Psychological violence through marital infidelity under Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262.

"XXX is guilty of psychological violence through marital infidelity under Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262

 

XXX was charged with violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262, which reads:

Section 5. Acts of Violence Against Women and Their Children. – The crime of violence against women and their children is committed through any of the following acts:

. . . .

(i) 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 of access to the woman's child/children.

Dinamling v. People[50] lists the elements of violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 that must concur before a judgment of conviction may be rendered:

(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.[51]

The first two elements are not in dispute. The offended party in this case is AAA, the legal wife of XXX. This fact is duly established by the Certificate of Marriage between the parties.[52]

The contention thus lies in the third and fourth elements. Indeed, conviction under Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 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.[53]

Section 3(c) of Republic Act No. 9262 defines psychological violence as any act or omission which causes or is likely to cause mental or emotional suffering of the victim. Notably, the enumeration of such acts expressly includes marital infidelity:

SECTION 3. Definition of Terms. – As used in this Act, . . .

C. "Psychological violence" refers to 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 marital 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. (Emphasis supplied)

Here, the People was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that XXX committed marital infidelity. He maintained a relationship with another woman who is not his wife and has, in fact, fathered two children with her. This fact is uncontroverted and supported by a number of evidence on record: the social media posts containing photos of XXX, his mistress PPP, and their children[54] and the entries in the certificates of live birth of their children, MMM and NNN, indicating that their father is XXX and their mother is PPP.[55] Notably, XXX also never denied his affair with PPP.

Instead, his defense consists mainly of imputing vindictive motives against AAA in filing the criminal complaint against him. She was allegedly the cause of the breakdown of their marriage for being overly dependent on her parents and for being immature. He left their home because his mother-in-law told him to.[56] These, however, are not justifiable reasons to leave the conjugal home and to renege on his marital obligations to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support to each other.[57]

More, it is incredible that XXX would have simply agreed to leave his wife and son just because he was told to do so by his mother-in-law. Logic suggests that there was an underlying reason for his abandonment of his legal family. We thus find AAA's narration of facts more credible than XXX's.

Contrary to the finding of the trial court, XXX's extramarital affair did not begin only after the spouses got separated. The records are replete with evidence that the cause of the quarrel and eventual separation of XXX and AAA began when the latter discovered the text messages of a woman on XXX's phone. One of the text messages unequivocally told him, "AYAW KO NG MAGING KABIT" and, it was when she confronted him about it that XXX left home.[58] Clearly, therefore, XXX was unfaithful to his wife even before they got separated in fact, and his infidelity was the proximate cause thereof.

That XXX committed an act of psychological violence, specifically, marital infidelity, is thus beyond doubt. True, what Republic Act No. 9262 criminalizes is not marital infidelity per se but the psychological violence causing mental or emotional suffering on the wife. For it is the violence inflicted under the said circumstances that the law seeks to outlaw.[59]

On this score, we find that the appraisal of evidence by the Court of Appeals vis-à-vis AAA's mental and emotional suffering is legally sound. As astutely observed by the Court of Appeals, the effect of XXX's marital infidelity on AAA was duly explained and proven in the psychological evaluation of AAA by Dr. Lambuson.[60]

The psychiatric evaluation convincingly illustrated what AAA suffered as a result of the breakdown of her marriage. She had sleep disturbances, constant self-pity, feelings of hopelessness and worthlessness, palpitations, social withdrawal, and depressions,[61] viz.:

This is a case of a 36-year-old married woman with a 4-year-old child who was left by her husband for another woman. She manifested with the following signs and symptoms of sleep disturbances, having self-pity, feelings of guilt, hopelessness and worthlessness, crying episodes, palpitations, social withdrawal, and depressed mood most of the day and felt most days of the week. The abovementioned signs and symptoms were severe enough for the patient to affect her social as well as occupational functioning. . .

. . . .

The main cause of the depression for this particular patient, her life shattered before her eyes when her husband left; her child becoming an orphan having no father to be with him, to guide him while growing up because the father, the patient's spouse, had decided to leave them. Whatever her beliefs were about marriage were now fractured, dreams shattered, self-confidence gone. Medication is helping her as well as psychotherapy we do when she comes in for follow-up. It will take several more sessions for her to believe in herself again and not blame herself for whatever happened to her and to her child. She has on her own, re-build her dreams, her beliefs mended, her self-confidence fixed and this may take her months or years or maybe when the goal of this legal battle achieved in her favor, this disorder will be easier to overcome.[62] (Emphasis supplied)

Dr. Lambuson's admission that AAA approached her after she already filed the criminal complaint against XXX[63] is of no moment. This fact does not negate the fact that even prior to her psychiatric consultation, AAA had already been suffering from mental and emotional turmoil. The psychiatric evaluation merely confirmed this fact. Nor is it incriminatory that AAA consulted a psychiatrist to obtain evidence to support her allegation of psychological violence against XXX. It is but natural that one who institutes a legal action would endeavor to collect all necessary evidence to support their claim. It does not necessarily follow that such evidence was fabricated.

