Atty. Julius Gregory Delgado
XXX VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES: MARITAL INFIDELITY CONSTITUTES PSYCHOLOGICAL VIOLENCE UNDER RA 9262 OR THE ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN ACT OF 2004
Petitioner XXX is the accused-appellant whose name was withheld, and initials were used to identify him pursuant to Supreme Court Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 dated September 5, 2017 (Protocols and Procedures in the Promulgation, Publication and Posting on the Websites of Decisions, Final Resolutions, and Final Orders using Fictitious Names/Personal Circumstances). In an Information dated January 29, 2016, the Petitioner was charged with violation of Section 5 (i) of Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004, for depriving financial support to the private complainant, AAA, and their minor child, BBB, and abandoning them totally, causing psychological and emotional anguish to AAA and BBB.
The Petitioner XXX and the private complainant AAA were married on December 29, 2006. Out of their union, their daughter BBB was born. Due to difficult circumstances, AAA went abroad to work. In May 2015, private complainant AAA learned that his husband, petitioner XXX, is in a romantic relationship with another woman, CCC. Petitioner XXX even messaged AAA not to communicate with him anymore and AAA learned that CCC was pregnant with petitioner XXX’s child. On several occasions CCC would send AAA text messages just to spite her. When AAA learned that petitioner XXX brought CCC to their hometown and started to cohabit, she went home and sought assistance from the Department of Social Welfare and Development in getting her daughter, BBB, from her mother-in-law.
BBB, who was already 9 years old when she testified, confirmed that petitioner XXX had a girlfriend, CCC, whom petitioner XXX would bring home every now and then. During her testimony, BBB was crying and when asked why she was crying, explained that it was because her father and CCC had an affair and that she wanted her father and mother to reconcile together.
For his defense, petitioner XXX initially denied knowing CCC but subsequently clarified that they went to the same secondary school but had not seen CCC in a long time. Regarding support, petitioner XXX said that it was him who primarily took care of BBB after AAA left the country and work in Singapore. Petitioner XXX admitted that he stopped giving support when his child was taken from him in October 2015 and because AAA does not allow BBB to be near him or show her to him.
The trial court convicted petitioner XXX for inflicting psychological violence against AAA and BBB through emotional and psychological abandonment. The trial court held that the petitioner might not have physically abandoned his family, but the emotional and psychological abandonment and all the hurts, pains, and distress brought about by his indiscretion as a husband are far worse than physical abandonment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling.
The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the trial and appellate courts. The Court restated the elements for violation of Section 5 (i) of Republic Act No. 9262, or the VAWC Law, to wit: 1) The offended party is a woman and/or her child or children; 2) the woman is either the wife or former wife of the offender, or is a woman with whim the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or is a woman with whom such offender has a common child. As for the woman’s child or children they may be legitimate or illegitimate, or living within or without the family abode; 3) the offender causes on the woman and/or child mental or emotional anguish; and 4) the anguish is caused through acts of public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, denial of financial support or custody of minor children or access to the children or similar to such acts or omissions.
The Court further ruled citing Reyes vs. People, G.R. No. 232678 (July 3, 2019) that conviction under Section 5 (i) of RA 9262 requires proof of the indispensable elements of (1) psychological violence as the means employed by the perpetrator consisting of any acts enumerated in Section 5 (i) or similar acts, and (2) the mental or emotional suffering or damage sustained by the offended party. The Court also held citing Araza vs. People, G.R. No. 247429 (September 8, 2020), that “the law does not require proof that the victim become psychologically ill due to the psychological violence done by her abuser. Rather, the law only requires emotional anguish and mental suffering to be proven. To establish emotional anguish or mental suffering, jurisprudence only requires that the victim testify in court and narrate such experiences.
The Court discussed the existence of the first and second elements since the offended parties are AAA and her child, BBB. Marriage of petitioner XXX and AAA was conclusively proven by the Certificate of Marriage. The fact that BBB is their child was also proven by BBB’s Birth Certificate indicating that XXX and AAA are her parents. The testimonies of AAA and BBB clearly established the presence of the third and fourth elements, i.e., the offender causing on the woman and/or child mental or emotional anguish through acts of public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, denial of financial support or custody of minor children, or access to the children, or similar to such acts or omissions.
Finally, the Court held that “marital infidelity is one of the forms of psychological violence. The prosecution in tis case was able to satisfactorily establish petitioner’s marital infidelity, his cohabitation with CCC who even bore him a child and his abandonment of AAA. BBB’s psychological trauma was evident when she wept in open court upon being asked to narrate petitioner’s infidelity. In particular, BBB explained that she was deeply hurt because her father had another family and loved another woman other than her mother, AAA.”