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

Case Summary (G.R. No. 212448)

Petitioner

AAA alleges that BBB engaged in marital infidelity with a Singaporean woman (Lisel Mok), provided little financial support, committed acts of virtual abandonment and other abuses, and that these circumstances caused her mental and emotional anguish. She filed an Information in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City charging BBB under Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262 for causing mental or emotional anguish through psychological violence.

Respondent

BBB was working in Singapore from May 2007 and acquired permanent resident status there in September 2008. He was charged in Pasig but contended that the offending acts took place in Singapore and moved to quash the Information for lack of territorial jurisdiction. He also raised procedural defenses in his Comment before the Supreme Court concerning timeliness and the proper party to prosecute.

Key Dates and Places

Marriage: August 1, 2006 (Quezon City).
Children born: March 4, 2007 and October 1, 2009.
BBB began working in Singapore: May 2007 (permanent resident status September 2008).
Violent altercation at a hotel in Singapore: April 19, 2011 (incident date referenced in the Information).
RTC of Pasig City, Branch 158 issued Resolutions quashing the Information: February 24, 2014 and May 2, 2014.
Petition for certiorari under Rule 45 filed by AAA in the Supreme Court within the allowed period (extension and dates noted in the record).

Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis

The case is decided under the legal framework of Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004). Because the decision was rendered in 2018, the applicable constitutional framework is the 1987 Philippine Constitution as the supreme law governing jurisdictional and due process considerations attendant to criminal prosecution.

Procedural History

AAA filed an Information in RTC–Pasig charging BBB with psychological violence under Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262. A warrant of arrest issued but BBB evaded arrest; the case was archived. BBB later filed an Entry of Appearance with an omnibus motion to revive the case and to quash the Information on territorial jurisdiction grounds. The RTC granted the motion to quash, concluding it lacked jurisdiction because the acts complained of occurred in Singapore. AAA moved for reconsideration which was denied, and she filed a Rule 45 petition in the Supreme Court seeking nullification of the RTC’s Resolutions and reinstatement of the Information.

Trial Court’s Ruling and Reasoning

The RTC recognized probable cause but quashed the Information for lack of territorial jurisdiction because the alleged illicit relationship — the specific act the RTC identified as causing the wife’s anguish — occurred in Singapore. The RTC reasoned that Section 5(i) penalizes the act (e.g., marital infidelity) that causes anguish, and because that act transpired abroad the court could not exercise jurisdiction without violating the territoriality principle of criminal law. The RTC acknowledged ambiguities in the statute and suggested congressional attention.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

The central legal question was whether Philippine courts may exercise territorial jurisdiction over an offense of psychological violence under Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262 when the means (marital infidelity) alleged to cause the victim’s mental or emotional anguish took place outside the Philippines — specifically, whether venue and jurisdiction properly lie in the place where the victim suffers the anguish rather than only where the physical acts occurred.

Threshold Procedural Questions (timeliness, standing, OSG)

The Supreme Court addressed and rejected BBB’s procedural objections: (1) AAA’s petition was timely filed within the extension granted; (2) the absence of the Office of the Solicitor General did not bar the Court from entertaining a Rule 45 petition brought by the private offended party where only questions of law are raised and substantial justice requires resolution; and (3) the RTC’s quashal is a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction (not an acquittal), so the remedy by certiorari under Rule 45 was appropriate because the issue raised was purely legal.

Elements of Psychological Violence Under R.A. No. 9262

The Court reiterated established elements for Section 5(i): (1) offended party is a woman and/or her child; (2) the woman’s relational status with the offender (wife, former wife, sexual or dating partner, or common-child relationship); (3) offender causes mental or emotional anguish to the woman/child; and (4) the anguish is caused through acts such as public ridicule, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, denial of financial support or custody/access to children, marital infidelity, or similar acts/omissions. Psychological violence functions as the means; mental or emotional anguish is the resulting harm and an essential element of the offense.

Jurisdiction, Venue, and Territoriality Principles

The Court recalled that territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information and that venue is jurisdictional. The general rule is that a court must have territorial jurisdiction over the place where the offense was committed or where any essential element occurred. The Court also emphasized that certain offenses may be transitory or continuing: when material and essential acts occur in more than one territory, the case may be filed in any jurisdiction where part of the offense was committed, and the first court taking cognizance excludes the others.

Analysis: Application to Transitory/Continuing Offenses and Section 7

Applying Section 7 of R.A. No. 9262 (which allows filing in the RTC where the crime or any of its elements was committed), the Court reasoned that psychological violence may be transitory or continuing in nature: the means (illicit relationship abroad) may occur outside the Philippines while the effect (mental or emotional anguish) may be experienced in the Philippines. Because mental or emotional anguish is an essential, personal element of the offense and is analogous to damage in certain property crimes, the law contemplates that venue may lie where the anguish (an element of the crime) is experienced. Therefore, even if the illicit relationship occurred abroad, Philippine courts may exercise jurisdiction if an essential element (here, the victim’s anguish) took place within the forum chosen by the complainant.

