Case Summary (G.R. No. 270257)
Factual Background
XXX270257 and AAA were married on November 27, 1998, and had three children. On December 23, 2016, AAA discovered multiple calls from an unknown number on petitioner’s phone; a woman answered one returned call. On January 1, 2017, petitioner left the conjugal home, and AAA later learned that he was cohabiting with another woman, CCC. CCC told AAA on January 8, 2017 that she would leave petitioner for the children, but petitioner did not return. On March 1, 2017, petitioner signed a written agreement promising to sever ties with CCC but failed to comply. Petitioner and CCC subsequently cohabited in petitioner’s mother’s house adjacent to AAA’s home, sired a child that petitioner acknowledged, and posted family photographs on social media. AAA alleged petitioner failed to provide adequate financial support to her and their children.
Prosecution Evidence and Psychological Evaluation
The prosecution presented the testimony of AAA and her daughter BBB recounting emotional anguish caused by petitioner’s acts, including abandonment, cohabitation with CCC in view of the children, creation and publicizing of a new family, and denial of adequate financial support. A psychological evaluation of AAA was conducted on April 21 and 25, 2017; the psychologist later opined that AAA suffered distress attributable to petitioner’s conduct. AAA also underwent therapy and was diagnosed with depression as described in the concurring opinion.
Defense Version
Petitioner denied cohabitation with CCC and characterized her as a family acquaintance who visited their ancestral house. He asserted that he stood as the father of CCC’s child for the purpose of having a male child. Petitioner also contended that he had filed, and later withdrew, an annulment action against AAA, and that he provided financial support by depositing monthly amounts into accounts in the names of his minor children.
Trial Court Proceedings and Judgment
An Information for violation of Section 5(i) of RA 9262 was filed against XXX270257. He pleaded not guilty and underwent trial. In its Judgment dated July 3, 2020, the RTC convicted petitioner of Psychological Violence under Section 5(i) and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of four years and two months of prision correccional in its medium period as minimum to ten years of prision mayor in its medium period as maximum, imposed a fine of PHP 200,000.00, and ordered mandatory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment. The RTC found that the prosecution proved the elements of psychological violence through the testimonies of AAA and BBB, and that petitioner’s denials were weak and insufficient to overcome the positive testimony.
Court of Appeals Decision
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals. In its Decision dated February 8, 2023, the CA affirmed the RTC in toto. The CA held that petitioner’s extramarital relationship, abandonment of his wife, siring of an illegitimate child, cohabitation with CCC in full view of the children, and failure to adequately financially support his children caused emotional anguish to AAA and the children as established by their testimonies. The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in its Resolution dated September 6, 2023.
Petitioner’s Contentions on Review
In his Petition for Review on Certiorari, petitioner argued that the prosecution should have presented independent expert evidence in the form of a psychological evaluation at trial and that the psychologist and the psychological report were not listed as witnesses or reserved as evidence, thereby violating his right to due process. Petitioner also emphasized the temporal gap between the psychological evaluation (April 21 and 25, 2017) and pre-trial (February 8, 2019) to challenge admissibility and procedural propriety.
Issue Presented
The sole question for resolution was whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner’s conviction for violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262, i.e., whether the elements of psychological violence were proven beyond reasonable doubt and whether admission or reliance on the psychological evaluation violated petitioner’s rights.
Supreme Court Disposition
The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari for lack of reversible error and affirmed the CA decision with modification of the penalty. The Court adopted the CA’s factual findings and legal conclusion that all elements of Psychological Violence under Section 5(i) were present and proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Legal Basis and Reasoning on Elements of the Offense
The Court recited the elements of Section 5(i) as articulated in Dinamling v. People: (1) the offended party is a woman and/or her child; (2) the woman is the wife or former wife, or otherwise covered relationships; (3) the offender caused mental or emotional anguish; and (4) such anguish was caused by acts enumerated in Section 5(i), including denial of financial support and repeated verbal and emotional abuse. Applying established jurisprudence, the Court held that a psychological evaluation is not indispensable to prove psychological violence, citing Labrador v. People. The Court further held that the victim’s testimony alone may suffice to establish emotional anguish, citing Araza v. People, and reinforced that the positive and categorical testimony of the victim prevails over the mere denial of the accused. The Court found petitioner’s denials self-serving and insufficient to overcome the prosecution’s evidence that petitioner abandoned his family, cohabited with CCC openly, sired and acknowledged an illegitimate child, publicized the relationship, and failed to provide adequate support—acts that produced mental and emotional anguish to AAA.
