Case Summary (G.R. No. 250627)
Applicable Law and Procedural Rules
Criminal charges were predicated on Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act), specifically Section 5(a) (acts causing physical harm) read in relation to the definitional provision Section 3(a). The Information also invoked Section 5(k) of RA 8369 as charged. Procedural relief sought before the Supreme Court invoked Rule 45 (petition for review on certiorari) and requested interim relief (TRO and/or writ of preliminary injunction).
Factual Background Alleged by the Parties
Respondent alleges that following the parties’ breakup, petitioner pressured respondent to vacate their Antipolo residence, threatened arson and destruction, caused respondent chest pain necessitating hospital treatment, administered Rivotril leading to incapacitation, photographed respondent naked without consent, and physically assaulted her on January 14, 2018, crushing her hand in a car door and causing a left wrist fracture requiring surgery and therapy. Petitioner denies these allegations, contending the complaint was retaliatory and that respondent provoked or fabricated facts to gain leverage in separate civil actions (reconveyance, annulment of title, damages); petitioner asserts the physical contact was accidental during respondent’s interference as petitioner attempted to leave.
Information Filed and Motion to Quash
On June 8, 2018, an Information was filed charging petitioner with violation of Section 5(a) of RA 9262 (causing physical harm to a woman) in relation to the second paragraph of Section 6(a) and with a provision of RA 8369. Petitioner filed a Motion to Quash asserting that the charged facts do not constitute an offense under RA 9262 because, she argued, RA 9262 does not apply to lesbian (same-sex) relationships.
RTC Rulings on the Motion to Quash and Reconsideration
The RTC denied the motion to quash by Order of July 24, 2019, reasoning that Section 3(a) of RA 9262 uses the gender-neutral term “any person” and therefore the statute encompasses lesbian relationships; the RTC relied on the Supreme Court’s prior disposition in Garcia v. Drilon. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied in the RTC’s November 28, 2019 Order, precipitating the petition to the Supreme Court.
Issue Presented to the Supreme Court
The central legal issue was whether the RTC erred in denying the motion to quash on the ground that RA 9262 applies to lesbian relationships. Ancillary procedural contention concerned the appropriateness of seeking interlocutory relief via Rule 45 and the petitioner’s request for injunctive relief to halt trial proceedings.
Petitioner’s Arguments on Merits and Procedure
Substantively, petitioner argued (1) that Garcia v. Drilon’s statement that RA 9262 applies to lesbian relationships was mere obiter dictum because Garcia primarily addressed a husband’s challenge; (2) that the phrase “any person” in Section 3(a) should be read in light of the enumerated terms that, petitioner claimed, denote male perpetrators (husband, former husband, person with whom the woman has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or shares a common child), invoking ejusdem generis; (3) that proposed legislative amendments (to expand coverage to “partners and their children”) suggest the original law did not contemplate same-sex partnerships; and (4) that continuing trial under the Information would cause irreparable injustice because the information is legally defective. Procedurally, petitioner maintained that Rule 45 review was proper because the issue presented was a pure question of law.
Respondent’s Arguments
Respondent countered that the petition under Rule 45 was an improper remedy because the RTC’s denial of a motion to quash is an interlocutory, non-appealable order; the correct remedy is to plead, go to trial, and raise the issue on appeal from final judgment. On the merits, respondent argued that RA 9262’s language is clear and gender-neutral — “any person” — and that Garcia’s discussion on applicability to lesbian relationships was not obiter dictum but directly addressed equal protection/classification issues raised in that case. Respondent opposed any injunctive relief.
Supreme Court’s Procedural Holding: Improper Remedy
The Supreme Court first rejected the petition on procedural grounds. The Court reiterated that an order denying a motion to quash is interlocutory and not appealable (Section 1, Rule 41, Rules of Court). Citing Enrile v. Manalastas, the Court explained that the proper recourse is to plead, proceed to trial, and, if an adverse final judgment results, raise the denial of the motion to quash on appeal. Because the petitioner sought to challenge an interlocutory denial by Rule 45 certiorari, the petition was an improper remedy and subject to dismissal. The Court also noted that, even if treated as a Rule 65 petition, it should be dismissed for disregarding judicial hierarchy.
Supreme Court’s Substantive Ruling: RA 9262 Applies to Lesbian Relationships
Although denying the petition procedurally, the Court addressed the substantive issue and reaffirmed that RA 9262 applies to lesbian relationships. The Court quoted the operative statutory provisions: Section 5(a) (acts of violence against women and their children—causing physical harm to the woman) and Section 3(a) (definition of “violence against women and their children,” which 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...”). Applying Garcia v. Drilon, the Court concluded the gender-neutral word “person” who has or had a sexual or dating relationship with the woman encompasses lesbian relationships; hence the motion to quash lacked merit.
Treatment of Garcia v. Drilon and Obiter Dictum Claim
The Court rejected petitioner’s contention that Garcia’s discussion was obiter dictum. It observed that one of the issues in Garcia concerned the validity of classifications in RA 9262 and alleged discriminatory provisions relative to equal protection; thus, the Court’s statement on applicability to lesbian relationships resolved a question squarely raised in Garcia and was not merely incidental dictum. The Court applied Garcia’s reasoning directly to the facts of the present petition.
