Marital infidelity is a form of domestic violence that not only violates the marital vows of faithfulness and commitment but also causes severe psychological and emotional harm to the aggrieved spouse and their child.
In a decision (G.R. 252739, 16 August 2024) penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, the Supreme Court en banc ruled that criminal intent is automatically presumed in cases of marital infidelity that result in psychological violence under Republic Act 9262, also known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act (Anti-VAWC Act).
In its decision, the SC denied the petition for certiorari filed by XXX, which challenged his conviction for violation of Section 5(i) of the Anti-VAWC Act. The case involved XXX, who was convicted for violating Section 5(i) of the Anti-VAWC Act. His wife, AAA, discovered his extramarital affair, which caused her severe emotional and mental anguish.
In 2016, AAA’s co-worker informed her that their family vehicle was spotted at a location in Makati where XXX was keeping a mistress. Later, AAA confirmed the affair, finding XXX with his mistress, YYY and their child.
XXX was charged under Section 5(i) for psychological violence, which penalizes acts causing emotional or mental anguish, public ridicule, or humiliation to a spouse or their child.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found that all the elements of a violation under Section 5(i) of the Anti-VAWC Act were present: (1) the victim is a woman and/or her child; (2) the victim is the wife of or has a relationship with the offender; (3) the offender causes the victim mental or emotional anguish; and (4) the anguish is caused through public ridicule or humiliation, verbal and emotional abuse, denial of financial support, or similar acts.
The RTC found XXX guilty, ruling that his infidelity, deceit, and the public exposure of his affair caused AAA immense mental suffering. This was compounded by the humiliation of learning about the affair from others.
The Court of Appeals sustained XXX’s conviction, and pointed out that the element of offense in contention — that the accused caused the victim mental and emotional anguish — was sufficiently proven. XXX argued that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the mental and emotional anguish suffered by AAA was caused by his faithfulness or lack thereof, and that he did not commit any of the actions mentioned in Sec. 5(i) of the Anti-VAWC Act.
The Court distinguished the case from Acharon v. People (G.R. 224946, 9 November 2021), where the Supreme Court held that crimes penalized under Sec. 5(i) are mala in se and not mala prohibita, thereby requiring specific criminal intent.
In Acharon, the Court ruled that “to be punishable by Sec, 5(i) of the Anti-VAWC Act, it must be proven that the accused had the intent to inflicting mental or emotional anguish upon the woman, thereby inflicting psychological violence upon her, with the willful denial of financial support being the means selected by the accused to accomplish said purpose”
In this case, the Court clarified that the pronouncement in Acharon that the accused must be proven to have intended to inflict mental or emotional anguish upon the woman applies only to circumstances involving willful denial of financial support, and not marital infidelity.
Differentiating the ruling in Acharon, the Court explained that “in instances of marital infidelity, the requirement of specific criminal intent to cause mental and emotional suffering is already at the moment the perpetrator commits the act of infidelity.” According to the Court, this is because “marital infidelity is inherently wrong under current social, cultural, and religious norms.”
The Court stressed that the Anti-VAWC Act’s main thrust is the protection of women and their children and is more concerned with defending them as victims rather than penalizing offenders. Hence, the law looks at the effects of a certain act or omission against a woman or their child rather than the offender’s motive.
According to the Supreme Court, the third element of violation of Section 5(i) is met once it is shown that the victim suffered mental or emotional anguish due to the acts committed by the offender.
The Court clarified, however, that not all extramarital relationships are punishable under Section 5(i) of the law. In non-traditional family structures and modern relationship arrangements involving mutually consenting spouses, extramarital relationships may not necessarily cause mental or emotional suffering and, therefore, are not criminally punishable under the law.
In its decision, the Supreme Court emphasized that marital infidelity is a form of domestic violence that not only violates the marital vows of faithfulness and commitment but also causes severe psychological and emotional harm to the aggrieved spouse and their child.
For more of Dean Nilo Divina’s legal tidbits, please visit www. divinalaw.com. For comments and questions, please send an email to cad@divinalaw.com.
Housing is probably the biggest issue affecting people the world over.
Malacañang on Monday called for a more thorough investigation into the questioned flood control projects in Taguig…
The defense on Monday backed the move by senator-judges to exclude a prosecution witness who testified on the firearms…
