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

FACTS

This case involves a petition concerning a conviction under Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 (The Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004). The petitioner, XXX, was found to have committed marital infidelity. The majority of the Court affirmed his conviction, interpreting “marital infidelity” as a mode of committing psychological violence under the law, presuming a specific criminal intent to cause mental and emotional suffering due to its inherently immoral and depraved nature under societal norms.

ISSUE

Whether marital infidelity, in and of itself and absent a showing of intent to cause mental or emotional anguish, constitutes psychological violence and is criminally punishable under Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262.

RULING

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Leonen voted for the petitioner’s acquittal. The ruling, as articulated in the dissent, is that marital infidelity alone is not a violation of Section 5(i) of RA 9262. The dissent argues that:
1. The phrase “marital infidelity” in the law is vague. It is not explicitly listed as a crime in Section 5(i), and its meaning can vary widely among couples, encompassing acts beyond sexual intercourse, from dating former lovers to watching pornography.
2. Marital infidelity is ultimately a question of personal boundaries set within a couple, and the State should not intrude into these intimate agreements by criminalizing it per se.
3. Marital infidelity may be committed for various reasons (e.g., a spouse’s perceived weakness or need to prove masculinity) and cannot be automatically presumed to be done with the intent to inflict psychological anguish.
4. Criminalizing undefined marital infidelity is unjust, infringes on the autonomy of couples to resolve their differences, stereotypes all women as victims, and is particularly cruel in a legal order that does not recognize divorce for Filipinos.
5. Existing laws already address related wrongs: the Revised Penal Code defines adultery and concubinage, the Family Code provides grounds for legal separation and psychological incapacity, and the Civil Code offers a cause of action for damages for disturbing family relations.
Therefore, absent evidence that the act of infidelity was done precisely to inflict mental or emotional anguish, it does not constitute psychological violence under the law.