GR 263449 Leonen (Digest)
G.R. No. 263449, November 13, 2023
XXX, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT. DISSENTING OPINION
FACTS
Petitioner XXX was convicted for violating Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act) for causing mental or emotional anguish to his wife, AAA. The prosecution established that XXX abandoned AAA, eloped with their former household helper, fathered a child with her, and left behind unpaid conjugal debts. AAA testified to the severe emotional distress and physical health deterioration she suffered as a result of these actions. The ponencia found all statutory elements present, emphasizing that the act of abandonment itself caused the requisite anguish.
ISSUE
Whether the act of spousal abandonment, without proof of deliberate intent to inflict emotional anguish, constitutes a violation of Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262.
RULING
No. Justice Leonen, in his dissenting opinion, argues that conviction under Section 5(i) requires proof of dolo or specific criminal intent. The prosecution must establish that the accused willfully performed a prohibited act for the purpose of inflicting mental or emotional anguish. Mere causation of anguish is insufficient. The dissent relies on Acharon v. People, which clarified that violations of R.A. No. 9262 are mala in se crimes requiring both actus reus (the wrongful act) and mens rea (the guilty mind). For “denial of financial support,” the actus reus is the willful denial, and the mens rea is the intent to inflict anguish through that denial. This logic extends to other acts under Section 5(i), including abandonment. Here, while XXX’s abandonment caused anguish, the prosecution failed to prove his actions were deliberately undertaken to cause such suffering. His conduct may constitute a civil violation of marital obligations, but absent proven criminal intent, it should not be penalized under R.A. 9262. Criminalizing acts that are primarily breaches of civil law risks unconstitutional infringements on personal liberty and autonomy. The dissent concludes that XXX should be acquitted.