Case Digest: Sandra Jane Gagui Jacinto Vs. Maria Eloisa Sarmiento Fouts, G.R. No. 250627. December 7, 2022

         RA 9262 | Criminal Law


Facts:

Petitioner Sandra Jane Gagui Jacinto and Respondent Maria Eloisa Sarmiento Fouts were in a relationship for 16 years. Respondent alleged that petitioner broke up with her on December 24, 2017 while they were celebrating Christmas in Hongkong. 

When they got back to the country, Jacinto would come to their house in Antipolo City just to get her things then leave to spend the night with her lover. Fouts then asked Jacinto to stop using her credit cards because the latter still owed her P3,000,000.00.

Later, Jacinto started to demand that Fouts leave the house and forced the latter to sign a deed of absolute sale over the property in her favor. Fouts refused to leave and sign the document.

On January 12, 2018, because of Fouts's continued refusal to leave the house, Jacinto became angry and violent that she threatened to break everything and bum the house down. Jacinto's threats caused Fouts to suffer chest pain and difficulty in breathing that she was brought to the hospital to seek medical attention. Jacinto visited Fouts in the hospital on the next day and tried to make amends. When they went home, Fouts averred that Jacinto forced her to take Rivotril, a drug that caused her to feel weak and groggy. On January 14, 2018, when Fouts regained consciousness, she was already naked with Jacinto on top her taking photos and videos of her. She then begged Jacinto to delete the photos fearing that the latter might kill her or have her killed. Fouts followed Jacinto to her car, but the latter repeatedly crushed her hand with the door of the car and pushed her hard so that she fell to the floor. She suffered fracture on her left wrist and thereafter underwent surgery and physical therapy. 

For her part, Jacinto countered that the complaint against her was filed to seek leverage for a case for reconveyance, annulment of title, and damages that she filed against respondent before the RTC of Antipolo City. She insisted that she alone purchased and built the house in Antipolo City and that Fouts merely stayed therein after their break-up to seduce and provoke her.  Petitioner further narrated that after respondent was discharged from the hospital, the latter seduced petitioner to have sex with her and asked her to take pictures of them while they were naked. When Jacinto asked Fouts to delete the pictures, the latter became hysterical and followed Jacinto towards her car. Fouts grabbed Jacinto's hands to prevent her from entering the car and she fell to the ground as Fouts tried to escape.

Thus, on June 8, 2018, an Information for violation of Section 5(a) in relation to 2nd paragraph Section 6(a), of RA 9262 was filed in the RTC against Jacinto. Jacinto moved to quash the Information on the ground that the facts charged in the information do not constitute an offense because RA 9262 does not apply to lesbian relationships.

RTC: Rejected Motion to Quash.


Issue:

WoN RA 9262 does apply to lesbian relationships.


Held: 


VAWC may likewise be committed ‘against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship.’ Clearly, the use of the gender-neutral word ‘person’ who has or had a sexual or dating relationship with the woman encompasses even lesbian relationships.

Garcia v. Drilon is not a mere obiter dictum, as the discussion on the applicability of the Anti-VAWC Act to lesbian relationships was a resolution of the issue in Garcia of whether or not the Anti-VAWC Act was discriminatory for supposedly singling out husbands or fathers.

The SC also noted that Jacinto’s recourse to the High Tribunal was improper because the denial of a motion to quash a charge is an “interlocutory order” – meaning, it is not appealable, nor can be a subject for a petition for certiorari. The SC added that the proper remedy for Jacinto is to go to trial and appeal the “adverse judgment” against her, “should one be rendered by the RTC.”

Even if the court takes an exception and consider Jacinto’s petition as one filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the case would still be dismissed for disregarding the judicial hierarchy of courts, the SC said.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Equality and Human Rights: The United Nations and Human Rights System (September 16, 2023)

Commercial Laws 1: R.A. No. 11057 — Personal Property Security Act

Land Title and Deeds: Chapter 1 — What Lands are Capable of Being Registered