Neither does Dr. Lambuson's clarification that AAA's depression or dysthymia cannot be solely attributed to XXX leaving their marital home and committing an illicit affair[64] militate against the finding of mental and emotional anguish. There indeed can be many reasons why a person may feel distressed and emotionally or mentally disturbed. Here, however, Dr. Lambuson's psychiatric evaluation clearly indicated that the main cause of AAA's depression is XXX leaving her and, as a result, her son losing his father. Consequently, she lost self-confidence, blamed herself for failing to keep her husband, and felt worthless.

At any rate, the law does not require proof that the victim became psychologically ill due to the psychological violence done by her abuser. The law only requires emotional anguish and mental suffering to be proven. To establish emotional anguish or mental suffering, jurisprudence only requires that the testimony of the victim be presented in court since such experiences are personal to this party.[65]

Here, AAA testified in detail how she suffered as a result of her husband's infidelity, especially whenever she would see the posts of XXX's mistress flaunting their illicit affair on social media. PPP would announce their children's birthday parties and post pictures of them together.[66] Indeed, it is not difficult to imagine how XXX's illicit affair shattered AAA's life and caused her to live a nightmare. Instead of keeping true to the vows he made when he wed her, XXX callously left her and instead kept the same promises with another woman. As pointedly found by the Court of Appeals:[67]

[XXX's] marital infidelity, aggravated by the public display and exhibits of photographs and words of endearment by and between private respondent and his mistress PPP through the social media, flaunting their illicit relationship and their two children, are indicative of [XXX's] sheer insensitivity and total disregard of the feelings, dignity, and self-worth of [AAA]. All such acts constituted psychological violence, causing [AAA] mental torture, emotional pain, and anguish.[68] (Emphasis supplied)

To be sure, whatever XXX's intention was when he chose another woman over his wife is immaterial. For his leaving their conjugal home and building a family with his mistress are acts that were done by him consciously and deliberately. He could not feign innocence by hiding behind good intentions—may they be excuses that he remained civil with AAA or he constantly supported his legitimate son, BBB. The incontrovertible fact remains: he was unfaithful to his wife, and this caused her irreparable mental and emotional hurt. Thus, XXX v. People[69] ratiocinated:

While We agree with Acharon that the crimes penalized under Sec. 5(i) are mala in se and not mala prohibita, thereby requiring specific criminal intent, We hereby hold that in instances of marital infidelity, the requirement of specific criminal intent to cause menial and emotional suffering is already satisfied at the moment the perpetrator commits the act of marital infidelity. This finds basis in the fact that marital infidelity is inherently immoral and depraved under prevailing societal, cultural, and religious norms. In the normal course of human behavior, an aggrieved wife will never approve of a rogue and wandering husband, and vice versa. The same line of reasoning just cannot be applied in cases of willful denial of financial support. In other words, marital infidelity, divorced from its legal connotations, is an act which is essentially wrong in itself. To pose a rhetoric, what else could adulterers have expected to cause upon their spouse when they committed an act of unfaithfulness, aside from mental and emotional pain?[70] (Emphasis supplied)

All told, XXX is guilty of psychological violence under Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 committed against his wife, AAA.

Penalty

Republic Act No. 9262, Section 6[71] punishes acts falling under Section 5(i) with prision mayor. And, in addition to imprisonment, the perpetrator shall pay a fine in the amount of not less than PHP 100,000.00 but not more than PHP 300,000.00 and undergo mandatory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment and shall report compliance to the court.

In the absence of any modifying circumstances, the imposable penalty shall be applied in its medium period, which is eight years and one day to 10 years of prision mayor. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, this shall serve as the maximum term. Meanwhile, the penalty next lower in degree shall serve as the minimum term, or prision correccional, which is six months and one day to six years. The Court of Appeals thus correctly imposed the indeterminate sentence of four years, two months, and one day of prision correccional, as the minimum term, and eight years and one day of prision mayor, as the maximum term.

