XXX, [1] PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 252739
- Promulgated: 2024-04-16
- Ponente: HERNANDO, J.
Doctrine
## Facts of the Case XXX was charged with violating Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004) for causing mental and emotional anguish to his wife, AAA, by keeping a mistress. AAA discovered XXX's infidelity in July 2016 through a co-worker who had received photos and messages from EEE, revealing that XXX had a mistress, YYY, and a four-year-old child with her in Makati. AAA, accompanied by her mother and a friend, BBB, confronted XXX and YYY in Makati. During this confrontation, a little boy ran out of the house calling XXX "Daddy," confirming AAA's suspicions. Discussions at the barangay hall led to XXX admitting fathering the child with YYY. The following day, XXX threatened to harm himself with a knife, causing AAA and their son distress, before leaving the house. AAA was deeply affected, unable to work or sleep for several months. XXX, while admitting to having a child with YYY, denied keeping a mistress and claimed the child was a result of a one-night stand. He maintained that he only visited YYY's house to see their child and denied causing AAA mental and emotional anguish. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found XXX guilty, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). ## Issues 1. Whether XXX is guilty of violating Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262. 2. Whether marital infidelity falls under the acts punishable by Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262. ## Decision / Rationale **Issue 1:** The Court **agreed with the findings of the RTC and CA** that XXX is guilty of violating Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262. The first two elements of the crime, that the offended party is a woman (AAA) and is the wife of the offender (XXX), were undisputed. The third element, that the offender causes mental or emotional anguish to the woman, was established. While XXX argued that AAA's anguish could have been caused by his refusal to reconcile, the Court found his argument to lack legal logic, pointing out that AAA's emotional breakdown and inconsolability were directly caused by the discovery and confirmation of XXX's marital infidelity. This was corroborated by BBB's testimony. The Court clarified that the charge was for causing mental and emotional anguish, not solely for "keeping a mistress." An illicit sexual encounter, even if casual or infrequent, constitutes marital infidelity and psychological violence under Section 3(c) of Republic Act No. 9262. The Court reiterated that psychological violence is the means employed, and emotional anguish or mental suffering are the effects sustained by the offended party. In cases of marital infidelity, the requirement of specific criminal intent to cause mental and emotional suffering is **satisfied at the moment the perpetrator commits the act of marital infidelity** because marital infidelity is inherently immoral and depraved. The law focuses on the effects of the act on the victim rather than the offender's motive. **Issue 2:** The Court **ruled that marital infidelity is an act that falls under Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262.** The law itself explicitly includes "marital infidelity" in its definition of psychological violence under Section 3(c). The Court rejected XXX's argument that marital infidelity is not one of the acts specifically enumerated in Section 5(i) (public ridicule, repeated abuse, or denial of financial support) as a cause of anguish, emphasizing that marital infidelity is explicitly recognized as a form of psychological violence. The Court further noted that while **Acharon v. People** requires intent to inflict mental or emotional anguish in cases of willful denial of financial support, this specific intent requirement does not apply to marital infidelity because marital infidelity is an act that is "not innocent in itself," and thus, general intent to commit the actus reus is sufficient. The Court affirmed that not all extramarital relationships automatically fall under the criminal provision;…
Keywords
Republic Act No. 9262 Section 5(i), Republic Act No. 9262 Section 3(c), Article 68 Family Code, Article XV Section 2 Philippine Constitution, Article 332 Revised Penal Code, Marital infidelity as psychological violence, Doctrine of Liberal Construction (RA 9262), Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act (VAWC), Psychological Violence, Marital Infidelity, Petition for Review on Certiorari, Mental and Emotional Anguish, Preponderance of Evidence, Proof beyond reasonable doubt, Prima Facie Case, Burden of Evidence, Stare Decisis, Mala in se, Mens Rea, Specific Intent