GR 260547 Leonen (Digest)
G.R. No. 260547, November 26, 2024
XXX260547, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Petitioner XXX260547 was charged under Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004) via an Information alleging that he willfully committed acts likely to cause psychological abuse by leaving his wife, AAA260547, to live with another woman and by totally neglecting to provide support for their two children. The Regional Trial Court convicted him, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, arguing that the Information failed to state all the elements of the offense and that Section 5(i) punishes repeated marital infidelity, which was not proven.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioner should be acquitted due to the prosecution’s failure to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262, particularly in light of the defective Information and the lack of sufficient proof of psychological violence resulting in mental or emotional anguish.
RULING
The Separate Concurring Opinion agrees with the ponencia’s ruling to acquit the petitioner. The acquittal is grounded on two main points: First, the Information was defective as it conflated the means (psychological violence) with the resulting harm (mental or emotional anguish), failing to accurately charge the crime. Second, the evidence presented by the prosecution, including the testimony of the wife, was insufficient to establish the essential elements of psychological violence and the resulting emotional suffering as required by law. The opinion further elaborates that while R.A. No. 9262 rightly protects against psychological abuse, not every act of marital infidelity automatically constitutes such violence. The determination requires proof of how the specific acts caused emotional anguish, considering the unique circumstances of the intimate relationship, a matter in which the State must exercise judicial restraint.