G.R. No. 241390 , January 13, 2021
XXX, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner XXX was charged with violating Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004). The Information alleged that around October 2010, he willfully inflicted psychological violence upon his wife, private complainant YYY, by maintaining an extramarital affair with Pearl Manto and bringing her to live in their conjugal home, causing YYY mental and emotional anguish, public ridicule, or humiliation. Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution presented YYY, who testified that during their 23-year marriage, petitioner had a habit of drunkenness and womanizing. In October 2010, after a fight, petitioner drove YYY and their four children out of their conjugal home. YYY and her children fled to her parents’ house. Later, their daughters returned to the conjugal home. YYY learned through text messages from her daughter AAA that petitioner was frequently drunk, introduced Pearl Manto as their “aunt” at a videoke bar, and that Pearl had been eating lunch at their house for two months and eventually lived with them. The daughter AAA corroborated this testimony, stating that after they returned to live with their father, Pearl lived in their house in her own room, and petitioner would transfer to Pearl’s room at night. AAA and her sisters left after two months because their father had no time for them and they disliked his mistress.
The defense denied the extramarital affair, admitting only that he knew Pearl as a guest relations officer. Petitioner claimed the fight with YYY was due to her mismanagement of family resources and an estafa case against her, and that she left the house voluntarily.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt, sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty of four years, two months, and one day of prision correccional as minimum to eight years and one day of prision mayor as maximum. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s ruling. Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether all the elements of psychological violence under Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262 were duly established beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the CA Decision with MODIFICATION. The Court held that all elements of the crime were proven.
The elements of violation of Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262 are: (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 has/had a sexual or dating relationship, or has a common child with him. The child may be legitimate or illegitimate; (3) The offender causes 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, or similar acts.
The first two elements were uncontested: YYY is petitioner’s wife, and their daughter AAA testified. For the third and fourth elements, the Court ruled that psychological violence was established through petitioner’s marital infidelity and public ridicule/humiliation, causing mental anguish to YYY. The Court rejected petitioner’s argument that YYY’s knowledge of the affair was hearsay, applying the doctrine of independently relevant statements—the fact that the statements (AAA’s messages to her mother) were made is relevant, not their truth. AAA’s direct testimony in court about the affair and cohabitation was admissible and credible. The act of introducing his mistress to their children and cohabiting with her in the conjugal home constituted psychological violence under the law, causing emotional suffering to YYY. The Court also noted that the law does not require repetitive acts; a single act causing anguish suffices. The affidavits of desistance executed by YYY and AAA were deemed insufficient to overturn the conviction, as the crime is a public offense.
The penalty was modified in line with recent jurisprudence. Petitioner was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six months and one day of prision correccional as minimum to eight years and one day of prision mayor as maximum, ordered to pay a fine of P100,000.00, and to undergo mandatory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment.