Sandra Jane Jacinto vs Maria Eloisa Fouts

G.R. No. 250627 – Criminal Law – Special Penal Laws – RA 9262 – VAWC applies to women in lesbian relationships

Sandra Jane Jacinto and Maria Eloisa Fouts were lesbian live-in partners for sixteen years or until their break-up in 2017. After their break-up, Jacinto physically assaulted Fouts which resulted in injuries to Fouts that required surgery. Thereafter, Fouts filed a VAWC case against Jacinto. Jacinto then moved for the quashal of the Information filed against her on the ground that Fouts has no cause of action against her because the VAWC law does not apply to lesbian relationship; that the decision in the 2013 case of Garcia vs Drilon, which stated that VAWC applies to lesbian relationships, was a mere obiter dictum.

ISSUE: Whether or not the VAWC law applies to lesbian relationships.

HELD: Yes. RA 9262 applies to lesbian relationships. The Supreme Court reiterated the ruling in Garcia vs Drilon: “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. Moreover, while the law provides that the offender be related or connected to the victim by marriage, former marriage, or a sexual or dating relationship, it does not preclude the application of the principle of conspiracy under the Revised Penal Code (RPC). Thus, in the case of Go-Tan v. Spouses Tan, the parents-in-law of Sharica Mari L. Go-Tan, the victim, were held to be proper respondents in the case filed by the latter upon the allegation that they and their son (Go-Tan’s husband) had community of design and purpose in tormenting her by giving her insufficient financial support; harassing and pressuring her to be ejected from the family home; and in repeatedly abusing her verbally, emotionally, mentally and physically.”

As to the argument that the above-portion of the Garcia case was only an obiter dictum: “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. 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.”

SIDE ISSUE: If VAWC is applicable to lesbian relationships, is it not violative of the equal protection clause because it will only protect one woman in a relationship and deny the other woman of the same protection?

HELD: No. The SC reiterated the statutory definition of violence against women and their children which refers to 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 of liberty.

Read full text.