G.R. No. 252739, April 16, 2024
XXX, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner XXX and private complainant AAA were married on February 11, 1999, and have one child. XXX worked in Manila while the family resided in Tarlac. On July 16, 2016, AAA received information and photos from a co-worker, relayed from a certain EEE, indicating that XXX was keeping a mistress, YYY, in Makati City and that they had a four-year-old son. On July 19, 2016, AAA, accompanied by her mother and a friend, BBB, went to the Makati address. They found the family vehicle parked outside and confronted YYY. XXX eventually emerged. During the confrontation, a young boy ran out calling XXX “Daddy.” At the barangay hall, XXX admitted to being the boy’s father. Subsequent incidents at their home involved XXX threatening self-harm with a knife in the presence of AAA and their son. AAA suffered emotional distress, was unable to work for months, and could not sleep. XXX was charged with violating Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act) for keeping a mistress, thereby causing mental and emotional anguish. XXX admitted fathering a child with YYY but denied keeping a mistress, claiming the child resulted from a one-night stand and that he only visited the child a few times a year. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found XXX guilty, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA).

ISSUE

Whether the act of keeping a mistress, constituting marital infidelity, falls under and is punishable as psychological violence under Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court, sitting En Banc, affirmed the lower courts’ decisions and declared that marital infidelity is a form of psychological violence punishable under Republic Act No. 9262. The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved all elements of the crime under Section 5(i): (1) the offended party is a woman and/or her child; (2) the woman is either the wife or former wife of the offender, or they have a sexual or dating relationship, or they have a common child; (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 denial of access to the woman’s child/children. The Court found that XXX’s act of keeping a mistress and fathering a child with another woman constituted psychological abuse that caused AAA mental and emotional suffering, which was evident from her testimony and behavior. The Court emphasized that marital infidelity violates the mutual trust and respect inherent in marriage, inflicts severe psychological harm, and undermines the family as a basic social institution, which the State is obligated to protect. The penalty imposed by the RTC was sustained.