Court’s Conclusion and Rationale

The Supreme Court concluded that the RTC erred in treating

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 212448)

Nature of the Case and Core Legal Question

Petition for the issuance of a writ of certiorari under Rule 45 seeking to nullify the RTC Resolutions dated February 24, 2014 and May 2, 2014 in Criminal Case No. 146468.
Central question presented to the Court: May Philippine courts exercise jurisdiction over an offense constituting psychological violence under R.A. No. 9262 (Anti‑Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004) committed through marital infidelity when the alleged illicit relationship occurred or is occurring outside the country?
The petition challenges the trial court's grant of a motion to quash the Information charging respondent BBB under Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262 on the ground that the acts complained of occurred in Singapore and thus are outside the territorial jurisdiction of the RTC of Pasig City.

Parties, Identifying Facts and Confidentiality Note

Petitioner: identified in the decision by the initials “AAA”; Respondent: identified by the initials “BBB.”
The decision notes Section 44 of R.A. 9262 requires confidentiality of records and replacement of names of women and children victims by fictitious initials in court promulgations and prevents disclosure of identifying information.
The Court followed that confidentiality requirement in the decision.

Relevant Chronology and Factual Background

Marriage of AAA and BBB: August 1, 2006 in Quezon City.
Children of the marriage: CCC (born March 4, 2007) and DDD (born October 1, 2009).
BBB’s employment and residence facts: Began working in Singapore as a chef in May 2007; acquired permanent resident status in September 2008. His address in the petition was indicated as Quezon City where his parents and AAA resided until March 2010.
AAA’s residence and family movements: AAA and the children moved back to AAA’s parents’ house in Pasig City in March 2010.
Alleged misconduct and incidents: AAA alleged little to no financial support and sporadic remittances from BBB, virtual abandonment, mistreatment of her and CCC, and physical and sexual violence. BBB allegedly started an affair with a Singaporean woman named Lisel Mok and allegedly has been living with her in Singapore.
Pivotal incident: Violent altercation between AAA and BBB on April 19, 2011 at a hotel room in Singapore during AAA’s visit with the children.

Criminal Charge and Original Information

Information charged BBB under Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262 for “causing [AAA] mental and emotional anguish by having an illicit relationship with a certain Lisel Mok” as evidenced by a photograph and an e‑mailed letter by his mother mentioning the relationship, alleged to have occurred “On or about April 19, 2011, in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court.”
The investigating prosecutor found sufficient basis to charge BBB with causing AAA mental and emotional anguish through alleged marital infidelity.

Pre‑trial Proceedings, Warrant, Hold‑Departure Order and Archiving

A warrant of arrest issued against BBB; AAA secured a Hold‑Departure Order (HDO) against him.
BBB continued to evade the warrant of arrest, and the case was archived.

Motion to Quash, RTC Ruling and Reasoning

On November 6, 2013, an Entry of Appearance and Omnibus Motion to Revive Case, Quash Information, Lift HDO and Warrant of Arrest was filed for BBB.
The RTC granted the motion to quash and dismissed the case for lack of territorial jurisdiction, reasoning:
- The acts complained of were shown to have occurred in Singapore and thus outside the territorial limits of the court.
- The court maintained its earlier finding of probable cause but concluded it “enjoys no jurisdiction over the offense charged, it having transpired outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.”
- The RTC rejected the prosecution’s contention that jurisdiction attached because AAA suffered mental and emotional anguish “wherever she goes,” reasoning that the act which caused the anguish must itself have occurred within the territorial limits of the court for jurisdiction to attach.
- The RTC emphasized territoriality and interpreted the use of the word “causing” in Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262 as requiring that the criminal act that brought about mental or emotional anguish occur within the court’s territorial limits.
- The RTC acknowledged ambiguities in the law and invited Congressional attention to jurisdictional issues.

Petition to the Supreme Court and Arguments of the Parties

AAA filed a Rule 45 petition asserting that:
- Mental and emotional anguish is an essential element of the offense and is experienced by her “wherever she goes,” not only where the illicit relationship takes place.
- The RTC of Pasig City, where she resides, can properly take cognizance of the case.
- Section 7 of R.A. No. 9262 (Venue) allows the complainant to file the case in the Regional Trial Court where the crime or any of its elements was committed, and Section 4 requires liberal construction to promote protection and safety of victims.
BBB, in his Comment, contended that:
- The RTC’s grant of the motion to quash amounted to an acquittal.
- That only the civil aspect of a criminal case may be appealed by the private offended party.
- The petition should be dismissed because it was brought by AAA instead of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), which represents the People in appellate proceedings, and because the petition was allegedly belated.
Procedural response: The Court addressed timeliness and standing, finding the petition was timely filed (AAA’s motion for extension was filed May 27, 2014 and petition filed June 25, 2014