The accused in this case was charged with, among other things, psychological violence by his ex-nonmarital partner under Republic Act 9262, or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004.
The partner accused him of having an affair with another woman, thereby causing her mental and emotional anguish. Both the trial court and the appellate court convicted him on that ground.
Persistent as the accused was, he brought the matter to the Supreme Court for final determination. The Highest Court, in ruling on the issue, comprehensively discussed the quantum and kind of evidence necessary for a conviction. Here is the very enlightening discussion of the Supreme Court:
“From the plain language of the afore-quoted provision, what the law punishes is the infliction of psychological violence on the woman or her child and not the means employed by the accused to perpetrate the crime. Notably, Section 5(i) does not contain an exclusive list of what the accused may employ to cause mental or emotional anguish, as indicated by the phrase ‘but not limited to.’
“Section 5(i) identifies examples of acts that may fall under Section 5(i), such as repeated verbal and emotional abuse, denial of financial support or custody of minor children, or denial of access to the woman’s children. In relation thereto, Section 3(a) defines psychological violence as ‘acts or omissions causing or likely to cause mental or emotional suffering of the victim, such as but not limited to intimidation, harassment, stalking, damage to property, public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal abuse, and marital infidelity.’
“Considering that the enumeration of acts that may be used by the accused to cause mental or emotional anguish upon a woman and/or her child is not exclusive, proving specific criminal intent bears greater significance in determining whether Section 5(i) was indeed violated.
“Stated otherwise, to be considered psychological violence under Section 5(i), the act or acts of the accused must be done with the intent or purpose of causing the woman mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule, or humiliation. Moreover, jurisprudence has consistently underscored the distinction between the psychological violence committed by the perpetrator and the effect caused to or the damage sustained by the offended party.
“These are elements of a violation of Section 5(i) that the prosecution must also separately prove beyond a reasonable doubt. To establish the first, it is necessary to show proof of the commission of any of the acts enumerated in Section 5(i) or similar acts. Mental and emotional anguish, public ridicule and humiliation suffered by the woman, on the other hand, are established by her testimony, as these experiences are personal to her.
“In addition, it is absolutely necessary that there be a causal link between the acts complained of, the requisite criminal intent, and the mental or emotional anguish experienced by the woman. There must be proof that the woman’s mental or emotional anguish was a result of or directly attributable to the alleged acts intentionally committed by the accused for the exact purpose of inflicting emotional violence upon her.
“This is because, depending on the circumstances of each case and for varied reasons, actions of a husband or partner may or may not cause a woman mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule, or humiliation. Conversely, not every suffering or distress experienced by a woman in an intimate relationship could automatically be said to be intentionally caused by or directly attributable to her partner.
“As the threshold in criminal cases is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, there must necessarily be a strong causal connection between the acts of the accused, the criminal intent to inflict the violence, and the mental and emotional anguish suffered by the woman.”
The facts and redacted quoted portion of the decision are from SC G.R. 228741 (23 April 2025).