not a court of competent jurisdiction, or the evidence does not show that the offense was committed within
the territorial jurisdiction of the court, or the complaint or information is not valid or sufficient in form and
substance, etc. The only case in which the word dismissal is commonly but not correctly used, instead of the proper
term acquittal, is when, after the prosecution has presented all its evidence, the defendant moves for the dismissal
and the court dismisses the case on the ground that the evidence fails to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the
defendant is guilty; for in such case the dismissal is in reality an acquittal because the case is decided on the
merits. If the prosecution fails to prove that the offense was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the
court and the case is dismissed, the dismissal is not an acquittal, inasmuch as if it were so the defendant
could not be again prosecuted before the court of competent jurisdiction; and it is elemental that in such
case, the defendant may again be prosecuted for the same offense before a court of competent
jurisdiction.[20] (Citation omitted and emphasis in the original)
The grant of BBB's motion to quash may not therefore be viewed as an acquittal, which in limited instances may only
be repudiated by a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 upon showing grave abuse of discretion lest the accused
would be twice placed in jeopardy.[21]
Indubitably, "the Rules do not prohibit any of the parties from filing a Rule 45 Petition with this Court, in case only
questions of law are raised or involved."[22] "There is a question of law when the issue does not call for an
examination of the probative value of the evidence presented or of the truth or falsehood of the facts being admitted,
and the doubt concerns the correct application of law and jurisprudence on the matter."[23]
Further, the question of whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction in view of the peculiar provisions of R.A. No. 9262 is
a question of law. Thus, in Morillo,[24] the Court reiterated that:
[T]he jurisdiction of the court is determined by the averments of the complaint or Information, in relation to the law
prevailing at the time of the filing of the complaint or Information, and the penalty provided by law for the crime
charged at the time of its commission. Thus, when a case involves a proper interpretation of the rules and
jurisprudence with respect to the jurisdiction of courts to entertain complaints filed therewith, it deals with a question
of law that can be properly brought to this Court under Rule 45.[25] (Citations omitted)
We are not called upon in this case to determine the truth or falsity of the charge against BBB, much less weigh the
evidence, especially as the case had not even proceeded to a full-blown trial on the merits. The issue for resolution
concerns the correct application of law and jurisprudence on a given set of circumstances, i.e., whether or not
Philippine courts are deprived of territorial jurisdiction over a criminal charge of psychological abuse under R.A. No.
9262 when committed through marital infidelity and the alleged illicit relationship took place outside the Philippines.
The novelty of the issue was even recognized by the RTC when it opined that there is still as yet no jurisprudence on
this score, prompting it to quash the Information even as it maintained its earlier October 28, 2011 ruling that
probable cause exists in the case.[26] Calling the attention of Congress to the arguments on jurisdiction spawned by
the law,[27] the RTC furnished copies of the assailed order to the House of Representatives and the Philippine Senate
through the Committee on Youth, Women and Public Relations, as well as the Committee on Justice and Human
Rights.[28]
The issue acquires special significance when viewed against the present economic reality that a great number of
Filipino families have at least one parent working overseas. In April to September 2016, the number of overseas
Filipino workers who worked abroad was estimated at 2.2 million, 97.5 percent of which were comprised of overseas
contract workers or those with existing work contract; while 2.5 percent worked overseas without contract. [29] It is thus
necessary to clarify how R.A. No. 9262 should be applied in a question of territorial jurisdiction over a case of
psychological abuse brought against the husband when such is allegedly caused by marital infidelity carried on
abroad.
Ruling of the Court
There is merit in the petition.
"Physical violence is only the most visible form of abuse. Psychological abuse, particularly forced social and
economic isolation of women, is also common."[30] In this regard, Section 3 of R.A. No. 9262 made it a point to
encompass in a non-limiting manner the various forms of violence that may be committed against women and their
children:
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. It includes, but is not limited to, the following acts:
A. "Physical Violence" refers to acts that include bodily or physical harm;
B. "Sexual violence" refers to an act which is sexual in nature, committed against a woman or her child. It includes,
but is not limited to:
xxxx