Case Summary (G.R. No. 252739)
Procedural History (cases and courts)
Criminal Information filed December 29, 2016 (Sec. 5(i), RA 9262). RTC Branch 144, Regional Trial Court, convicted petitioner (Decision dated November 17, 2017). Court of Appeals affirmed (Decision November 8, 2019; Reconsideration denied June 22, 2022). Petition for Review on Certiorari filed with the Supreme Court; the Supreme Court (En Banc) affirmed the conviction (G.R. No. 252739).
Charge and Accusatory Allegation
Information alleged that on or prior to July 19, 2016, petitioner, being the husband of AAA, “kept a mistress, thereby causing upon complainant mental and emotional anguish,” in violation of Section 5(i), RA 9262. The prosecution’s theory treated alleged keeping of a mistress (and related facts) as the mode of committing psychological violence that caused mental and emotional anguish to the wife.
Factual Narrative Presented at Trial
AAA learned by messages and photographs that the couple’s vehicle was parked at a Makati address and was told petitioner was keeping a mistress there and had a child by her. On July 19, 2016 AAA, accompanied by her mother and BBB, went to the address, confronted YYY, and eventually found petitioner there; a little boy called petitioner “Daddy.” Barangay discussions followed and petitioner reportedly admitted paternity. AAA testified to intense emotional distress, inability to work for months, sleeplessness, frequent crying and withdrawal; BBB corroborated AAA’s visible anguish and her conversation with YYY.
Petitioner’s Denials and Alternative Account
Petitioner admitted marriage to AAA and paternity of the child by YYY but denied keeping a mistress; characterized the incident as a one‑time sexual encounter in 2011 that produced a child he saw sporadically (three or four times a year) and for which he claimed limited involvement and no cohabitation or maintenance of a mistress.
RTC Ruling and Rationale
The RTC found the prosecution established the elements of Sec. 5(i): (1) the offended party is a woman; (2) marital relationship established; (3) mental and emotional anguish proved by AAA’s testimony and demeanor; and (4) the anguish was caused by acts of marital infidelity (petitioner’s acknowledged paternity and other corroborative facts). The RTC sentenced petitioner to an indeterminate term (prision correccional to prision mayor), imposed a PHP100,000 fine and required psychological counseling.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The CA affirmed in toto, emphasizing that AAA’s emotional breakdown and testimony demonstrated that the confirmation of petitioner’s unfaithfulness caused her anguish. The CA treated “keeping a mistress” as the mode of commission but focused on the result element (mental/emotional anguish) required by Sec. 5(i).
Issue Presented to the Supreme Court
Whether petitioner is guilty of violating Section 5(i), RA 9262 — specifically, whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner’s marital infidelity caused AAA’s mental and emotional anguish and whether specific intent to cause that anguish must be established for liability under Sec. 5(i) when the means is marital infidelity.
Majority’s Policy and Statutory Framework
The Court reiterated RA 9262’s protective purpose in the context of the State’s duty under the 1987 Constitution to ensure equality of women and men and to protect women and children from gender‑based violence. The opinion canvassed international instruments (e.g., CEDAW, DEVAW, Beijing Declaration) as background to the statute’s social policy and emphasized the law’s remedial and protective character.
Elements of Section 5(i) and Application
Citing Dinamling and other jurisprudence, the Court restated the Sec. 5(i) elements: (1) offended party is a woman/child, (2) relationship (wife or intimate partner/common child), (3) offender causes mental or emotional anguish, and (4) anguish is caused through specified acts or similar acts. The first two elements were undisputed; the Court found the third and fourth satisfied here: AAA’s demonstrable anguish was causally linked to discovery and confirmation of petitioner’s infidelity and the birth/acknowledgment of the child with YYY.
Mens Rea: Majority’s Holding on Intention and Marital Infidelity
The Court held that while Sec. 5(i) generally penalizes psychological violence (a mala in se crime), the specific intent requirement articulated in Acharon (which concerned willful denial of financial support) does not apply to marital infidelity. The majority reasoned that marital infidelity is inherently wrongful and that the specific intent to cause mental or emotional anguish is “satisfied at the moment the perpetrator commits the act of marital infidelity.” Consequently, for marital infidelity the prosecution need not separately prove the accused intended to inflict psychological harm; the act itself suffices to infer the culpable mental state for Sec. 5(i). The Court nonetheless warned that not all extramarital relationships will amount to criminality — e.g., estranged relations, consensual arrangements, or family forms where such entanglements do not cause anguish.
Distinction from Acharon and Limits Recognized by Majority
The majority drew a principled distinction: Acharon’s mens rea requirement applies in cases (like willful denial of financial support) where the means could be ambiguous or innocent in some contexts; marital infidelity, by contrast, is inherently immoral and thus supports a presumption of intent to cause anguish. The Court retained room for non‑criminal scenarios (estranged or consenting spouses; non‑traditional arrangements) where extramarital relations do not cause or likely cause mental/emotional suffering.
