I broke up with my boyfriend last December 2015. I hate him so much because he chose a married woman over me. I cannot avoid seeing him because we live in the same barangay and their house is just in front of ours. In one occasion where I was talking with my friends in front of our house, my former boyfriend passed in front of us and he smiled at me. I was not able to control my temper at that time and uttered the word “babaero.” My former boyfriend immediately confronted me which resulted in physical altercation. As a result, I suffered bruises on my arms.
I filed a complaint before the Barangay and after the conduct of mediation proceedings, which turned out to be futile, I elevated the complaint before the City Prosecutor’s Office. There, I charged him for Violation of RA No. 9262. Consequently, my former boyfriend confronted me again and said that my case will not go anywhere, because at the time that he inflicted physical injuries on me we did not have any relationship. Thus, he said, my complaint for Violation of RA No. 9262 will not prosper. Is this correct?
Your boyfriend is not correct. In a similar situation, the Supreme Court said in the case of Dabalos vs RTC G.R. No. 193960, January 7, 2013) that:
“Notably, 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 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 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”.(Emphases supplied)
We hope that we were able to answer your concern. Please be reminded that this advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.
Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to email@example.com