l\.epublit of tbe llbilippine.

s
~upreme ~ourt
;ffl:anila

THIRD DIVISION

SANDRA JANE GAGUI G.R. No. 250627

JACINTO,
Petitioner, Present:

CAGUIOA, J, Chairperson,
INTING,
- versus - GAERLAN,
DIMAAMPAO,* and
SINGH, JJ.

MARIA ELOISA SARMIENTO Promulgated:

FOUTS,
December 7, 2022
R espon den t.
X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ) ~\.~ ~~~~%-"- - - - - - - - - - - - - - X

RESOLUTION

INTING, J.:

Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 with

prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of
preliminary injunction under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to
reverse and set aside the Orders dated July 24, 2019 2 and November 28,
2019 3 of the Branch 73, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Antipolo City in
Criminal Case No. 18-60992. The questioned Orders denied the Motion
to Quash4 the Information 5 filed by Sandra Jane Gagui Jacinto
(petitioner) for lack of merit on the ground that Republic Act No. (RA)
9262, otherwise known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their
Children Act, applies to lesbian relationships.

• On official leave.
1
Rollo, pp. 3-24.
Id. at 27-29; issued by Acting Presiding Judge Lei Ii Cruz Suarez.
3
Id. at 26; issued by Presiding Judge Gay Marie F. Lubigan-Rafael.
4
Id. at 30-37.
5
Id. at 53-54.
Resolution 2 G.R. No . 250627

The Antecedents

The case stemmed from the following Information 6 dated June 8,

2018 filed against the petitioner for violation of Section 5(a) in relation
to paragraph 2 Section 6(a), of RA 9262 and Section 5(k) of RA 8369: 7

That on or about the 14 th day of January 2018 , in the City of

Anti polo, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above named accused, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously attack, assault and employ personal violence upon the person
of one MARIA ELOISA SARMIENTO FOUTS, her live-in partner by
pushing her forcefully with swaying arms and crushing her hands
repeatedly with the door of the car, thereby causing upon her physical
injuries which required medical attendance for a period of I [sic] less
than thirty (30) days and incapacitated her from performing her
customary labor for the same period of time.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 8

Petitioner and Maria Eloisa Sarmiento Fouts (respondent) were in

a relationship for 16 years. Respondent alleged that petitioner broke up
with her on December 24, 2017 while they were celebrating Christmas
in Hongkong. When they got back to the country, petitioner would come
to their house in Antipolo City just to get her things then leave to spend
the night with her lover. Respondent then asked petitioner to stop using
her credit cards because the latter still owed her P3,000,000.00. 9

Later, petitioner started to demand that respondent leave the house

and forced the latter to sign a deed of absolute sale over the property in
her favor. Respondent refused to leave and sign the document. On
January 12, 2018, because of respondent's continued refusal to leave the
house, petitioner became angry and violent that she threatened to break
everything and bum the house down. Petitioner's threats caused
respondent to suffer chest pain and difficulty in breathing that she was
brought to the hospital to seek medical attention. 10

Petitioner visited respondent in the hospital on the next day and

tried to make amends. When they went home, respondent averred that
petitioner forced her to take Rivotril , a drug that caused her to feel weak
and groggy. On January 14, 2018, when respondent regained
6
Id. at 53-54.
7
Family Courts Act of 1997, approved on October 28 , 1997.
8
Rollo, pp. 30-31.
9
Id. at 192.
lO Id.
Resolution 3 G.R. No. 250627

consciousness, she was already naked with petitioner on top her taking
photos and videos of her. She then begged petitioner to delete the photos
fearing that the latter might kill her or have her killed. 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. 11

For her part, petitioner countered that the complaint against her
was filed to seek leverage for a case for reconveyance, annulment of
title, and damages that she filed against respondent before the RTC of
Antipolo City. She insisted that she alone purchased and built the house
in Antipolo City and that respondent merely stayed therein after their
break-up to seduce and provoke her. 12

Petitioner further narrated that after respondent was discharged

from the hospital, the latter seduced petitioner to have sex with her and
asked her to take pictures of them while they were naked. When
petitioner asked respondent to delete the pictures, the latter became
hysterical and followed petitioner towards her car. Respondent grabbed
petitioner's hands to prevent her from entering the car and she fell to the
ground as petitioner tried to escape. 13

