People v. Dabalos
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
The Antecedents: The petitioner, Karlo Angelo Dabalos y San Diego, was charged with violation of Section 5(a) of Republic Act (RA) No. 9262, the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004. The Information alleged that on July 13, 2009, in Angeles City, the petitioner, who was then the boyfriend of the complainant, wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously used personal violence against her by pulling her hair, punching her back, shoulder, and left eye, thereby demeaning and degrading her intrinsic worth and dignity as a human being. Procedural History: After examining the supporting evidence, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Angeles City, Branch 59, found probable cause and issued a warrant of arrest against the petitioner. The petitioner posted bail and subsequently filed a Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause with Motion to Quash the Information. He argued that RA 9262 was inapplicable because his dating relationship with the private respondent had ended prior to the alleged incident. The RTC denied this motion, reasoning that the cessation of the relationship was immaterial as long as a past dating relationship existed and physical injuries were inflicted. The petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme Court, assailing the RTC's denial orders. The Petition: The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari and prohibition to annul the September 13, 2010, and October 5, 2010, Orders of the RTC. He raises three issues: (1) whether the RTC has jurisdiction over the offense; (2) whether RA 9262 should be construed in favor of the accused; and (3) whether the Information, which allegedly alleges a fact contrary to what was admitted (the cessation of the relationship), should be quashed. The petitioner contends that the act of violence was not a consequence of the dating relationship and thus should be treated as slight physical injuries under the Revised Penal Code, falling under the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the RTC has jurisdiction over the offense and the applicability of RA 9262. Whether RA 9262 should be construed in a manner that will favor the accused. Whether the Information alleging a fact contrary to what has been admitted should be quashed.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Orders dated September 13, 2010 and October 5, 2010 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Angeles City, Branch 59 in Criminal Case No. 09-5210 are affirmed. The Temporary Restraining Order issued by the Court is lifted, and the RTC is directed to continue with the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction and applicability of RA 9262: The Court held that the petition has no merit. Section 3(a) of RA 9262 defines "Violence against women and their children" as any act committed by any person against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship, which results in or is likely to result in physical harm or suffering. The law is broad and specifies two limiting qualifications: (1) the act is committed against a woman with whom the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship, and (2) it results in or is likely to result in physical harm. The Court emphasized that it is not indispensable for the act of violence to be a consequence of the sexual or dating relationship for RA 9262 to be applicable. Applying the rule that when the law does not distinguish, neither should the courts, the punishable acts refer to all acts of violence against women with whom the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship. Therefore, it is immaterial whether the relationship had ceased, as long as there is sufficient evidence showing the past or present existence of such a relationship between the offender and the victim when the physical harm was committed. The RTC correctly ruled that the infliction of slight physical injuries constituted an act of violence against women and their children as defined in RA 9262, and the offense falls under the jurisdiction of the RTC as per Section 7 of the said law. On the construction of RA 9262 in favor of the accused: The Court found no ambiguity in RA 9262 that would necessitate the application of the rule of lenity. While the degree of physical harm might be the same as under the Revised Penal Code, the Court noted that there is sufficient legislative justification for prescribing a higher penalty for RA 9262 offenses. The legislative intent is to impose a more severe sanction on offenders whose violent acts harm women with whom they have or had a sexual or dating relationship, thereby promoting the protection of women and children. Thus, the statute should not be construed in favor of the petitioner in this regard. On the quashing of the Information: The Court found no error in the RTC's Order allowing the prosecutor a period to amend the Information. This action is in accord with Section 4 of Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, which allows the court to order an amendment if a defect in the complaint or information can be cured. Furthermore, Section 14 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court permits amendment of an information, in form or in substance, without leave of court, at any time before the accused enters a plea. Since the accused petitioner had not yet been arraigned, the RTC was correct in directing the amendment of the Information and denying the motion to quash.
Main Doctrine
The existence of a prior or present sexual or dating relationship between the offender and the victim is sufficient for the application of Republic Act No. 9262, even if the act of violence is not a direct consequence of such relationship. The law does not require that the violence be a result of the relationship, only that such a relationship existed when the violence occurred.