Dabalos vs. Regional Trial Court, Branch 59, Angeles City

A violent act resulting in physical harm against a woman falls under RA 9262 if the offender and the victim have or had a dating or sexual relationship, even if the relationship has ended and the violence is unrelated to the relationship itself; the law does not require that the act of violence be a consequence of such relationship, and no ambiguity exists to warrant application of the rule of lenity.

Petitioner Karlo Angelo Dabalos y San Diego and private respondent ABC had a dating relationship. After the relationship ended, private respondent sought petitioner on July 13, 2009 to collect a loan. When petitioner could not pay, private respondent confronted him about spreading rumors; after she slapped him, petitioner pulled her hair and punched her back, shoulder, and left eye. An Information charging petitioner with violation of Section 5(a) of RA 9262 was subsequently filed in the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City, Branch 59.

• The Incident: On July 13, 2009, private respondent ABC sought payment of a sum she had lent to petitioner Karlo Angelo Dabalos y San Diego, her former boyfriend. Petitioner could not pay. Private respondent then asked petitioner if he had been spreading rumors about her; when he admitted it, she slapped him. Petitioner retaliated by pulling her hair and punching her back, shoulder, and left eye, inflicting physical injuries.

• The Criminal Charge: An Information was filed in the RTC of Angeles City, Branch 59, charging petitioner with violation of Section 5(a) of Republic Act No. 9262. The accusatory portion alleged that petitioner, “being then the boyfriend of the complainant,” wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously used personal violence upon her, thereby demeaning and degrading her intrinsic worth and dignity.

• Petitioner’s Motion: After the RTC found probable cause and issued a warrant of arrest, petitioner posted bail. Before arraignment, he moved for a judicial determination of probable cause and to quash the Information. He argued that the dating relationship had ended prior to the incident and that RA 9262 was therefore inapplicable; the offense, if any, was only slight physical injuries under the Revised Penal Code, cognizable by the Municipal Trial Court. Private respondent’s own affidavit confirmed the prior termination of the relationship.

• RTC Resolution: The RTC denied the motion. It held that the parties’ admission of a prior dating relationship was sufficient to bring the infliction of slight physical injuries within the definition of violence against women under Section 3(a) of RA 9262, regardless of whether the relationship had ceased or motivated the violence. The RTC also ordered the prosecutor to amend the Information within two days to reflect the cessation of the relationship, consistent with the admitted facts.

• Inapplicability of RA 9262: Petitioner argued that the physical harm inflicted was not covered by RA 9262 because it was not a consequence of the dating relationship, but stemmed from a separate altercation over a debt and rumors; thus, the offense was only slight physical injuries under the Revised Penal Code.

• Lack of Jurisdiction of the RTC: Petitioner maintained that since the crime committed was slight physical injuries, jurisdiction lay with the Municipal Trial Court, not the Regional Trial Court acting as a Family Court.

• Rule of Lenity: Petitioner invoked the rule that ambiguous penal statutes must be construed strictly in favor of the accused, asserting that any doubt about the coverage of RA 9262 should result in a narrower reading that excludes his act.

• Sufficiency of Past Relationship: Respondents, through the RTC’s ruling and the prosecution, countered that the plain text of Section 3(a) of RA 9262 requires only that the offender “has or had a sexual or dating relationship” with the offended woman; the law does not demand that the violence be motivated by that relationship, nor that the relationship be subsisting at the time of the act.

• Jurisdiction Properly Lodged in the RTC: Respondents contended that the Information sufficiently alleged all elements of the offense under RA 9262, thereby placing the case within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court as designated Family Court under Section 7 of the law.

• Jurisdiction Over the Offense: Whether the RTC has jurisdiction over the offense charged, or whether the act constituted only slight physical injuries under the Revised Penal Code, cognizable by the Municipal Trial Court.

• Statutory Construction / Rule of Lenity: Whether RA 9262 should be construed strictly in favor of the accused such that the violence must be a consequence of the dating relationship for the law to apply.

• Validity of the Information / Motion to Quash: Whether the Information, which alleged a subsisting boyfriend-girlfriend relationship that was in fact already terminated, should be quashed.

