Roselyn Agacid and Maria Alexandria Bisquera were in a lesbian relationship until they rheir break-up in 2014. After their break-up, they met for purposes of Maria returning to Roselyn the things the latter gave to her during their relationship. However, during their meetup, Roselyn slapped and stabbed Maria. Thereafter, Maria filed a VAWC case against Roselyn. Roselyn then filed a motion to quash the information filed against her on the ground that Maria has no cause of action because VAWC is only applicable in men and women relationships. Roselyn further argued that the decision in Garcia vs Drilon which stated that VAWC is applicable in lesbian relationships was merely an obiter dictum.
ISSUE: Whether or not RA 9262 is applicable in lesbian relationships.
HELD: Yes. Section 3(a) of RA 9262 defines “Violence against women and their children” as 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 or liberty.
From the plain text of the law, it is clear that the offense may be committed “by any person” against a woman or her child. The law uses a gender-neutral term when referring to offenders. Thus, further interpretation and determination of legislative intent are not necessary because there is no ambiguity in the law.
Regarding the argument that the Garcia decision discussing VAWC as applicable in lesbian relationships was merely an obiter, the SC echoed its ruling in Jacinto vs Fouts:
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 [Republic Act No.] 9262 which are likewise violative of the equal protection clause. 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 [Republic Act No.] 9262 singles out the husband or father as the culprit” further amplifies that the issue of whether [Republic Act No.] 9262 only applies to male perpetrators was indeed raised in the said case.
