Dating relationship does not always involve sexual intercourse
Dear PAO,
My former boyfriend sent me a personal message containing my photo that was superimposed on a body of an unknown naked woman. He threatened to publish it online unless I reconcile with him. This triggered me to file a complaint before the Prosecutor’s Office for violation of Republic Act 9262. One of the defenses he raised in his counter-affidavit was the absence of a dating relationship, arguing that being “romantically involved” necessarily implies sexual intercourse. Is it indispensable that a dating relationship involves sexual relations?
Regine
Dear Regine,
One of the indispensable requirements for a successful prosecution under Republic Act (RA) 9262 or the “Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act” is the existence of present or previous sexual or dating relationship between the parties involved.
While sexual relationship involves a single sexual act which may or may not result in the bearing of a common child, dating relationship does not necessarily involve sexual relations. This was explained by the Supreme Court in its decision in the case of Rustan Ang v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, GR 182835, April 20, 2010, penned by Associate Justice Roberto Abad, where it held:
“x x x ‘Dating relationship’ refers to a situation wherein the parties live as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or are romantically involved over time and on a continuing basis during the course of the relationship. A casual acquaintance or ordinary socialization between two individuals in a business or social context is not a dating relationship. (Underscoring supplied.)
“Here, Rustan claims that, being ‘romantically involved,’ implies that the offender and the offended woman have or had sexual relations. According to him, ‘romance’ implies a sexual act. He cites Webster’s Comprehensive Dictionary Encyclopedia Edition which provides a colloquial or informal meaning to the word ‘romance’ used as a verb, i.e., ‘to make love; to make love to’ as in ‘He romanced her.’
“But it seems clear that the law did not use in its provisions the colloquial verb ‘romance’ that implies a sexual act. It did not say that the offender must have ‘romanced’ the offended woman. Rather, it used the noun ‘romance’ to describe a couple’s relationship, i.e., ‘a love affair.’
“RA 9262 provides in Section 3 that ‘violence against women x x x refers to any act or a series of acts committed by any person against a woman x x x with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship.’ Clearly, the law itself distinguishes a sexual relationship from a dating relationship. Indeed, Section 3(e) above 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.”
Applying the foregoing in your case, it is clear that the defense of your former boyfriend has no leg to stand on because dating relationship, as contemplated under RA 9262, does not necessarily require the presence of sexual intercourse between the offender and the offended party.
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts that you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.
Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]
