Dabalos Vs RTC

[‘’/]]\
CASE NAME: Karlo Angelo Dabalos y San Diego vs. RTC, Angeles City (Pampanga)
CASE NUMBER: G.R. No. 193960, January 7, 2013
Ponente: Justice Perlas-Bernabe
Relevant Terms, Laws, Legal Maxims, and Acronyms:
 Ubi lex non distinguit, nec nos distinguere debemus

“Where the law does not distinguish, neither should we distinguish.”
Doctrine: When the law does not distinguish, neither should the courts.
The limitations of the law should be only set by itself.
 RA 9262 – Anti - Violence Against Women and Their Children

Section 3
(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 such acts, battery, assault, coercion, harassment, or arbitrary deprivation of liberty.
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;
 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. While the degree of physical harm under RA 9262 and Article 266 of the
Revised Penal Code are the same, there is sufficient justification for prescribing a higher penalty for the former.
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.
 Probable Cause - sufficient reason based upon known facts to believe a crime has been committed or that certain property is
connected with a crime.
Facts:
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition assailing orders dated:
September 13, 2010 and October 05, 2010 of RTC of Angeles City in Criminal Case No. 09 – 5210
which “denied petitioner’s motion for Judicial Determination (presentation of evidences or arguments) of Probable
Cause with Motion to Quash the information.”
Petitioner was charged with violation of Section 5 (a) of RA 9262 before RTC,
Information stated:
July 13, 2009 – accused petitioner did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously use personal violence on the
complainant by:
1) Pulling her hair.
2) Punching her back, shoulder and left eye
And as said the acts demeaned and degraded complainant’s intrinsic worth and dignity as a person in violation of Section 5
(a) of RA 9262.
RTC found probable cause and issued warrant of arrest.
November 19, 2009 – accused petitioner posted a cash bond for his provisional liberty.
Digested by: Atty. Arly Micayabas

[not yet a lawyer, just manifesting and claiming *fingers crossed*]
S.Y. 2022 – 2023
August 12, 2010 – Dabalos filed a motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause with Motion to Quash the
information and claimed that his relationship with her had ended; therefore, RA9262 was inapplicable.
Respondent (present case) admitted that their relationship had ended prior to the subject incident.
She narrated that on July 3, 2009, she sought payment of the money she had lent to petitioner but the latter could not pay.
She inquired if petitioner was responsible for spreading rumors about her which he admitted. She slapped him causing the
latter to inflict on her the physical injuries.
RTC Ruling
Denied petitioner’s motion and did not consider the material fact that the parties’ 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 9262.
Court’s Ruling
Petition has no merit.
Petitioner insisted that the act resulted in physical injuries is not covered by RA 9262 because its proximate cause was not
their dating relationship.
Issue:
 WON R.A. 9262 should be construed in a manner that will favor the accused and be not liable under the said law given that
the said violence occurred not of the relationship between the petitioner and respondent.
Ruling Ratio Decidendi

Court DISMISSED the  Law (RA 9262 Sec. 3 [a]) provided two (2) limiting qualifications for
petition and the Orders of the any act or series of acts to be considered as a crime of violence against
women through physical harm, namely:
RTC (September 13, 2010 and
1) it is committed against a woman or her child and the woman is
October 05, 2010) were the offender’s wife, former wife, or with whom he has or had
AFFIRMED. sexual or dating relationship or with whom he has a common
child;
2) It results in or is likely to result in physical harm or suffering.
 Court enumerated the elements of the crime of violence against

women through harassment: (Ang v. Court of Appeals)
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.
 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 (necessary) 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, then, clearly, the punishable
acts refer to all acts of violence against women with whom the
offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship.
As correctly ruled by the RTC, 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
S.Y. 2022 – 2023
the offender and the victim when the physical harm was committed.
Consequently, the Court cannot depart from the parallelism in Ang
and give credence to petitioner’s assertion that the act of violence
should be due to the sexual or dating relationship.
Link to the Case (in Full Text):

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Jb--ZIW9VSuf8g5z5OKCLD5pE7Ceq5nQ/view

S.Y. 2022 – 2023

Dabalos Vs RTC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dabalos Vs RTC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dabalos Vs RTC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

[‘’/]]\

 Ubi lex non distinguit, nec nos distinguere debemus

 RA 9262 – Anti - Violence Against Women and Their Children

RTC found probable cause and issued warrant of arrest.

Digested by: Atty. Arly Micayabas

Ruling Ratio Decidendi

2) It results in or is likely to result in physical harm or suffering.

 Court enumerated the elements of the crime of violence against

 While it is required that the offender has or had a sexual or dating

Nowhere in the law can such limitation be inferred. Hence, applying

As correctly ruled by the RTC, it is immaterial whether the

Link to the Case (in Full Text):

Digested by: Atty. Arly Micayabas

You might also like