Title
Petitioner vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 264870
Decision Date
Apr 21, 2025
VAWC conviction reversed: Infidelity isn't per se psychological violence; recantation raised reasonable doubt.
criminal law
psychological violence
marital infidelity

Case Summary (G.R. No. 264870)

Factual Background

The record established that petitioner and AAA264870 were married on June 28, 2014 at the Iglesia ni Cristo House of Worship in xxxxxxxxxxx. About a year and a half into their marriage, AAA264870 read messages on petitioner’s phone and learned that he was having an affair with her friend, BBB264870. AAA264870 fainted upon discovering the affair and was brought to xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. When she returned home, petitioner had already moved out.

AAA264870 confronted BBB264870 through Facebook Messenger. Petitioner eventually admitted that he had sexual intercourse with BBB264870 and, in an apparent attempt to salvage the marriage, AAA264870 accepted petitioner’s invitation to spend the holidays with his family in xxxxxxxx , Rizal. During the celebrations, AAA264870 again read messages on petitioner’s phone and a fight ensued. Petitioner then said that he no longer wanted to continue the marriage, and his decision remained the same even after their parents intervened. Petitioner and BBB264870 then sent messages to AAA264870 apologizing and urging her to move on.

AAA264870 later learned that petitioner and BBB264870 were already living together and that they had a child by October 2016. AAA264870 underwent psychological assessment by clinical psychologist Nedy L. Tayag, who diagnosed her with “a severe case of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder with mood coloring, attributed and as caused by the psychological abuse she was subjected to by [her] husband.”

Petitioner admitted that he fathered a child with BBB264870 but denied any romantic relationship. He also denied inflicting psychological abuse, pointing to messages sent by AAA264870 that reflected forgiveness or acceptance. He further agreed to, and even paid for the filing of, an annulment case after AAA264870 requested it.

The prosecution’s theory was anchored on the Information’s allegation that petitioner’s extramarital affair and resulting impregnation caused psychological violence to AAA264870, producing mental and emotional anguish, distress, humiliation, harm, and suffering.

Filing of the Information and Plea

Petitioner was charged under Republic Act No. 9262. Although the Information’s caption stated a violation of Section 5(h), the factual allegations in the Information narrated that petitioner had an extramarital affair with BBB264870 and impregnated her, “thereby causing psychological violence” to AAA264870, resulting in “mental and emotional anguish, psychological distress, humiliation, harm, and suffering.” Petitioner pleaded not guilty upon arraignment.

Trial Court Proceedings

After trial, the Regional Trial Court convicted petitioner of violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262. The trial court found that the prosecution established that petitioner inflicted psychological or emotional harm on AAA264870 due to his marital infidelity. It relied on evidence showing AAA264870’s distress and on the psychological assessment submitted in the case.

The trial court sentenced petitioner to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum, with a fine of PHP 100,000.00. It also ordered moral damages of PHP 20,000.00 with 6% per annum interest from finality until full payment, required monthly mandatory psychological counseling, and directed compliance to be submitted to the court.

Appellate Proceedings and the Affidavit of Recantation

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. It denied petitioner’s appeal and later denied his Motion for Reconsideration.

During the reconsideration proceedings, petitioner attached an Affidavit of Recantation executed by AAA264870 before Assistant City Prosecutor Paolo C. Barcelona of the Office of the Prosecutor of xxxxxxxxxxxx. In the affidavit, AAA264870 claimed she was “not hurt nor devastated” when she learned of petitioner’s affair. She stated that they had an understanding about new relationships outside their marriage and that, while she felt betrayed because BBB264870 was a close friend, her feelings toward the situation were different from the suffering alleged in her earlier testimony. She also retracted parts of her earlier account, including the claim that she fainted and was brought to xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, and she denied that there was a fight during the family celebration in xxxxxxxx , Rizal.

