Araza vs. People, G.R. No. 247429 (08 September 2020):
Defining Psychological Violence Under RA 9262
Last 08 September 2020, the Supreme Court issued a Decision affirming the ruling of the Court of Appeals which upheld the trial court’s conviction of a husband under Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise known as the Violence Against Women and Children Act, or commonly known as VAWC. The case was about a husband who abandoned his wife to cohabit with his mistress, who happens to be the couple’s bestfriend, which illicit affair produced three (3) illegitimate children. The husband was sentenced to suffer an imprisonment of an indeterminate sentence of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision correcional to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor and was imposed a fine of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php100,000.00) and Moral Damages of Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (Php25,000.00).
Under Section 3 (a) of RA 9262 defines “psychological violence” as acts or omissions causing or likely to cause mental or emotional suffering of the victim such as but not limited to intimidation, harassment, stalking, damage to property, public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal abuse and mental infidelity. It includes causing or allowing the victim to witness the physical, sexual or psychological abuse of a member of the family to which the victim belongs, or to witness pornography in any form or to witness abusive injury to pets or to unlawful or unwanted deprivation of the right to custody and/or visitation of common children.”
Section 5 (i) of RA 9262 punishes this form of violence against women, to wit: “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 or access to the woman’s child/children.”
Citing Dimamling vs. People, G.R. No. 199522 (22 June 2015), the Supreme Court, in Araza vs. People, supra, restated the elements of the crime: (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 whom 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 such acts or omissions.
The Court affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals which held that RA 9262 does not punish marital infidelity itself (it may be penalized as Concubinage under the Revised Penal Code) but the psychological violence employed by the husband against the wife causing mental and emotional suffering of the latter. The Court held: “Psychological violence is the means employed by the perpetrator, while mental or emotional anguish is the effect caused to or the damage sustained by the offended party. To establish psychological violence as an element of the crime, it is necessary to show proof of the commission of any of the acts enumerated in Section 5 (i) of RA 9262 or similar such acts. And to establish mental or emotional anguish, it is necessary to present the testimony of the victim as such experiences to this party.”
In the instant case of Araza vs. People, supra, the courts (from trial court to the Supreme Court) were convinced that the act of the husband of living their abode and abandoning his wife twice to cohabit with his mistress constitutes psychological violence which caused mental and emotional suffering to his wife. The wife testified that she spent months looking for her husband who she eventually found out to be in Zamboanga cohabiting with their bestfriend. She had them arrested and filed a Concubinage case but was settled when her husband and his mistress signed an undertaking that they will not cohabit again. The husband briefly rejoined his wife but left again for Zamboanga. Also, the prosecution presented a Psychologist who testified that the wife suffered depression and insomnia caused by her longing to be with her husband. However, the Psychologist testified that it does not amount to a psychological disorder. On this finding, the Court held that “the law does not require proof that the victim became psychologically ill due to the psychological violence done by her abuser.” Rather, “the law only requires emotional anguish and mental suffering to be proven.”