SANDRA JANE GAGUI JACINTO vs
MARIA ELOISA SARMIENTO FOUTS
GR 250627
December 7, 2022
Facts:
An information charging Sandra Jacinto (petitioner) with RA 9262 was filed by Maria Fouts (respondent). Maria and Sandra were in a relationship for 16 years. They later broke up on December 2017. Maria would then ask Sandra to stop using her credit cards since the latter still owe her P3M. Respondent would then ask petitioner to leave her house and forced the latter to sign a deed of absolute sale in her favor but Maria refused.
With Maria’s continued refusal, Sandra got angry and violent that she threatened to break everything and bum the house down which caused Maria chest pain and difficulty in breathing that she had to seek medical attention. respondent averred that petitioner forced her to take Rivotril, a drug that caused her to feel weak and groggy.
She woke up one day already naked with petitioner on top of her taking photos and videos of her. Respondent followed petitioner 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.
Petitioner 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. The RTC denied the motion to quash on the ground that Section 3(a) of RA 9262 is clear that any person could be liable for violation of its provisions whether the violator is a man or a woman. Citing the case of of Garcia v. Drilon.
Issue:
whether or not the RTC erred in denying the motion to quash filed by the petitioner on the ground that RA 9262 applies to lesbian relationships.
Ruling:
No. Section 3 defined violence against women and their children as any act committed by any person. Applying the case of Garcia, the motion to quash information filed by the petitioner on the ground that the facts charged therein do not constitute an offense utterly lacks basis.
As defined under RA 9262, 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.
Contrary to petitioner's submission that the foregoing disquisition in Garcia was a mere obiter dictum, the Court notes that one of the issues raised in Garcia is the supposed discriminatory and unjust provisions of RA 9262 which are likewise violative of the equal protection clause.42 The foregoing discussion of the Court as to the applicability of the law to lesbian relationships is clearly a resolution of the particular issue raised in Garcia and not a mere obiter dictum or an opinion of the Court. The statement of the Court that "[t]here is likewise no merit to the contention that RA 9262 singles out the husband or father as the culprit" further amplifies that the issue of whether RA 9262 only applies to male perpetrators was indeed raised in the said case.