Eileen Eika M.

Dela Cruz

POLITICAL LAW

Dabalos vs. Regional Trial Court

Angeles, Pampanga
Facts:
Karlo Dabalos (accused) was charged with violation of Section 5 (a) of RA 9262 before
the RTC of Angeles.
On or about July 13, 2009 in Angeles, Pampanga and within the jurisdiction of the Court
the accused being then the boyfriend of the complainant did then willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously use personal violence on the complainant, by pulling her hair, punching her back,
shoulder and left eye, demeaning and degrading the complainants worth and dignity as a human
being.
After examining the evidences the RTC found a probable cause and issued a warrant of
arrest against Dabalos on November 19, 2009. Dabalos posted a cash bond for his provisional
liberty and filed a Motion for Judicial Determination on August 142, 2010with Motion to quash
the information. Dabalos also asserted that at the time of the alleged accident he was no longer on
dating relationship with the respondent. Therefore RA 9262 was inapplicable.
In the respondents affidavit she admitted that her relationship with Dabalos had ended
before the said incident. She sought payment of the money she had lent to Dabalos but he could
not pay. She then asked Dabalos if he was the one responsible for spreading rumors about her for
which he admitted. And that the respondent slapped Dabalos causing him to inflict physical
injuries alleged in the information.
Issue:
Whether or not the act of the petitioner which caused physical injuries to respondent is
not covered with RA 9262 instead it was an offense committed was only slight physical injuries
under RPC
Ruling:
The court is not persuaded.
Sec. 3(a) of RA 9262 states: Definition of terms- 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 a 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 he 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.
The law is broad in scope but specifies two limiting qualifications for any act or series of facts to
be considered as ac rime of violence against women through physical harm: namely:
1. it is committed against woman or child and the women is the offenders wife or with whom he
has or had 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.
Particularly, 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 that the act of violence
be a consequence of that relationship. Nowhere in the law can such limitations be inferred.
Therefore it is clear that the law does not distinguish the punishable acts which refer to all acts of
violence against women with whom the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship.
Hence, RTC is correct in ruling that it is immaterial whether the relationship had ceased for as
long as there is sufficient evidence showing the past or present existence of the relationship
between the offender and the victim when physical harm is committed.
Accordingly the information sufficiently asserted the necessary elements of the crime such as:
dating relationship between the petitioner and respondent, the act of vuiolence committed by
Abalos and the physical harm to the respondent is clearly falls under RA 9262 and acted within
the jurisdiction of the RTC.