Penalty, Damages and Orders
The Court reviewed Section 6 of RA 9262, which prescribes prision mayor for acts under Section 5(i) and requires imposition of a fine and mandatory psychological counseling. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court set the penalty at an indeterminate term of six months and one day of prision correccional as minimum to eight years and one day of prision mayor as maximum. The Court imposed a fine of PHP 200,000.00 and ordered petitioner to undergo mandatory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment and to report compliance to the RTC. Pursuant to Section 36 of RA 9262, the Court awarded moral damages to AAA in the amount of PHP 75,000.00, explaining the award in light of
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 270257)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- XXX270257 filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Court of Appeals' decision and resolution in CA-G.R. CR No. 45361.
- People of the Philippines and AAA were respondents in the criminal prosecution for violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262.
- The Regional Trial Court rendered Judgment convicting XXX270257 for Psychological Violence under RA 9262 and imposed imprisonment, a fine, and mandatory counseling.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC Judgment in toto by Decision dated February 8, 2023, and denied reconsideration by Resolution dated September 6, 2023.
- The Supreme Court denied the petition for review and affirmed the lower courts' findings with modification to the penalty and award of moral damages.
Key Factual Allegations
- XXX270257 and AAA were married in 1998 and had three children together.
- On December 23, 2016, AAA discovered calls from an unknown number on XXX270257's phone and encountered a woman on the returned call.
- On January 1, 2017, XXX270257 left the conjugal home and subsequently cohabited with another woman, CCC, in a house adjacent to AAA's residence.
- CCC informed AAA in the presence of their children that she would leave XXX270257, but XXX270257 never returned to the conjugal home.
- XXX270257 and CCC had a child whom XXX270257 acknowledged and whose family life was publicly displayed on social media.
- AAA alleged lack of adequate financial support for her and her children despite XXX270257's financial capability.
- AAA underwent therapy and a psychological evaluation diagnosing depression characterized by sleep difficulties, appetite and weight loss, anxiety, and social withdrawal.
- A municipal court previously convicted XXX270257 and CCC for concubinage based on the same factual matrix.
Statutory Framework
- Section 5(i), RA 9262 penalizes acts that cause mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule, or humiliation to the woman or her child, including repeated verbal and emotional abuse and denial of financial support or custody or access.
- Section 6, RA 9262 prescribes that acts under Section 5(i) shall be punished by prision mayor and shall also attract a fine of not less than PHP 100,000.00 but not more than PHP 300,000.00 and mandatory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment.
- Section 36, RA 9262 entitles any victim of violence to moral damages.
Issues Presented
- The principal issue was whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of XXX270257 for violation of Section 5(i) of RA 9262.
- A subsidiary issue was whether the admission of a psychological evaluation and testimony of a psychologist violated XXX270257's right to due process because the psychologist was not listed as a witness.
Contentions of Parties
- XXX270257 contended that a psychological evaluation by an expert is necessary to prove psychological violence and that the introduction of the psychologist's report and testimony without prior listing violated his right to due process.
- XXX270257 further denied cohabitation, paternity of CCC's child, and claimed he provided financial support by opening bank accounts for his children.
- The prosecution relied on the testimony of AAA and her daughter to prove emotional anguish and the other elements of psychological violence without presenting the psychologist as indispensable.
Trial and Appellate Rulings
- The RTC found XXX