G.R. No. 270257 , August 12, 2024
XXX270257, Petitioner, v. People of the Philippines and AAA, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner XXX270257 and private respondent AAA were married in 1998 and had three children. On December 23, 2016, AAA discovered calls from an unknown woman on XXX270257’s phone. On January 1, 2017, XXX270257 left the conjugal home to live with another woman, CCC. On January 8, 2017, CCC visited AAA’s house to declare she was leaving XXX270257, but he did not return home. XXX270257 and his relatives later suggested to AAA that they sever the marriage since he was living with CCC, though he promised financial support for the children. On March 1, 2017, XXX270257 entered a written agreement with AAA to sever ties with CCC but failed to comply. Instead, he moved CCC into his mother’s house, which was adjacent to AAA’s home, making their cohabitation visible to AAA and their children. XXX270257 and CCC had a child together, acknowledged by him, and they posted photos of their new family on social media. For his defense, XXX270257 claimed CCC was a mere acquaintance but admitted presenting himself as the father of her child because he wanted a son. He filed for annulment of his marriage to AAA but later withdrew it. He promised support for his three children and deposited PHP 5,000 monthly into separate accounts. AAA underwent therapy and was diagnosed with depression, attributed by a psychological expert to XXX270257’s actions of leaving home, cohabiting with CCC, and filing for annulment. AAA filed a concubinage case, resulting in the conviction of XXX270257 and CCC. She also filed the present case for violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004). The Regional Trial Court found XXX270257 guilty of inflicting mental and emotional anguish, citing his extramarital affair, abandonment, siring an illegitimate child, publicizing the relationship on social media, and insufficient financial support. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s judgment.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner’s conviction for violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 is proper, considering the elements of the crime, particularly the presence of actus reus and mens rea (specific criminal intent to cause mental or emotional anguish).

RULING

Yes, the conviction is proper. The concurring opinion affirms that the petitioner’s acts fall squarely within Section 5(i) of RA 9262. The crime is mala in se, requiring both actus reus (the acts or omissions) and mens rea (the specific criminal intent to cause mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule, or humiliation). Here, the actus reus consisted of the petitioner’s acts of abandoning the conjugal home, cohabiting with CCC in a house adjacent to AAA’s home, siring a child with CCC, and publicizing the new family on social media. The mens rea was established by proving the petitioner’s willful and conscious commission of these acts with the purpose of inflicting mental or emotional anguish upon AAA. The opinion emphasizes that marital infidelity per se is not punished under RA 9262; however, the petitioner’s acts of flaunting the extramarital relationship in full view of AAA, the children, and the public demonstrated a reckless disregard for AAA’s welfare and a specific intent to cause emotional violence. All elements of the crime are present: (a) AAA is the legal wife; (b) the petitioner is her husband; (c) the petitioner caused AAA mental and emotional anguish; and (d) such anguish was caused through deliberate and intentional acts of publicly displaying his relationship with CCC and their child. The prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The concurring opinion votes to deny the Petition for Review on Certiorari and affirm the conviction.