Legislative Intent as Confirmatory Evidence
The Court reviewed contemporaneous Bicameral Conference Committee minutes from the enactment of RA 9262, emphasizing statements by legislators recognizing that the definition employing “any person” was intended to cover both men and women and to include women-to-woman relationships where the partners live as husband and wife or are romantically linked over time. The recorded legislative intent reinforced the statutory text and the Court’s interpretation that the Anti-VAWC Act was meant to protect women regardless of the gender of their partner.
Equal Protection, Statutory Purpose, and Policy Rationale
Grounded in the 1987 Constitution’s equal prot
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 250627)
Background / Antecedents
- The petition arises from Criminal Case No. 18-60992 filed in Branch 73, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Antipolo City.
- The Information was filed on June 8, 2018, alleging acts occurring on or about January 14, 2018, in Antipolo City.
- Petitioner Sandra Jane Gagui Jacinto and respondent Maria Eloisa Sarmiento Fouts were in a relationship for 16 years.
- The criminal Information charges petitioner with violation of Section 5(a) in relation to the second paragraph of Section 6(a) of Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act) and Section 5(k) of RA 8369, alleging physical assault causing injuries requiring medical attendance for less than thirty days and incapacitating the victim for the same period.
Facts Alleged by the Complainant (Respondent)
- Respondent alleges petitioner broke up with her on December 24, 2017, during a Christmas celebration in Hong Kong.
- Upon return to the Philippines, petitioner allegedly came to the shared house in Antipolo only to retrieve her belongings and then spent nights with another lover.
- Respondent requested that petitioner stop using her credit cards, asserting that petitioner still owed her PHP 3,000,000.00.
- Petitioner allegedly demanded that respondent vacate the house and forced respondent to sign a deed of absolute sale over the property; respondent refused.
- On January 12, 2018, petitioner allegedly became angry, threatened to break and burn the house, and caused respondent chest pain and difficulty in breathing necessitating hospital treatment.
- On January 13, 2018, petitioner visited the respondent in the hospital and purportedly attempted reconciliation; later, petitioner allegedly forced respondent to take Rivotril, rendering her weak and groggy.
- On January 14, 2018, when respondent regained consciousness, she alleges she was found naked with petitioner on top of her taking photos and videos; respondent begged petitioner to delete these images out of fear for her safety.
- Respondent alleges that when she followed petitioner to her car, petitioner repeatedly crushed her hand with the car door and pushed her so hard she fell, resulting in a fracture of her left wrist, subsequent surgery, and physical therapy.
Facts and Position as Asserted by the Accused (Petitioner)
- Petitioner maintains the criminal complaint was filed to gain leverage in a separate civil action she filed for reconveyance, annulment of title, and damages before the RTC of Antipolo City.
- Petitioner asserts she alone purchased and built the Antipolo house and that respondent remained in the house after their breakup to seduce and provoke her.
- Petitioner contends that after respondent’s hospital discharge, respondent seduced petitioner and requested nude photographs of them; when petitioner asked for deletion of the photographs, respondent allegedly became hysterical and followed petitioner to her car.
- Petitioner alleges respondent grabbed her hands to prevent her entry into the car, causing respondent to fall to the ground as petitioner attempted to leave.
Procedural History in the RTC
- Petitioner filed a Motion to Quash the Information on the ground that RA 9262 does not apply to lesbian relationships; the motion is dated and filed in the trial court record.
- On July 24, 2019, Branch 73, RTC, Antipolo City issued an Order denying the motion to quash, holding that RA 9262 applies to lesbian relationships.
- Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated October 22, 2019; the RTC denied the motion in an Order dated November 28, 2019.
- Petitioner thereafter filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court in the Supreme Court, with a prayer for a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction.
The Issue Presented to the Supreme Court
- Whether the RTC erred in denying the Motion to Quash on the ground that RA 9262 applies to lesbian relationships, i.e., whether the facts charged in the Information constitute an offense under RA 9262 in the context of a same-sex relationship.
Petitioner’s Arguments (as presented to the Court)
- The RTC’s reliance on Garcia v. Drilon is misplaced because Garcia concerned a husband who challenged RA 9262 on constitutional grounds; any statement in Garcia that RA 9262 applies to lesbian relationships was, according to petitioner, mere obiter dictum.
- Interpreting RA 9262 to apply to lesbian relationships would protect one woman in a relationship while denying protection to the other, an untenable result.
- The RTC’s interpretation of the phrase “any person” in Section 3(a) of RA 9262 is erroneous.
- The enumerations following “any person” in Section 3(a) are argued by petitioner to have a single denominator referring to the male sex (husband, former husband, or a person with whom the woman has or had a dating or sexual relationship, or shares a common child), and ejusdem generis therefore purportedly excludes women as perpetrators.
- The pending or recent congressional proposal to amend RA 9262 to expand the language to "partners and their children" is invoked as supporting evidence that same-sex relationships were not intended to be covered originally.
- Petitioner sought injunctive relief (TRO/PI) on the basis that continuation of trial would work injustice, that she would be tried under a defective Information, and that the Supreme Court’s resolution would determine whether trial should proceed.
Respondent’s Arguments (as presented to the Court)
- The petition filed under Rule 45 is an improper remedy because denial of a mo