Thus, on June 8, 2018, an Information for violation of Section 5(a)

in relation to 2nd paragraph Section 6(a), of RA 9262 was filed in the
RTC against petitioner. Petitioner moved to quash 14 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. 15

The Ruling of the RTC

On July 24, 2019, the RTC issued the first assailed Order denying
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 16
(Garcia), the RTC explained that the use of the gender-neutral word
"person" who has or had a sexual or dating relationship with the woman
11
Id. at 192-1 93.
12
Id. at 193.
13
Id. at 194.
14
See Motion to Quash, id. at 30-36.
15
Id. at 31.
16
712Phil.44(2013).
Resolution 4 G.R. No. 250627

under Section 3(a) encompasses lesbian relationships. 17

Petitioner sought reconsideration, 18 but the RTC denied it in the

second assailed Order 19 dated November 28, 2019.

Hence, the petition before the Court that seeks to reverse and set
aside the July 24, 2019 and November 28, 2019 Orders of the RTC
insofar as it found that RA 9262 applies to lesbian relationships.

The Issue

The issue submitted before the Court is whether the RTC erred in
denying the motion to quash filed by the petitioner on the ground that
RA 9262 applies to lesbian relationships.

Petitioner asserts that reliance of the RTC in the case of Garcia in

ruling that RA 9262 applies in the case is misplaced. According to her,
the petitioner in Garcia was a husband who assailed the constitutionality
of RA 9262 for being violative of the equal protection and due process
clauses. Thus, the pronouncement of the Court that RA 9262 also applies
to lesbian relationships was a mere obiter dictum in Garcia as it was not
upon the question brought before the Court on petition. 20 Petitioner adds
that to assert that RA 9262 applies to lesbian relationships is to protect
one woman in a relationship and deny the other woman of the same
protection. 2 1

Petitioner further claims that: (1) the RTC's interpretation of the

phrase "any person" in Section 3(a) of the law is patently erroneous; 22
(2) the enumeration after the phrase "any person" has one denominator
in that they refer to the male sex - husband, former husband, or a person
with whom the woman has or had dating or sexual relationship, or shares
common child with; (3) following the principle of ejusdem generis, the
"person" referred to under Section 3(a) cannot be a woman; 23 and (4) the
recent proposal by the Congress to amend RA 9262 to expand the scope
of the law to include "partners and their children" further strengthens the

17
Rollo, p. 28 .
18
See Motion for Reconsideration dated October 22, 2019, id. at 38-51.
19
Id. at 26.
20
ld.atl0-12.
21
Id . at 14.
22 Id.
23
Id . at 15 .
Resolution 5 G.R. No. 250627

position that same sex relationships are not covered under the law. 24

In seeking for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or

writ of preliminary injunction, petitioner argues that the continuation of
the trial in the RTC would probably work injustice to her. She laments
that she will be tried under a defective information and that the
resolution of the petition will eventually determine whether trial in the
RTC should proceed or not. 25

In her Comment, 26 respondent counters that the petition filed

under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is an improper remedy because the
denial of a motion to quash is unappealable. Being an improper remedy,
the petition must be dismissed outright. 27

Further, respondent avers that RA 9262 is clear and free from any
doubt or ambiguity; 28 there is no room for interpretation in the use of the
phrase "any person". It is without regard to gender or sexual orientation
so long as the person has or had a dating relationship with the victim.29
Respondent also argues that the pronouncement of the Court in Garcia is
not a mere obiter dictum because one of the issues submitted in the case
was the validity of the classification between men and women that
would justify the protection given by RA 9262. 30 It was meant to provide
protection to women and children as offended parties and not as
perpetrators. 31

Considering that the pet1t1on is improper and lacks merit,

respondent likewise opposes the issuance of a temporary restraining
order and/or writ of preliminary injunction as prayed for by the
petitioner. Respondent insists that petitioner failed to establish that she is
entitled to the relief demanded, more particularly, that she has a clear and
unmistakable right to be protected. 32

In her Reply, 33 petitioner submits that the petition for review under
Rule 45 is the proper remedy, the issue raised being a question of law. 34
24
Id. at 16.
25
Id. at 19.
26
Id. at 337-353 .
27
Id. at 339.
28
Id. at 341.
29
Id. at 343 .
30
Id. at 344.
31
Id. at 345 .
32
Id. at 348-349.
33
Id. at 365-372.
34
Id. at 366.
Resolution 6 G.R. No . 250627

She reiterates that the issue in Garcia is a mere obiter dictum as the case
therein did not, in any way, involve lesbian relationships; 35 and that RA
9262 does not yet cover homosexual relationships. 36

The Courts Ruling

The Court denies the petition on two grounds: first, for being an
improper remedy; second, for lack of merit.

