Dabalos v.
RTC
GR NO. 193960, January 7, 2013
Second Division
Perlas Bernabe, J.
FACTS Petitioner, being then the boyfriend of the complainant, use personal violence [on] the
complainant, by pulling her hair, punching complainant's back, shoulder and left eye, thereby demeaning
and degrading the complainant's intrinsic worth and dignity as a human being, in violation of Section
5(a) of the Republic Act 9262. Petitioner averred that at the time of the alleged incident, 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 she 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. The RTC did not consider material the fact
that the parties' dating relationship had ceased prior to the incident, ratiocinating that since the parties
had admitted a prior dating relationship, the infliction of slight physical injuries constituted an act of
violence against women and their children as defined in Sec. 3(a) of RA [Link] insists that the
act which resulted in physical injuries to private respondent is not covered by RA 9262 because its
proximate cause was not their dating relationship. Instead, he claims that the offense committed was
only slight physical injuries under the Revised Penal Code which falls under the jurisdiction of the
Municipal Trial Court.
ISSUES
Whether RA 9262 should be construed in a manner that will favor the accused.
RULING
The elements of the crime of violence against women through harassment: 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.
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. Hence, applying
the rule on statutory construction that when the law does not distinguish, neither should the courts 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. Neither can the Court construe the statute in favor of petitioner using the rule of
lenity because there is no ambiguity in RA 9262 that would necessitate any construction. 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.
Accordingly, the Information having sufficiently alleged the necessary elements of the crime. The offense
is covered by RA 9262 which falls under the jurisdiction of the RTC in accordance with Sec. 7 of the said
law: SEC. 7. Venue The Regional Trial Court designated as a Family Court shall have original and exclusive
jurisdiction over cases of violence against women and their children under this law. Wherefore, the
petition is dismissed.