Title
Araza y Jarupay vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 247429
Decision Date
Sep 8, 2020
Araza's marital infidelity caused AAA severe emotional distress, leading to his conviction under R.A. No. 9262 for psychological violence. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling, affirming damages and penalties.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 247429)

Factual Allegations in the Information

The Information charged that, beginning September 2007 in Las Piñas City, Araza wilfully committed acts of psychological abuse on his wife by engaging in a marital affair with Tessie Luy Fabillar and fathering three children with her, thus causing AAA emotional anguish and mental suffering.

Prosecution Evidence

AAA testified that:
• Her marriage to Araza (1989) was initially harmonious.
• In February 2007 he went to Zamboanga for business and became distant.
• She learned from friends that Araza was living with Fabillar; confirmed on September 3, 2007.
• She filed and settled a concubinage complaint, with written agreement to stay apart.
• Araza returned home briefly, then disappeared November 22, 2007, resuming cohabitation with Fabillar.
• She suffered insomnia, depression, asthma, and spent resources searching for him; medical certificates were presented (Exhs. E-E6).
Armando Que corroborated sightings of Araza and Fabillar together in Zamboanga.
Dr. Kristina Ruth Lindain, expert in psychiatry, opined that AAA’s symptoms (depressed mood, sleep difficulty) were secondary to relational distress and recommended counseling.

Defense Evidence

Araza denied an affair, attributing his return to Zamboanga to business and inability to bear AAA’s accusations. He admitted living with Fabillar since 2008 “under one roof” for one year but denied paternity of her children. He insisted AAA’s claims were motivated by her attitude and rumors.

RTC Findings and Ruling

The RTC credited AAA’s candid and consistent testimony. It held that:
1. Araza and AAA were lawfully married.
2. Psychological violence under Section 5(i) was established by proof of marital infidelity and abandonment.
3. AAA’s emotional anguish and mental suffering were proven through her testimony and Dr. Lindain’s expert opinion.
Denial was deemed a weak defense. Araza was convicted, sentenced under the Indeterminate Sentence Law to prision correccional (6 months + 1 day) to prision mayor (8 years + 1 day), fined ₱100,000, and ordered to indemnify moral damages of ₱25,000.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The CA affirmed the RTC, emphasizing that:
• R.A. 9262 punishes psychological violence causing mental suffering, not fidelity per se.
• Acts of infidelity and false pretenses of detention were proven.
• Prosecution witnesses were credible; defense denial lacked clear and convincing evidence.

Supreme Court Analysis on Sufficiency of the Information

Invoking Dela Chica v. Sandiganbayan and Rule 110, Section 6(1), the Court held that the Information need only allege material facts constituting each element of Section 5(i). The Information sufficiently stated:
• Offended party (AAA) is the wife of the offender (Araza).
• Emotional anguish and mental suffering were caused.
• Araza committed marital infidelity and fathered illegitimate children.

Supreme Court Analysis on Proof of Psychological Violence

Section 3(c) defines “psychological violence” and Section 5(i) penalizes acts causing mental anguish. In Dimamling v. People, elements are:
1. Offended party is a woman.
2. She is wife or in a sexual relationship.
3. Offender causes mental or emotional anguish.
4. Anguish arises from acts like repeated verbal abuse, humiliation, denial of support or similar acts.
AA






...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.