Case Digest: Dabalos v. RTC, G.R. No. 193960, January 7, 2013

   Section 5(a) of RA 9262 | Criminal Law

Facts:

Karlo Dabalos was charged with violation of Section 5(a) of RA 9262 before the RTC of Angeles City for using personal violence on the complainant ABC , by pulling her hair, punching her back, shoulder and left eye, thereby demeaning and degrading her intrinsic worth and dignity as a human being.

After examining the supporting evidence, the RTC found probable cause and consequently, issued a warrant of arrest against petitioner. Petitioner averred that at the time of the alleged incident on July 13, 2009, he was no longer in a dating relationship with private respondent; hence, RA 9262 was inapplicable.

In her affidavit, private respondent admitted that her relationship with petitioner had ended prior to the subject incident. She narrated that on July 13, 2009, she sought payment of the money she had lent to petitioner but the latter could not pay. She then inquired from petitioner if he was responsible for spreading rumors about her which he admitted. Thereupon, private respondent slapped petitioner causing the latter to inflict on her the physical injuries alleged in the Information.

Issue:

I. WoN the RTC has jurisdiction over the offense because the offense committed by the accused is only slight physical injuries under the Revised Penal Code which falls under the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court.

II. WoN RA 9262 should be construed in a manner that will favor the accused; and

III. WoN the Information alleging a fact contrary to what has been admitted should be quashed.

Held:

Dismissed.

I. On jurisdiction:

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. Hence, applying the rule on statutory construction that when the law does not distinguish, neither should the courts, then, clearly, 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. Consequently, the Court cannot depart from the parallelism in Ang and give credence to petitioner's assertion that the act of violence should be due to the sexual or dating relationship.

II. On Lenity:

There is no ambiguity in RA 9262 that would necessitate any construction. While the degree of physical harm under RA 9262 and Article 266 of the Revised Penal Code are the same, there is sufficient justification for prescribing a higher penalty for the former. Clearly, the legislative intent is to purposely impose a more severe sanction on the offenders whose violent act/s physically harm women with whom they have or had a sexual or dating relationship, and/or their children with the end in view of promoting the protection of women and children.

III. On Information:

The Information having sufficiently alleged the necessary elements of the crime, such as: a dating relationship between the petitioner and the private respondent; the act of violence committed by the petitioner; and the resulting physical harm to private respondent, the offense is covered by RA 9262 which falls under the jurisdiction of the RTC.

Finally, the Court finds the Order of the RTC, giving the prosecutor a period of two (2) days to amend the Information to reflect the cessation of the dating relationship between the petitioner and the offended party. If the motion to quash is based on an alleged defect of the complaint or information which can be cured by amendment, the court shall order that an amendment be made.

In the present case, the accused petitioner has not yet been arraigned, hence, the RTC was correct in directing the amendment of the Information and in denying the motion to quash the same.

Crime Committed by the Appellant:

Sec. 3(a) of RA 9262 reads:

SEC. 3. Definition of Terms.- As used in this Act, (a) "Violence against women and their children" refers to any act or a series of 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 whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the family abode, which result in or is likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse including threats of such acts, battery, assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty. x x x.

The law is broad in scope but specifies two limiting qualifications for any act or series of acts to be considered as a crime of violence against women through physical harm, namely: 

1) it is committed against a woman or her child and the woman is the offender’s wife, former wife, or with whom he has or had sexual or dating relationship or with whom he has a common child; and 

2) it results in or is likely to result in physical harm or suffering.

In Ang v. Court of Appeals, the Court enumerated the elements of the crime of violence against women through harassment, to wit:

1. The offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship with the offended woman;

2. The offender, by himself or through another, commits an act or series of acts of harassment against the woman; and

3. The harassment alarms or causes substantial emotional or psychological distress to her.

Recit Version:

Facts:

Karlo Dabalos was charged with violating Section 5(a) of RA 9262 for using personal violence on his ex-girlfriend, ABC. 

The RTC found probable cause and issued a warrant of arrest. Dabalos argued that RA 9262 was inapplicable because he was no longer in a dating relationship with ABC at the time of the incident. 

ABC admitted in her affidavit that their relationship had ended prior to the incident, and that she had slapped Dabalos first for allegedly spreading rumors about her, which led to Dabalos's physical assault.

Issue:

I. WoN the RTC has jurisdiction over the offense because the offense committed by the accused is only slight physical injuries under the Revised Penal Code which falls under the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court.

II. WoN RA 9262 should be construed in a manner that will favor the accused; and

III. WoN the Information alleging a fact contrary to what has been admitted should be quashed.

Held:

Dismissed.

I. On jurisdiction:

For RA 9262 to be applicable, it is not indispensable that the act of violence be a consequence of such relationship. Clearly, the punishable acts refer to all acts of violence against women with whom the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship. 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. 

II. On Lenity:

There is no ambiguity in RA 9262 that would necessitate any construction. While the degree of physical harm under RA 9262 and Article 266 of the Revised Penal Code are the same, there is sufficient justification for prescribing a higher penalty for the former. The legislative intent is to purposely impose a more severe sanction on the offenders whose violent act/s physically harm women with whom they have or had a sexual or dating relationship, and/or their children with the end in view of promoting the protection of women and children.

III. On Information:

The Information having sufficiently alleged the necessary elements of the crime, such as: a dating relationship between the petitioner and the private respondent; the act of violence committed by the petitioner; and the resulting physical harm to private respondent, the offense is covered by RA 9262 which falls under the jurisdiction of the RTC.

In the present case, the accused petitioner has not yet been arraigned, hence, the RTC was correct in directing the amendment of the Information and in denying the motion to quash the same.