Jacinto v. Fouts
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute involves allegations of violence between Sandra Jane Gagui Jacinto (petitioner) and Maria Eloisa Sarmiento Fouts (respondent), who were in a 16-year relationship. The Information filed against the petitioner charged her with violation of Section 5(a) in relation to Section 6(a) of Republic Act No. (RA) 9262, the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act, and Section 5(k) of RA 8369. The allegations include petitioner forcefully pushing respondent, crushing her hands with a car door, and causing physical injuries. Respondent also alleged that petitioner threatened to burn their house down, causing her distress, and forced her to take medication, after which petitioner took photos and videos of her while she was incapacitated. Procedural History: Following the filing of the Information on June 8, 2018, the petitioner filed a Motion to Quash the Information before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 73, Antipolo City. The petitioner argued that RA 9262 does not apply to lesbian relationships, and therefore, the facts charged did not constitute an offense. The RTC denied this motion in an Order dated July 24, 2019, reasoning that the term "any person" in RA 9262 is gender-neutral and encompasses lesbian relationships, citing the case of Garcia v. Drilon. The RTC subsequently denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration in an Order dated November 28, 2019. The Petition: The petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to reverse the RTC's Orders. The core of the petition is the argument that the RTC erred in ruling that RA 9262 applies to lesbian relationships. Petitioner contended that the RTC's reliance on Garcia v. Drilon was misplaced, arguing that the pronouncement regarding lesbian relationships was obiter dictum. She further argued that the phrase "any person" in Section 3(a) of RA 9262, when read in conjunction with the subsequent enumerations, should be interpreted to refer only to men, invoking the principle of ejusdem generis. Petitioner also sought a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction, asserting that proceeding with the trial under a potentially defective information would cause her injustice.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is the proper remedy to assail an order denying a motion to quash. Whether Republic Act No. 9262, the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act, applies to lesbian relationships.
Ruling
The Court denies the petition on two grounds: first, for being an improper remedy; and second, for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the propriety of the remedy: The denial of a motion to quash an information is an interlocutory order, which is not appealable. Section 1, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court explicitly states that no appeal may be taken from an interlocutory order. The proper remedy against the denial of a motion to quash is for the accused to enter a plea, proceed to trial, and should the decision be adverse, assign the denial of the motion to quash as an error on appeal from the final judgment. The petition filed under Rule 45 is therefore not the proper remedy. Even if treated as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, it would still be dismissed for blatant disregard of the judicial hierarchy of courts. On the issue of the applicability of RA 9262 to lesbian relationships: The Court reiterates its pronouncement in Garcia v. Drilon that RA 9262 applies to lesbian relationships. Section 3(a) of RA 9262 defines violence against women and their children as acts committed by "any person" against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship. The use of the gender-neutral word "person" encompasses lesbian relationships, as it is not limited to a male offender. The Court clarified that the disquisition in Garcia regarding the applicability to lesbian relationships was not a mere obiter dictum but a resolution of an issue raised in that case concerning the alleged discriminatory provisions of RA 9262. Therefore, the facts charged in the Information do not fail to constitute an offense, and the RTC did not err in denying the motion to quash on this ground.
Main Doctrine
Republic Act No. 9262, the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act, applies to lesbian relationships, as the term "person" in Section 3(a) is gender-neutral and encompasses individuals in a sexual or dating relationship with the victim, regardless of gender. Furthermore, the denial of a motion to quash an information is an interlocutory order and thus not appealable; the proper remedy is to proceed to trial and assign the denial as an error on appeal from the final judgment.