Final Disposition and Penalties
The petition was denied. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA and RTC decisions. Petitioner was found guilty of violating Section 5(i), RA 9262 and sentenced to an indeterminate term (two years, four months, one day of prision correccional as minimum to eight years, one day of prision mayor as maximum), ordered to pay PHP100,000, and to undergo mandatory psychological counseling as required by Sec. 6 of RA 9262.
Concurring Opinions — General Themes
Multiple Justices filed concurring opinions with complementary emphases: Chief Justice Gesmundo (concurring reflections) and Justices Lazaro‑Javier, Inting, and Singh wrote separately. Common threads in concurrences: affirmation of RA 9262’s protective purpose; acceptance that marital infidelity is a form of psychological violence; support for treating marital infidelity as sufficient to infer the requisite culpable mental state (or at least to satisfy the third element) in Sec. 5(i); and caution that each case must be examined on its facts to avoid criminalizing consensual or non‑harmful arrangements.
Justice Inting’s Separate Concurrence — variance, mens rea, recklessness
Justice Inting concurred and elaborated that (a) the Information charging “keeping a mistress” was broad enough to encompass marital infidelity under the variance doctrine, (b) statutory language and legislative purpose support not requiring a distinct proof of intent for infidelity, and (c) even if mens rea were required, it could be presumed from the act or established as recklessness; he found the record established purposeful/knowing/reckless conduct and affirmed conviction.
Justice Lazaro‑Javier’s Concurring Emphasis on Protection and Proof
Justice Lazaro‑Javier concurred, emphasizing the legislative history and policy rationale for prioritizing victims’ perspectives and for not demanding a separate mens rea proof that would hamper enforcement; she underscored the sufficiency of AAA’s testimony and the proven elements to support conviction.
Justice Singh’s Concurring Point on Presumption of Intent
Justice Singh concurred, arguing that specific intent to cause mental or emotional anguish is presumed when a married person commits infidelity, because the emotional harm to the spouse is a natural and logical consequence; she stressed the importance of preserving legislative aims and showed deference to the victim‑centered focus of RA 9262
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 252739)
Case Caption, Nature and Procedural History
- En banc petition: G.R. No. 252739, decided April 16, 2024, captioned XXX (petitioner) v. People of the Philippines (respondent).
- Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by petitioner XXX, seeking reversal of the Court of Appeals Decision (CA-G.R. CR No. 40938, November 8, 2019) and the CA Resolution denying reconsideration (June 22, 2022).
- Underlying criminal case: RTC Branch 144, Regional Trial Court, xxxxxxxxxxx, Criminal Case No. R-MKT-17-00580-CR (Decision dated November 17, 2017), which found XXX guilty of violating Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004).
- Information (dated December 29, 2016) charged XXX: "On July 19, 2016 or prior thereto, in the city of xxxxxxxxxxx, the Philippines, accused, being the husband of complainant AAA, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously [keep] a mistress, thereby causing upon complainant mental and emotional anguish, in violation of the aforesaid law. CONTRARY TO LAW."
- The RTC convicted; the CA affirmed the RTC decision in toto; the CA denied XXX’s motion for reconsideration; XXX elevated the case to the Supreme Court.
Factual Antecedents (as found and presented at trial)
- Parties and family:
- XXX and AAA married on February 11, 1999; they have one child together.
- XXX employed by the Bureau of Customs, assigned to Port of Manila; lived in Sampaloc, Manila during weekdays and returned to Tarlac on weekends; family residence in Tarlac City.
- Discovery of alleged infidelity:
- July 16, 2016: AAA received private messages from a co-worker containing photos and messages from a third party (EEE) showing what appeared to be the family vehicle at a location; the co-worker told AAA that XXX was allegedly keeping a mistress there and that XXX had a child with the mistress (a boy about four years old).
- AAA was with XXX when she first received the messages; she began crying and was emotionally distraught.
- Confrontation, July 19, 2016:
- AAA, accompanied by her mother and family friend BBB, went to Makati City and sought assistance from Palanan barangay authorities to locate the address provided by EEE.
- They found the family vehicle parked outside the address. When they knocked, an unknown person opened the gate; YYY (the alleged mistress) came out; AAA grabbed YYY and demanded to see her husband.
- XXX initially did not come out; BBB and AAA's mother entered the premises and then XXX appeared after being threatened that they would go to his workplace.
- A police mobile intervened; during the encounter a little boy ran out calling for "Daddy"; AAA confronted XXX, asking if he really had a child; XXX eventually admitted paternity at the barangay hall after discussions; a shouting match ensued; attacks on credibility and emotions followed.