AAA264870 further stated that she did not see a clinical psychologist because of petitioner’s illicit affairs, and that she sought assessment only after the filing of the criminal case about two years after the affair, because she was told she needed medical evidence. She explained that the criminal case was filed because the earlier criminal case for concubinage was dismissed. She also asserted that she and petitioner had been living separately long before the illicit affair and that they were open to the possibility of new relationships.

Petitioner argued that the recantation cast serious doubt on his liability because it denied that AAA264870 experienced mental or emotional anguish, which he characterized as an element of the offense.

Issues Raised to the Supreme Court

Petitioner raised two principal issues. First, he argued that the Information violated his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation because the Information’s caption charged Section 5(h,** but the conviction was for Section 5(i). He rejected a variance doctrine since the two provisions allegedly had different elements and he claimed the prosecution presented no evidence of the violence type covered by the charged provision. He also questioned the particularity of the Information concerning time, place, names, and circumstances.

Second, he argued that his conviction should be overturned because AAA264870’s Affidavit of Recantation created reasonable doubt. He emphasized that in the affidavit the offended party expressed that she did not experience emotional anguish and mental suffering. He also claimed that even during cross-examination, the clinical psychologist testified that the cause of emotional suffering was not petitioner’s marital infidelity but that petitioner told her he was no longer happy with her. Petitioner further argued that forgiveness did not extinguish criminal liability but indicated that the complainant did not suffer the psychological harm alleged.

Disposition by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court granted the Petition for Review on Certiorari. It reversed and set aside the Court of Appeals January 28, 2021 Decision and December 21, 2022 Resolution. The Supreme Court acquitted petitioner of violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 and ordered that entry of judgment issue immediately.

The Supreme Court’s Reasoning on the Right to be Informed

On the first issue, the Supreme Court held that there was no violation of petitioner’s right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation even if the prosecution erred in designating the proper offense. The Court stressed that what controlled was not the caption or the prosecutor’s designation of the offense, but the description of the crime and the particular facts recited in the Information. It cited People v. Dimaano, which held that titles and legal designations are mere conclusions of law, and that the decisive requirement is that the Information’s allegations must enable a person of common understanding to know the offense intended and allow the court to pronounce proper judgment.

The Supreme Court found that, although the Information’s caption referenced Section 5(h), its body sufficiently alleged facts constituting a violation of Section 5(i). It also noted that petitioner, in his Judicial Affidavit, admitted that he knew the nature of the case against him—namely, that he was accused of an extramarital affair with BBB264870 that resulted in mental and emotional anguish to his wife. Hence, petitioner was deemed adequately apprised of the substance of the charge.

The Supreme Court’s Reasoning on Psychological Violence and Reasonable Doubt

On the second issue, the Supreme Court held that petitioner’s conviction could not be sustained because the prosecution failed to prove the required element beyond reasonable doubt. The Court held that marital infidelity per se was not an act of violence criminalized under Republic Act No. 9262. The law protects women from violence committed in the context of an intimate relationship, including psychological violence, and it is rooted in gendered power dynamics and the protection of a woman’s dignity and autonomy.

The Supreme Court underscored that Sections 3 and 5 of Republic Act No. 9262 must be read together. Under Section 3(a), “psychological violence” includes acts such as intimidation, harassment, stalking, public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal abuse, and “marital infidelity.” Under Section 5(i), the offense is committed through acts that cause “mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation,” including repeated verbal and emotional abuse and related acts.

The Supreme Court treated the offense as having two distinct and separate elements: first, acts or omissions constituting psychological violence used as a means by the perpetrator; and second, mental or emotional anguish caused to the victim. The Court reasoned that the effect on the victim alone was insufficient. It further explained that the acts should be evaluated on whether they were done with the intention to cause mental or emotional anguish and humiliation in a manner that tilts power against the woman and undermines her autonomy.

The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the intention element and, more importantly, it held that the Affidavit of Recantation executed by AAA264870 created reasonable doubt as to the essential second element—the victim’s actual mental or emotional anguish and suffering.

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms