedy because appeal from final judgment remains available; CA properly limited itself to procedural propriety.
- Maintained the RTC did not err in relying on Garcia; RA 9262's plain text uses the gender-neutral term "any person" as offender when definin