In her affidavit, private respondent admitted that her relationship with petitioner had ended prior to the subject

incident.
She narrated that on July 13, 2009, she sought payment of the money she had lent to petitioner but the latter could not
pay. She then inquired from petitioner if he was responsible for spreading rumors about her which he admitted.
Thereupon, private respondent slapped petitioner causing the latter to inflict on her the physical injuries alleged in the
Information.

SEC. 3. Definition of Terms.- As used in this Act, (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 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 her 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. x x x.

The law is broad in scope but specifies two limiting qualifications for any act or series of acts to be considered as a crime
of violence against women through physical harm, namely: 1) it is committed against a woman or her child and the woman
is the offenders wife, former wife, or with whom he has or had sexual or dating relationship or with whom he has a
common child; and 2) it results in or is likely to result in physical harm or suffering.

In Ang v. Court of Appeals,5 the Court enumerated the elements of the crime of violence against women through
harassment, to wit:

1. The offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship with the offended woman;

2. The offender, by himself or through another, commits an act or series of acts of harassment against the
woman; and

3. The harassment alarms or causes substantial emotional or psychological distress to her. 6

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.

Neither can the Court construe the statute in favor of petitioner using the rule of lenity7 because there is no ambiguity in
RA 9262 that would necessitate any construction. While the degree of physical harm under RA 9262 and Article 266 8 of
the Revised Penal Code are the same, there is sufficient justification for prescribing a higher penalty for the former.
Clearly, 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.

Accordingly, the Information having sufficiently alleged the necessary elements of the crime, such as: a dating relationship
between the petitioner and the private respondent; the act of violence committed by the petitioner; and the resulting
physical harm to private respondent, the offense is covered by RA 9262 which falls under the jurisdiction of the RTC in
accordance with Sec. 7 of the said law which reads:

RUSTAN ANG v. CA
G.R. No. 182835, April 20, 2010

FACTS:

Irish Sagud and Rustan Ang became "on-and-off" sweethearts until Irish decided to break up with Rustan after learning that he had
taken a livein partner whom he had gotten pregnant. Before Rustan got married, he tried to convince Irish to elopewith him. Irish,
however, rejected his proposal. She changed her cellphone number but Rustan somehow managed to get hold of it and sent her text
messages. He used two cellphone numbers for sending his messages. Irish replied to his text messages but it was to ask him to leave
her alone.

On June 5, 2005, Irish received through multimedia message service (MMS) a picture of a naked woman with her face superimposed
on the figure. The sender's cellphone number was one of the numbers that Rustan used. After she got the obscene picture, Irish got
other text messages from Rustan. He boasted that it would be easy for him to create similarly scandalous pictures of her. He also
threatened to spread the picture through the internet. Irish sought the help of the police in apprehending Rustan. Under police
supervision, she contacted Rustan and asked him to meet her at the Lorentess Resort.

When Rustan came, police officers intercepted and arrested him. They searched him and seized his Sony Ericsson P900 cellphone
and several SIM cards. While Rustan was being questioned at the police station, he shouted at Irish: "Malandi ka kasi!"

Rustan claims that he went to meet Irish because she asked him to help her identify a prankster who was sending her malicious text
messages. Rustan got the sender's number and, pretending to be Irish, contacted the person. Rustan claims that he got
back obscene messages from the prankster, which he forwarded to Irish from his cellphone. According to him, this explained why
the obscene messages appeared to have originated from his cellphone number. Rustan claims that it was Irish herself who sent the
obscene picture to him.

The RTC found Irish's testimony completely credible, given in an honest and spontaneous manner. The trial court found Rustan guilty
of the violation of Section 5(h) of R.A. 9262. The CA affirmed the RTC decision and denied Rustans MR. Rustan filed a petition for
review on certiorari before the SC.

ISSUE:
1. Whether or not a "dating relationship" existed between Rustan and Irish as this term is defined in R.A. 9262; and

2. Whether or not a single act of harassment, like the sending of the nude picture in this case, already constitutes a violation of
Section 5(h) of R.A. 9262.

HELD:
1. YES. Section 3 (e) of R.A. 9262 taken together with Sec 5(h) indicate that the elements of the crime of violence against women
through harassment are:

The offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship with the offended woman;

The offender, by himself or through another, commits an act or series of acts of harassment against the woman; and

The harassment alarms or causes substantial emotional or psychological distress to her.

Section 3(a) of RA 9262 provides that a "dating relationship" includes a situation where the parties are romantically involved over
time and on a continuing basis during the course of the relationship. The law did not use in its provisions the colloquial verb
"romance" that implies a sexual act. Rather, it used the noun "romance" to describe a couple's relationship, i.e., "a love affair. The
law itself distinguishes a sexual relationship from a dating relationship. Section 3(e) defines"dating relationship" while Section
3(f) defines "sexual relations." The latter "refers to a single sexual act which may or may not result in the bearing of a common
child." The dating relationship that the law contemplates can, therefore, exist even without a sexual intercourse taking place
between those involved. An "awaybati" or a fightandkiss thing between two lovers does not mean that the romantic relation
between the two should be deemed broken up during periods of misunderstanding.

2. YES. Section 3(a) of R.A. 9262 punishes "any act or series of acts" that constitutes violence against women. This means that a
single act of harassment, which translates into violence, would be enough. The object of the law is to protect women and children.
Punishing only violence that is repeatedly committed would license isolated ones. What is obscene and injurious to an offended
woman can of course only be determined based on the circumstances of each case. Here, the naked woman on the picture, her legs
spread open and bearing Irish's head and face, was clearly an obscene picture and, to Irish a revolting and offensive one. Surely, any
woman like Irish, who is not in the pornography trade, would be scandalized and pained if she sees herself in such a picture. What
makes it further terrifying is that, as Irish testified, Rustan sent the picture with a threat to post it in the internet for all to see. That
must have given her a nightmare.

- The crime of violence against women and their children is committed through any of the following acts:
(a) Causing physical harm to the woman or her child;
(b) Threatening to cause the woman or her child physical harm;
(c) Attempting to cause the woman or her child physical harm;
(d) Placing the woman or her child in fear of imminent physical harm;
(e) Attempting to compel or compelling the woman or her child to engage in conduct which the woman or
her child has the right to desist from or desist from conduct which the woman or her child has the right to
engage in, or attempting to restrict or restricting the woman's or her child's freedom of movement or
conduct by force or threat of force, physical or other harm or threat of physical or other harm, or
intimidation directed against the woman or child. This shall include, but not limited to, the following acts
committed with the purpose or effect of controlling or restricting the woman's or her child's movement or
conduct:
(1) Threatening to deprive or actually depriving the woman or her child of custody to her/his family;
(2) Depriving or threatening to deprive the woman or her children of financial support legally due her or
her family, or deliberately providing the woman's children insufficient financial support;
(3) Depriving or threatening to deprive the woman or her child of a legal right; and
(4) Preventing the woman in engaging in any legitimate profession, occupation, business or activity or
controlling the victim's own mon4ey or properties, or solely controlling the conjugal or common money, or
properties.
(f) Inflicting or threatening to inflict physical harm on oneself for the purpose of controlling her actions or
decisions;
(g) Causing or attempting to cause the woman or her child to engage in any sexual activity which does not
constitute rape, by force or threat of force, physical harm, or through intimidation directed against the
woman or her child or her/his immediate family;
(h) Engaging in purposeful, knowing, or reckless conduct, personally or through another, that alarms or
causes substantial emotional or psychological distress to the woman or her child. This shall include, but
not be limited to, the following acts:
(1) Stalking or following the woman or her child in public or private places;
(2) Peering in the window or lingering outside the residence of the woman or her child;
(3) Entering or remaining in the dwelling or on the property of the woman or her child against her/his will;
(4) Destroying the property and personal belongings or inflicting harm to animals or pets of the woman or
her child; and
(5) Engaging in any form of harassment or violence.
(i) Causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to the woman or her child,
including, but not limited to, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, and denial of financial support or
custody of minor children of access to the woman's child/children.