G.R. No. 212448 - AAA vs. BBB

Case Summary (G.R. No. 212448)

Procedural History Below

Following issuance of a warrant and hold-departure order, BBB evaded arrest. In November 2013, BBB’s counsel moved to quash the information and lift orders, asserting lack of territorial jurisdiction since the illicit acts occurred in Singapore.

RTC’s Ruling on Jurisdiction

The RTC granted quashal, holding that the “act” causing anguish must occur within court territory to satisfy the territoriality principle of criminal law. It dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction despite recognizing probable cause.

AAA’s Appeal Arguments

AAA contended that mental and emotional anguish—a core element of the offense—is experienced wherever the victim resides; hence, Pasig RTC retains jurisdiction. She invoked Section 7 (venue) and Section 4 (liberal construction) of RA 9262, emphasizing the law’s protective intent.

BBB’s Contentions on Petitionability

BBB argued the quashal amounted to acquittal (which only the OSG may appeal) and that AAA’s petition was untimely and improperly filed without OSG representation.

Supreme Court’s Threshold Findings

The Court found the petition timely and properly entertained despite OSG absence, citing Rule 45 precedent allowing private offended parties to raise pure questions of law when substantial justice demands. Quashal was deemed a dismissal, not an acquittal, preserving reviewability.

Elements of Psychological Violence

Under RA 9262 Section 5(i), the offense requires:

A qualifying relationship (wife/former wife or analogous).
Psychological violence (means) such as marital infidelity.
Resulting mental or emotional anguish (effect).
The infidelity is a means, not the criminalized end.

Territorial Jurisdiction Principles

Criminal jurisdiction depends on where any essential element of the offense occurred. Continuing or transitory crimes allow venue in any jurisdiction where part of the offense transpired, subject to first-court prerogative.

Application to RA 9262 and Venue

Section 7 permits

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 212448)

Facts

AAA and BBB were married on August 1, 2006 in Quezon City and had two children: CCC (b. March 4, 2007) and DDD (b. October 1, 2009).
In May 2007, BBB began working in Singapore as a chef and obtained permanent resident status in September 2008.
AAA and the children lived with her parents in Quezon City until March 2010, when they moved to her parents’ home in Pasig City.
AAA alleged that BBB provided little or sporadic financial support, virtually abandoned the family, mistreated her and CCC, and committed physical and sexual violence.
BBB allegedly entered into an illicit relationship with a Singaporean woman, Lisel Mok, and lived with her in Singapore.
On April 19, 2011, AAA, accompanied by their children, visited Singapore; a violent altercation erupted in a hotel room between AAA and BBB.

Issue

Whether Philippine courts have territorial jurisdiction under Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004) over an offense of psychological violence by marital infidelity when the illicit relationship occurred wholly outside the Philippines, but the mental and emotional anguish suffered by the wife manifested in the Philippines.

Procedural History

The Pasig City RTC, Branch 158, found probable cause and issued a warrant of arrest against BBB for causing mental and emotional anguish under Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262, citing evidence of photographs and an e-mailed letter.
A Hold-Departure Order was issued; BBB evaded arrest and the case was archived.
On November 6, 2013, BBB’s counsel filed an Omnibus Motion to Revive Case, Quash Information, Lift Hold-Departure Order and Warrant of Arrest.
By Resolutions of February 24 and May 2, 2014, the RTC granted the motion to quash the Information for lack of jurisdiction, reasoning that the criminal act (marital infidelity) occurred in Singapore.
AAA’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
On June 25, 2014, AAA filed a Rule 45 petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court challenging the RTC’s denial of jurisdiction.

Arguments of Petitioner (AAA)

Mental and emotional anguish is an essential element of the offense and is experience