GR 193960; (January, 2013) (Digest)
G.R. No. 193960 ; January 7, 2013
KARLO ANGELO DABALOS y SAN DIEGO, Petitioner, vs. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 59, ANGELES CITY (PAMPANGA), REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDING JUDGE MA. ANGELICA T. PARAS-QUIAMBAO; THE OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR, ANGELES CITY (PAMPANGA); AND ABC, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Karlo Angelo Dabalos was charged with violation of Section 5(a) of Republic Act (RA) No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The Information alleged that on July 13, 2009, he willfully used personal violence against the private respondent, his former girlfriend, by pulling her hair and punching her. The RTC found probable cause and issued a warrant for his arrest. Dabalos filed a Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause with Motion to Quash the Information. He argued that RA 9262 was inapplicable because, at the time of the incident, his dating relationship with the private respondent had already ended. The private respondent’s affidavit confirmed the relationship had ceased prior to July 13, 2009, and narrated that the altercation began when she confronted and slapped the petitioner over a debt and rumors, prompting his violent response.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether RA 9262 applies to an act of violence committed after the dating relationship between the offender and the victim has terminated.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative, dismissing the petition and affirming the RTC’s orders. The Court held that for an act to constitute violence against women under RA 9262, it is sufficient that the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship with the victim; it is not indispensable that the act of violence be a consequence of that relationship. Section 3(a) of the law defines the offense broadly, requiring only that the act is committed against a woman with whom the person “has or had” a dating relationship and that it results in physical harm. The law does not distinguish between acts committed during or after the relationship, provided the relationship existed at some point.
The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the act, being a mere consequence of a separate dispute, should only be prosecuted as slight physical injuries under the Revised Penal Code. It emphasized that the legislative intent of RA 9262 is to impose a higher penalty for violence against women with whom the offender has or had a special relationship, to promote the protection of women. Since the existence of a past dating relationship was admitted, the RTC correctly assumed jurisdiction. The Information sufficiently alleged all elements of the crime, and any variance could be addressed by amendment, not by quashing. The rule of lenity does not apply as the law is not ambiguous.