GR 250627; (December, 2022) (Digest)
G.R. No. 250627 , December 7, 2022.
SANDRA JANE GAGUI JACINTO, PETITIONER, VS. MARIA ELOISA SARMIENTO FOUTS, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
An Information was filed against petitioner Sandra Jane Gagui Jacinto for violation of Section 5(a) of Republic Act No. (RA) 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act). The Information alleged that petitioner, the live-in partner of respondent Maria Eloisa Sarmiento Fouts, willfully attacked and assaulted respondent, causing physical injuries. Petitioner and respondent had been in a relationship for 16 years. Petitioner moved to quash the Information on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense, arguing that RA 9262 does not apply to lesbian relationships. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied the motion to quash, ruling that RA 9262 applies to lesbian relationships, citing the case of Garcia v. Drilon. The RTC also denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 directly with the Supreme Court, seeking to reverse the RTC Orders and praying for a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction.
ISSUE
Whether the RTC erred in denying the motion to quash on the ground that RA 9262 applies to lesbian relationships.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition. First, the petition was an improper remedy. The denial of a motion to quash is an interlocutory order, which is not appealable under Section 1, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. The proper remedy is for the accused to go to trial and, if an adverse judgment is rendered, to appeal therefrom and assign the denial of the motion to quash as error. Second, the petition lacked merit. The Court reiterated its ruling in Garcia v. Drilon that RA 9262 applies to lesbian relationships. The law uses the gender-neutral word “person” in Section 3(a) (“any person who has or had a sexual or dating relationship with the woman”), which encompasses lesbian relationships. The Court held that its pronouncement in Garcia was not a mere obiter dictum but a resolution of the issue raised therein regarding the law’s applicability. Therefore, the RTC correctly denied the motion to quash.