We affirm the directive of the Court of Appeals for XXX to pay a fine, but we lower the amount from PHP 300,000.00 to PHP 100,000.00 per prevailing jurisprudence.[72] He is also ordered to undergo psychological counseling pursuant to the last paragraph of Section 6 of Republic Act No. 9262

ACCORDINGLY, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision dated March 30, 2017 and Resolution dated June 6, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 148784 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. XXX is GUILTY of violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 and is sentenced to the indeterminate penalty of four years, two months,  ordered to PAY a fine of PHP 100,000.00 and to undergo psychological counseling and to report his compliance therewith to the Court, as set forth in the last paragraph of Section 6 of Republic Act No. 9262.

SO ORDERED."

SECOND DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 232190, August 20, 2025 ]

XXX,* PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND AAA, RESPONDENT.

D E C I S I O N

LAZARO-JAVIER, J.

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/70253

Double jeopardy does not attach to void judgments.

"Double jeopardy does not attach to void judgments; the OSG correctly filed a Rule 65 Petition to assail the verdict of acquittal of the Regional Trial Court

 

Article III, Section 21 of the Constitution protects all persons from being placed in double jeopardy of punishment for a single offense:

No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.

It means that when a person is charged with an offense and the case is terminated either by acquittal or conviction or in any other manner without the consent of the accused, the latter cannot again be charged with the same or identical offense. This principle is founded upon the law of reason, justice, and conscience.[41] It ensures that the government does not abuse its powers by repeatedly prosecuting the same accused for the same charge. People v. Hon. Velasco[42] elucidated:

The fundamental philosophy highlighting the finality of an acquittal by the trial court cuts deep into "the humanity of the laws and in a jealous watchfulness over the rights of the citizen, when brought in unequal contest with the State. . . ." Thus, Green expressed the concern that "[t]he underlying idea, one that is deeply ingrained in at least the Anglo-American system of jurisprudence, is that the State with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing stale of anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent, he may be found guilty."[43] (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)

Indeed, it is a basic principle of law that the rule against double jeopardy proscribes an appeal from a judgment of acquittal on the merits from being filed. A verdict of acquittal is immediately final and a re-examination of the merits of such acquittal, even in an appellate court, will put the accused a second time in jeopardy for the same offense.[44]

Thus, XXX argues that the People violated his right against double jeopardy when it filed a Rule 65 petition assailing his acquittal.

We do not agree.

It is settled that a judgment of acquittal may be assailed by the People in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court without placing the accused in double jeopardy. However, in such case, the People is burdened to establish that the court below acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction.[45]

The People was able to fulfill this burden in its petition for certiorari filed with the Court of Appeals. Grave abuse of discretion connotes judgment exercised in a capricious and whimsical manner that is tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. To be considered "grave," discretion must be exercised in a despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by or to act at all in contemplation of law. Grave abuse of discretion attends when the trial court manifestly disregarded the basic rules and procedures, or acted with obstinate disregard of basic and established rule of law or procedure.[46]

Contrary to XXX's position, the trial court failed to justify its verdict of acquittal. In casting doubt on the evidence of the prosecution, the trial court merely pointed out the circumstances of the parties at the time the criminal complaint was filed. To recall, the trial court hinged its ruling on the fact that the complaint was belatedly filed five years after the separation of the parties; that XXX and AAA were civil to each other despite their separation; and XXX consistently provided support for BBB.[47]

These, however, are matters that do not delve into the essence of the offense. Worse, they are not evidence that dispel the mental and emotional anguish suffered by AAA as a result of her husband's extramarital affair. It is indeed perplexing how, as between the trial court's bare conjectures arising from the circumstances of the case and the hard evidence showing AAA's mental and emotional suffering (i.e., the psychiatric evaluation of Dr. Lambuson) and XXX's marital infidelity (i.e., his own admission, the photos and posts from Twitter, and certificates of live birth of MMM and NNN), the former prevailed.

Worse, it does not escape the Court that part of the trial court's explanation that the marital infidelity of XXX was committed after he and AAA separated de facto, hence, the same falls outside the scope of Republic Act No. 9262.[48] This is a mistaken notion. Legal separation entitles the parties to live separately from each other, but the marriage bonds shall not be severed;[49] more so, here, where the separation of the parties is merely in fact and not by legal decree. Verily, any extramarital relation maintained by any of the spouses still constitutes marital infidelity, which is one of the means of committing psychological violence under Republic Act No. 9262.

By disregarding the foregoing basic principles of law and rudimentary appreciation of evidence, we find no error on the part of the Court of Appeals in granting the petition for certiorari filed by the OSG on behalf of the People."

XXX, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND AAA, RESPONDENT.

G.R. No. 232190, August 20, 2025.