• Jurisdiction Over the Offense: The RTC properly exercised jurisdiction. Section 3(a) of RA 9262 defines “violence against women and their children” as any act or series of acts against a woman who is the offender’s wife, former wife, or with whom the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship, that results in or is likely to result in physical harm. The law does not require that the act of violence be a consequence of the relationship. The elements of the offense, as paralleled from Ang v. Court of Appeals, are met when the offender has or had a qualifying relationship with the victim, commits an act of violence, and causes physical harm. The Information adequately alleged these elements, thus the case falls under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC as a Family Court pursuant to Section 7 of RA 9262.

• Statutory Construction / Rule of Lenity: No resort to the rule of lenity was warranted because there is no ambiguity in RA 9262. The statute plainly covers any physical harm inflicted on a woman with whom the offender has or had a dating or sexual relationship, regardless of the motive or whether the relationship had ceased. The higher penalty under RA 9262, as compared to slight physical injuries under the Revised Penal Code, reflects the legislative policy of affording stronger protection to women and children from violence perpetrated by intimate partners or former partners.

• Validity of the Information / Motion to Quash: The Information was not fatally defective. Under Section 4, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, if a motion to quash is based on a defect curable by amendment, the court shall order the amendment. Additionally, Section 14, Rule 110 allows amendment in form or substance, without leave of court, before the accused enters a plea. Since petitioner had not yet been arraigned, the RTC correctly directed the prosecutor to amend the Information to conform to the evidence showing the relationship had ended before the incident, and properly denied the motion to quash.

• Elements of physical violence under RA 9262, Section 5(a) in relation to Section 3(a) — The crime requires: (1) the offender has or had a dating or sexual relationship with the offended woman; (2) the offender commits an act or series of acts that result in or are likely to result in physical harm or suffering; and (3) the offended party sustains physical harm or faces a likelihood of such harm. The existence of a past or present qualifying relationship is sufficient; it is immaterial whether the relationship had ceased prior to the act or whether the violence was motivated by the relationship.

• Rule of lenity and ambiguity — The rule that penal statutes should be strictly construed in favor of the accused applies only when the law is ambiguous. Where the statutory text is clear and unambiguous, courts must apply it according to its terms. RA 9262 is clear in covering any act of physical violence against a woman with whom the offender has or had a dating or sexual relationship, regardless of the proximate cause of the violence.

• Amendment of information before plea — An information may be amended, in form or in substance, without leave of court, at any time before the accused enters a plea. A defect that can be cured by amendment is not a ground to quash; instead, the court shall order the amendment.

• “The Court will not read into Republic Act (RA) No. 9262 a provision that would render it toothless in the pursuit of the declared policy of the State to protect women and children from violence and threats to their personal safety and security.”

• “Notably, while it is required that the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship with the offended woman, for RA 9262 to be applicable, it is not indispensable that the act of violence be a consequence of such relationship. Nowhere in the law can such limitation be inferred.”

• “[C]learly, the punishable acts refer to all acts of violence against women with whom the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship. As correctly ruled by the RTC, it is immaterial whether the relationship had ceased for as long as there is sufficient evidence showing the past or present existence of such relationship between the offender and the victim when the physical harm was committed.”

• Ang v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 182835, April 20, 2010, 618 SCRA 592 — The Court relied on this case for the elements of violence against women under RA 9262 and applied its reasoning that the law requires only the existence of a past or present dating or sexual relationship, not that the harassment or violence be a direct consequence of that relationship. The ruling was followed.

• Republic Act No. 9262, Section 3(a) — Defines “violence against women and their children” to include any act resulting in physical harm against a woman with whom the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship. This provision was the basis for holding that the cessation of the relationship did not remove the act from the statute’s coverage.

• Republic Act No. 9262, Section 7 — Vests original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases of violence against women and children in the Regional Trial Court designated as a Family Court. The Court applied this provision to uphold the RTC’s jurisdiction.

• Rules of Court, Rule 117, Section 4 — Allows amendment of a defective information when the defect is curable; the court applied this in affirming the RTC’s order to amend.

• Rules of Court, Rule 110, Section 14 — Permits amendment of the information before plea without leave of court; relied upon to justify the amendment directive.

Acting Chief Justice Antonio T. Carpio (Chairperson), Justice Arturo D. Brion, Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo, and Justice Jose Portugal Perez concurred.