- Subsequent events and effects:
- On returning to Sampaloc, XXX locked himself in bathroom, threatened self-harm with a knife, then left the house. He later returned, said the relationship was irreparable, and asked AAA to leave him alone.
- AAA testified she could not work for three to four months, could not sleep, stayed with relatives, and avoided seeing the house or XXX's things; she described intense and lasting emotional anguish.
- Witnesses:
- BBB corroborated AAA’s emotional state, recounted asking YYY about duration of stay (YYY said “hindi pa naman katagalan”), and identified the child calling XXX "Daddy".
- XXX admitted marriage to AAA, paternity of a child by YYY, and visiting the child; he denied "keeping a mistress" and characterized the child as the product of a one-night stand; he testified he visited the child about three to four times a year and entered YYY’s house a total of three times.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
- Whether XXX was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5(i) of RA 9262 by causing mental or emotional anguish upon AAA through marital infidelity (as charged).
- Subsidiary issues raised by XXX:
- Whether the prosecution sufficiently established that AAA’s mental and emotional anguish was caused by XXX’s infidelity and not by other factors (e.g., his refusal to reconcile).
- Whether the Information charging “keeping a mistress” was defective or failed to inform the accused adequately if the proven act was a one-time sexual encounter rather than continuous maintenance of a mistress.
- Whether proof of specific criminal intent to cause mental or emotional anguish is required under Section 5(i), particularly in cases involving marital infidelity.
Legal Framework: RA 9262 and Jurisprudential Elements of Sec. 5(i)
- Statutory language:
- Section 3(c) (definition): "Psychological violence"—acts or omissions causing or likely to cause mental or emotional suffering ... including, but not limited to ... repeated verbal abuse and marital infidelity.
- Section 5(i): crime committed by "causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to the woman or her child, including, but not limited to, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, and denial of financial support ..."
- Elements distilled in Dinamling v. People:
- Offended party is a woman and/or her child(ren).
- Relationship nexus: woman is wife/former wife or had/has sexual or dating relationship / common child.
- Offender causes mental or emotional anguish to the woman and/or child.
- Anguish is caused by acts enumerated or similar acts (public ridicule/humiliation, repeated verbal/emotional abuse, denial of financial support, denial of custody/access, or like acts/omissions).
- Acharon v. People (En Banc, Nov. 9, 2021) (as interpreted in this decision):
- Acharon emphasized that certain modes (notably denial of financial support) require proof of specific intent—to willfully withhold support for the purpose of inflicting mental or emotional anguish—because Section 5(i) penalizes crimes mala in se and mens rea may be required in that context.
- The decision in this case distinguishes denial of financial support from marital infidelity for mens rea purposes.
Majority Ruling (Ponencia by Justice Hernando): Holding and Rationale
- Holding:
- The Supreme Court (majority) affirmed the RTC and CA decisions; the petition was denied; petitioner XXX was found GUILTY of violating Section 5(i) of RA 9262.
- Sentence: indeterminate penalty of imprisonment—minimum two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional to maximum eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor; plus PHP100,000 fine and mandatory psychological counseling/psychiatric treatment per Sec. 6.
- Rationale—statutory interpretation and application to facts:
- RA 9262 is social legislation whose object is protecting women and children from domestic violence in its physical, sexual, psychological, and economic manifestations; the law recognizes marital infidelity as an enumerated example of psychological violence (Sec. 3(c)).
- The Court underscored international and constitutional commitments (CEDAW, DEVAW, Beijing Declaration, and Section 14, Article II of Constitution) as contextual background supporting protection of women and children.
- Marital infidelity is expressly included in the statutory definition of psychological violence; hence marital infidelity is a recognized mode of commission of an offense under Sec. 5(i).
- The third element—mental and emotional anguish—was proven by AAA’s testimony (detailed account of shock, ongoing crying, inability to sleep/work for months, sheltering with relatives) and corroborated by BBB and barangay officials; the anguish was plainly caused by discovery and confirmation of XXX’s infidelity and the existence of a four-year-old child.
- XXX’s own admissions (acknowledgment/filiation of the boy on the birth certificate, admission at barangay that he is the boy’s father, testimony he had sexual relations with YYY in 2011, and visits to the child) substantially undercut his defense that AAA’s anguish was caused by his refusal to reconcile.
- Mens rea and statutory construction (major analytical pivot of the ponencia):
- The ponencia diverged from the strict mens rea requirement in Acharon to the extent Acharon dealt with denial of financial support.
- It held that for marital infidelity, the requirement of specific criminal intent to cause mental or emotional anguish is satisfied, or may be conclusively presumed, by the very commission of the act of marital infidelity:
- Marital infidelity is inherently immoral under prevailing societal, cultural, and religious norms; the normal course of human behavior mea