the provisions of Section 5(i), above, which denotes the bringing about or into existence of something. Hence, the
mental or emotional anguish suffered by a woman must have been brought about or into existence by a criminal act
which must logically have occurred within the territorial limits of the Court for jurisdiction over the offense to attach to
it. To rule otherwise would violate or render nugatory one of the basic characteristics of our criminal laws territoriality.
In the listing provided in the law itself - "repeated verbal and emotional abuse, and denial of financial support or
custody of minor children of (sic) access to the woman's child/children"- it becomes clear that there must be an act
which causes the "mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation", and it is such act which partakes of a
criminal nature. Here, such act was the alleged maintenance of "an illicit relationship with a certain Liesel Mok" which
has been conceded to have been committed in Singapore.
Granting, without conceding, that the law presents ambiguities as written, quashal of the Information must still be
ordered following the underlying fundamental principle that all doubts must be resolved in favor of [BBB]. At best, the
Court draws the attention of Congress to the arguments on jurisdiction spawned by the law.[12] (Emphasis in the
original)
Aggrieved by the denial of the prosecution’s motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of the case, AAA sought
direct recourse to this Court via the instant petition on a pure question of law. AAA posits that R.A. No. 9262 is in
danger of becoming transmogrified into a weak, wobbly, and worthless law because with the court a quo's ruling, it is
as if husbands of Filipino women have been given license to enter into extra-marital affairs without fear of any
consequence, as long as they are carried out abroad. In the main, AAA argues that mental and emotional anguish is
an essential element of the offense charged against BBB, which is experienced by her wherever she goes, and not
only in Singapore where the extra-marital affair takes place; thus, the RTC of Pasig City where she resides can take
cognizance of the case.
In support of her theory, AAA draws attention to Section 7 of R.A. No. 9262, which provides:
Sec. 7. Venue - The Regional Trial Court designated as a Family Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction
over cases of violence against women and their children under this law. In the absence of such court in the place
where the offense was committed, the case shall be filed in the Regional Trial Court where the crime or any of its
elements was committed at the option of the complainant. (Emphasis ours)
As to the ambiguity in the law hypothetically referred to in the assailed order, AAA directs us to:
Section 4. Construction. - This Act shall be liberally construed to promote the protection and safety of victims of
violence against women and their children.
In his Comment[13] filed on January 20, 2015, BBB contends that the grant of the motion to quash is in effect an
acquittal; that only the civil aspect of a criminal case may be appealed by the private offended party; and. that this
petition should be dismissed outright for having been brought before this Court by AAA instead of the Office of the
Solicitor General (OSG) as counsel for the People in appellate proceedings. BBB furthermore avers that the petition
was belatedly filed.
We tackle first the threshold issue of whether or not this Court should entertain the petition.
It must be stated beforehand that BBB is plainly mistaken in asserting that the instant petition was belatedly filed. The
date erroneously perceived by BBB as the date of AAA's Motion for Extension [14] was filed - June 2, 2014 - refers to
the date of receipt by the Division Clerk of Court and not the date when the said motion was lodged before this Court.
The motion was in fact filed on May 27, 2014, well within the period that AAA had under the Rules of Court to file the
intended petition. Thus, considering the timeliness of the motion, this Court in a Resolution[15] dated June 9, 2014,
granted AAA an additional period of thirty (30) days or until June 26, 2014 to file a petition for review.
In AAA's motion for extension of time, it was mentioned that she was awaiting the OSG's response to her
Letter[16] dated May 26, 2014 requesting for representation. Since, the OSG was unresponsive to her plea for
assistance in filing the intended petition, AAA filed the present petition in her own name before the lapse of the
extension given her by this Court or on June 25, 2014.
We find that under the circumstances, the ends of substantial justice will be better served by entertaining the petition
if only to resolve the question of law lodged before this Court. In Morillo v. People of the Philippines, et al.,[17] where
the Court entertained a Rule 45 petition which raised only a question of law filed by the private offended party in the
absence of the OSG's participation, we recalled the instances when the Court permitted an offended party to file an
appeal without the intervention of the OSG. One such instance is when the interest of substantial justice so
requires.[18]
Morillo,[19] also differentiated between dismissal and acquittal, thus:
Acquittal is always based on the merits, that is, the defendant is acquitted because the evidence does not
show that defendant's guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt; but dismissal does not decide the case on the
merits or that the defendant is not guilty. Dismissal terminates the proceeding, either because the court is