Roselyn Agacid and Maria Alexandria Bisquerra were in a romantic relationship for about four years. Eventually, the relationship ended. Months later, the two met at a coffee shop in Ali Mall, Cubao, so that Maria could return the gifts Roselyn had given her during their relationship.

Roselyn believed they would reconcile. Maria made it clear that she no longer wanted to continue the relationship. According to Maria, Roselyn became enraged. She allegedly slapped Maria and stabbed her on the forearm with a sharp object. Maria managed to flee, sought assistance from nearby security guards, received medical treatment for her injuries, and later filed a criminal complaint.

Roselyn was charged with physical violence under Section 5(a) of the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act (Republic Act No. 9262). She did not immediately contest the facts. Instead, she questioned whether the charge itself was legally possible.

According to Roselyn, Republic Act No. 9262 was intended to protect women from abusive men, not from other women. Since both she and Maria were women, she argued that the Information failed to charge any offense at all. Was Roselyn correct?

No, she was not. Republic Act No. 9262 defines violence against women and their children as acts committed by “any person” against a woman who is the offender’s wife, former wife, or a woman with whom the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship.

According to the Court, the phrase “any person” is gender-neutral. Nothing in the statute limits criminal liability to men alone. The Court likewise rejected the argument that the law protects only women in heterosexual relationships.

It explained that this issue had already been addressed in earlier cases, where the Court held that the Anti-VAWC Act likewise applies to lesbian relationships. The law protects women from violence committed by an intimate partner, regardless of whether that partner is male or female.

The Supreme Court also emphasized the purpose of the law. Republic Act No. 9262 was enacted to protect women who suffer violence in intimate relationships. The harm sought to be addressed by the law arises from the abuse itself and the dynamics of power within the relationship—not solely from the gender of the offender.

To exclude women in same-sex relationships from the protection of the law would deny legal protection to an entire class of abused women simply because their abusive partner also happens to be a woman. The Court further observed that women are fully capable of committing acts of violence against their intimate partners.

Holding otherwise would incorrectly assume that women can only be victims and never perpetrators. Such an interpretation would be inconsistent with both the text of the law and the constitutional guarantee of equal protection.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Roselyn’s motion to quash and ruled that the criminal case should proceed to trial, holding that a woman may indeed be prosecuted under the Anti-VAWC Act for committing violence against another woman with whom she has or had a dating relationship.

Agacid v. People. G.R. No. 242133, April 16, 2024