[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
81 views2 pages

CASE DIGEST Karlo Dabalos Vs RTC BR 59

1) The petitioner was charged with violation of the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act (RA 9262) for physically harming his former dating partner. 2) The RTC found probable cause and issued an arrest warrant for the petitioner. The petitioner argued the court did not have jurisdiction and that the injuries were minor. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC had jurisdiction over the offense as defined in RA 9262. It also held that the legislative intent of RA 9262 was to impose severe sanctions for violent acts against current or former dating partners. 4) The court denied the motion to quash but ordered the prosecutor to amend the information to reflect that the dating relationship had ended, in

Uploaded by

Francis Therese Rosales
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
81 views2 pages

CASE DIGEST Karlo Dabalos Vs RTC BR 59

1) The petitioner was charged with violation of the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act (RA 9262) for physically harming his former dating partner. 2) The RTC found probable cause and issued an arrest warrant for the petitioner. The petitioner argued the court did not have jurisdiction and that the injuries were minor. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC had jurisdiction over the offense as defined in RA 9262. It also held that the legislative intent of RA 9262 was to impose severe sanctions for violent acts against current or former dating partners. 4) The court denied the motion to quash but ordered the prosecutor to amend the information to reflect that the dating relationship had ended, in

Uploaded by

Francis Therese Rosales
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

CASE DIGEST

SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 193960. January 7, 2013.]
KARLO ANGELO DABALOS y SAN DIEGO, petitioner, vs. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
BRANCH 59, ANGELES CITY (PAMPANGA), REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDING
JUDGE MA. ANGELICA T. PARAS-QUIAMBAO; THE OFFICE OF THE CITY
PROSECUTOR, ANGELES CITY (PAMPANGA); AND ABC, 1 respondent.

FACTS:
The petitioner was charged with violation RA 9262 section 5 (a) before the RTC Angeles City,
br 19 and RTC found probable cause and consequently, issued a warrant of arrest against the
petitioner. The latter posted a cash bond for the provisional liberty and filed a motion for judicial
determination of probable cause with motion to quash the information filed by the private
respondent, where in he argues that at the time of alleged incident they were no longer in a
dating relationship with private respondent thus, RA 9626 was inapplicable. He also argue that
the physical injuries is not covered in RA 9262 because he claims it is only a slight injuries and
should fall to the jurisdiction of Municipal trial court and not Regional Trial Court.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over the offense;
Whether or not the RA 9262 should be construed in a manner that will favor the accused; and
Whether or not the information alleging a fact contrary to what has been admitted should be
quashed.

RULING:

The court ruled that the offense is covered by RA 9262 which falls under the of one of the
element of the crime of violence against women through harassment which is the offender has or
had a sexual or dating relationship with the offended woman. Thus, the jurisdiction of RTC in
accordance with Section 7, where the court explained that RTC is designated as a Family Court
shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases of violence against women and their
children under this law.

The court held that it cannot construe the statute in favor of the accused using the rule of lenity
because there is no ambiguity in RA 9262 that would necessitate any construction and 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.

The court affirmed the order of the RTC to give the prosecutor a period of two days to amend
the information to reflect the cessation of the dating relationship between the petitioner and the
offended party to be in accordance with Section 4 Rule 117 of the Rules of Court. Thus, the court
denied the motion to quash the same.

You might also like