The denial of a motion to quash

information is an interlocutory
order; hence, not appealable.

Section 1 Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides that an appeal

may be taken from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of
the case, or of a particular matter therein as may be allowed by the
Rules. It is also explicit as to what judgments or final orders are not
appealable, thus:

No appeal may be taken from:

(a) An order denying a motion for new trial or

reconsideration;
(b) An order denying a petition for relief or any similar
motion seeking relief from judgment;
(c) An interlocutory order; xxx

It is a fundamental principle that an order denying

a motion to quash is interlocutory in nature. As such, it is not appealable
nor can it be the subject of a petition for certiorari3 7 in light of the other
available legal remedies. 38 In Enrile v. Manalastas 39 (Enrile), the Court
explained that "[t]he remedy against the denial of a motion to quash is
for the movant accused to enter a plea, go to trial, and should the
decision be adverse, reiterate on appeal from the final judgment and
assign as error the denial of the motion to quash. The denial, being an
interlocutory order, is not appealable, and may not be the subject of a
petition for certiorari because of the availability of other remedies in the

35
Id. at 368.
36
Id. at 370.
37
Querijero v. Palmes-Umitar, 695 Phil. 110 (2012).
38
Tolentino v. People, G.R. No . 235994, March 5, 2018 (Notice).
39
746 Phil. 43 (2014).
Resolution 7 G.R. No. 250627

ordinary course of law." 40

Certainly, the petition was filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of

Court which is not the proper remedy to assail the Orders of the RTC
denying petitioner's motion to quash the information filed against her.
The Orders, being interlocutory in nature, are not appealable pursuant to
Section 1, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court; and, following Enrile, the
proper remedy is for the petitioner to go to trial and appeal from the
adverse judgment against her, should one be rendered by the RTC .

The Court also notes that the petition was directly filed before Us
to assail the RTC Orders. Assuming that the Court take an exception and
treat the petition as one filed under Rule 65, it should nonetheless be
dismissed for blatant disregard of the judicial hierarchy of courts.

RA 9262 applies to lesbian

relationships .

At any rate, the Court deems it proper to discuss the issue raised in
the petition if only to reiterate the earlier pronouncement in Garcia that
RA 9262 applies to lesbian relationships.

The Information filed in the RTC against the petitioner is anchored

on Section 5(a) of RA 9262, viz.:

SECTION 5. Acts of Violence Against Women and Their

Children. - The crime of violence against women and their children is
committed through any of the following acts:

(a) Causing physical harm to the woman or her child; xxx

On the other hand, Section 3(a) thereof defines violence against

women and their children as follows:

SECTION 3. Definition of Terms.- As used in this Act,

(a) "Violence against women and their children" 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
40
Id. at 48.
Resolution 8 G.R. No. 250627

such acts, battery, assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation

of liberty.
XXX

Petitioner's main contention is that the facts charged in the

information filed against her in the RTC do not constitute an offense
because RA 9262 does not apply to lesbian relationships. However, this
issue was already settled in the case of Garcia in this wise:

There is likewise no merit to the contention that R.A.

9262 singles out the husband or father as the culprit. As defined above,
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.41 (Emphases in the original.)

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.

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.

41
Supra note 16, at I 03 - 104.
42
Id. at 77.
Resolution 9 G.R. No. 250627

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

HEN LB. INTING

WE CONCUR:

(On official leave)

s~uETh.QG~ JAPAR B. DIMAAMPAO
Associate Justice Associate Justice

~4'1¥w~
~~m

ATTESTATION
V
I attest that the conclusions in the ab e Resolution had been
reached in consultation before the case wa~signe t the writer of the
opinion of the Court's Division. /;

A&DOAs NS. CAGUIOA

Chairpe
Resolution 10 G.R. No . 250627

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the

Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

AL-4
/~tJ9 f , ~ Justice