G.R. No. 260547 , November 26, 2024
XXX260547, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

The ponencia (main decision) acquitted petitioner XXX260547 for violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 (The Anti-Violence against Women and Children Act of 2004) due to the alleged insufficiency of the Information. The Information charged that petitioner, the lawful husband of private complainant AAA260547, willfully committed acts likely to cause psychological abuse by leaving AAA260547 to live with another woman (YYY260547) and by totally neglecting to provide support for their two children, to the damage and prejudice of AAA260547. The ponencia held the Information defective for failing to allege that the wife and children suffered mental or emotional anguish, stating that psychological abuse is a separate element from such anguish.

ISSUE

Whether the Information filed against the petitioner is sufficient to charge him with violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 , despite not explicitly alleging that the victims suffered mental or emotional anguish.

RULING

The dissenting opinion argues that the Information is sufficient. The constitutional right to be informed requires that an Information distinctly states the statutory designation of the offense and the acts or omissions constitutive thereof, enabling a person of common understanding to know the charge and the court to render judgment. The sufficiency is determined by the actual recital of facts, not the caption or the specification of the violated law.
Applying this, the dissent finds the Information valid. It holds that psychological violence, as defined in Section 3(c) of R.A. 9262 to include acts like marital infidelity causing mental or emotional suffering, is the indispensable element of the offense. Mental or emotional anguish is the effect or damage sustained by the victim because of the psychological violence; it is subsumed within the concept of psychological violence. Therefore, it is immaterial that the Information did not specifically allege mental anguish, as the allegation of acts “likely to cause… psychological abuse” (marital infidelity and neglect of support) sufficiently charges the offense.
The dissent further clarifies that the specific allegations of leaving to live with a paramour (marital infidelity) and neglecting to provide support are factual allegations constituting psychological violence. Citing jurisprudence, it states that in cases of marital infidelity, the specific criminal intent to cause mental and emotional suffering is conclusively presumed from the act itself. Finally, the dissent rejects the petitioner’s claim that liability under Section 5(i) requires repetitive marital infidelity, noting no such requirement exists in the law.