“The use of the gender-neutral word “person” supports this.”
The law against Violence Against Women and Children (VAWC) may 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.” (Jacinto v. Sarmiento Fouts, G.R. No. 250627, December 7, 2022 citing Garcia v. Drilon)
In the case of Jacinto v. Sarmiento Fouts, Sandra Jane Jacinto (Jacinto) was charged with violation of paragraph 2, Section 6(a), of RA 9262 and Section 5(k) of RA 8369 for “attack[ing], assault[ing] and employ[ing] personal violence upon… 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…”
“[Jacinto and Fouts] were in a relationship for 16 years. Fouts alleged that Jacinto broke up with her on December 24, 2017 while they were celebrating Christmas in Hongkong. When they got back to the country, [Jacinto] would come to their house in Antipolo City just to get her things then leave to spend the night with her lover.”
“[Fouts] then asked [Jacinto] to stop using her credit cards because the latter still owed her P3,000,000.00. Later, [Jacinto] started to demand that [Fouts] leave the house and forced the latter to sign a deed of absolute sale over the property in her favor.”
“[Fouts] refused to leave and sign the document. On January 12, 2018, because of [Fouts’] continued refusal to leave the house, [Jacinto] became angry and violent [and] she threatened to break everything and burn the house down. [Jacinto’s] threats caused [Fouts] to suffer chest pain and difficulty in breathing [and] she was brought to the hospital to seek medical attention.”
“[Jacinto] visited [Fouts] in the hospital on the next day and tried to make amends. When they went home, [Fouts] averred that [Jacinto] forced her to take Rivotril, a drug that caused her to feel weak and groggy… [and] when Fouts regained consciousness, she was already naked with [Jacinto] on top [of ] her taking photos and videos of her.”
“[Fouts] followed [Jacinto] 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 [a] fracture on her left wrist and thereafter underwent surgery and physical therapy.”
On the other hand, “[Jacinto] 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 [Fouts] before the RTC of Antipolo City. She insisted that she alone purchased and built the house in Antipolo City and that [Fouts] merely stayed therein after their break-up to seduce and provoke her.”
This was when the Criminal “[I]nformation for violation of Section 5(a) in relation to 2nd paragraph Section 6(a), of RA 9262 was filed in the RTC against Jacinto. [Jacinto] moved to quash 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.”
“Applying the case of Garcia, the motion to quash information filed by [Jacinto] on the ground that the facts charged therein do not constitute an offense utterly lacks basis.” The Supreme Court’s “discussion… [of] 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” (G.R. No. 250627).
In the concurring opinion of Justice Maria Filomena Singh, she said that “[a] contrary interpretation of the Anti-VAWC Act would discriminate against a certain class of women simply because they do not conform to society’s traditional conception of what relationships should be – one between a heterosexual man and a heterosexual woman” (G.R. No. 250627).
“Similarly, a contrary interpretation will disregard the purpose for which the Anti-VAWC Law was enacted – to protect women from one of the most common and most horrific forms of violence and discrimination. This protection is not conditioned on an abused woman’s gender, gender expression, or sexual orientation.”
“Conscious of the importance of legislative intent in interpreting laws, and aware of the possibility that a case may be one day filed in court claiming that the Anti-VAWC Act applies only to women in heterosexual relationships, the Bicameral Committee [of Congress] made it a point to record the legislative intent that the Anti-VAWC Act covers lesbian relationships.”
“By interpreting the Anti-VAWC Act to cover all women subject to intimate partner violence regardless of the gender, gender expression or sexual orientation of the victim and the abuser, the [Supreme] Court recognizes that even women who do not conform to what is generally defined as ‘normal’ or traditional relationship structures are protected by the law” (G.R. No. 250627).
