THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 270257, August 12, 2024 ]
G.R. NO. 270257 – XXX270257,1 PETITIONER, V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND AAA, RESPONDENTS.
CONCURRING OPINION
CAGUIOA, J.:
I concur in affirming the conviction of petitioner XXX270257 for violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004. Particularly, the ponencia correctly appreciated the factual circumstances in this case as acts falling under Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262.
Factual background
XXX270257 and private respondent AAA were married in 1998. During the course of their marriage, they had three children together. On December 23, 2016, however, AAA discovered several calls on XXX270257's phone from an unknown number. She called the unknown number back and a woman answered, prompting AAA to drop the call.2
On January 1, 2017, XXX270257 left their conjugal home. AAA eventually discovered that XXX270257 began living with another woman, CCC.3
On January 8, 2017, CCC went to AAA's house to tell her and her children that she was leaving XXX270257. Despite such declaration, XXX270257 did not return to the conjugal home. Not long after, XXX270257 and his relatives visited AAA to suggest that they sever the marriage since XXX270257 was already living with CCC. However, XXX270257 promised to still be financially responsible for their children.4
On March 1, 2017, XXX270257 and AAA entered into a written agreement where he stated that he will no longer have any connection with CCC. He, however, failed to comply with the agreement. XXX270257 then moved CCC into his mother's house where they cohabited. To add insult to the injury, the said house is adjacent to AAA's, and as such, their live-in situation was in full view of AAA and her three children.5
XXX270257 and CCC had a child of their own which he acknowledged as his biological child. They even posted photos of their new family on social media.
For his defense, XXX270257 claimed that CCC was a mere acquaintance of his family. He nevertheless admitted that he presented himself as the father of CCC's child because he wanted a son, even though he already had male children with AAA. XXX270257 then filed for the annulment of his marriage with AAA but for some reason, withdrew the same.6 Nevertheless, he promised to support their three children and opened separate accounts where he deposited a monthly support of PHP 5,000.00.7
AAA began attending therapy sessions and underwent a psychological evaluation. She was diagnosed with depression as characterized by her difficulty in sleeping, loss of appetite, weight loss, anxiety, and reclusiveness. The psychological expert presented by the prosecution opined that AAA's distress was brought about by XXX270257's actions of leaving their conjugal home, staying with another woman, and filing for the annulment of their marriage.8
After XXX270257 and CCC's child was born, AAA filed a case for concubinage against the pair with the Municipal Trial Court of La Trinidad, Benguet which found XXX270257 and CCC both guilty of the crime as charged.9 AAA also filed the present case for violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 with the Regional Trial Court of La Trinidad, Benguet (RTC).
The RTC ruled that XXX270257 was guilty of inflicting mental and emotional anguish on AAA. His acts of having an extramarital affair, leaving his family to cohabit with CCC, siring an illegitimate child, making his relationship with CCC public in social media, and failing to financially support his three children with AAA established his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The RTC held that while XXX270257 provided financial support to his children, the same was not enough to provide for their daily needs. The RTC's Judgment10 was affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals, Seventh Division, Manila in its Decision11 dated February 8, 2023, and subsequently, its Resolution12 dated September 6, 2023.
The acts of XXX270257 fall squarely within Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262.
The Court in Acharon v. People13 (Acharon) clarified that the crimes penalized under Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 are mala in se. Being a crime mala in se, there must be a concurrence of both actus reus and mens rea to constitute the crime. Under Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262, the actus reus are the acts or omissions covered therein, which include but are not limited to repeated verbal and emotional abuse and denial of financial support. The mens rea, on the other hand, is the specific criminal intent to cause mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation. As such, to be convicted for violation of Section 5(i), it is not enough for the woman to experience mental or emotional anguish—it must be proven that the accused willfully or consciously committed the acts complained of for the purpose of inflicting mental or emotional anguish upon her.
In this case, the evidence presented by the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that XXX270257 intended to cause mental or emotional anguish and public ridicule or humiliation upon AAA. He did so, not by engaging in marital infidelity per se, but by flaunting the very same extramarital relationship in full view of AAA, his legitimate children, and the public.
At this juncture, I wish to emphasize as I did in my Dissenting Opinion in the En Banc case of XXX v. People of the Philippines14 (XXX) that marital infidelity per se is not punished by Republic Act No. 9262. XXX270257 is guilty in this case because his acts of abandoning his conjugal home with AAA, moving CCC into his mother's house in full view of AAA and their three children, siring a son with CCC, and publicizing on social media his new family were clearly indicative of his reckless disregard of AAA's welfare, amounting to intent to inflict emotional violence upon her. The foregoing acts clearly demonstrate XXX270257's intent to cause mental or emotional anguish (mens rea) specifically by willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously committing marital infidelity and shamelessly showing off the same (actus reus). Hence, with the presence of the mens rea and actus reus concurrently established in this case, the ponencia was correct in convicting XXX270257 of violating Section 5(i) of Republic Act No.(awÞhi( 9262.
I cannot stress enough that it is the foregoing factual circumstances that properly fall in the coverage of Section 5(i), Republic Act No. 9262, not the one in XXX. While XXX's (petitioner therein) unfaithfulness was proven, this did not give rise to criminal liability under Section 5(i) of the law, without proof of intent, i.e., that the accused intended to cause the woman mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule, or humiliation by engaging in marital infidelity.15 Compared to the petitioner in this case, XXX did not abandon his conjugal home and flaunt his infidelity to his wife and children, for which reason it could reasonably be said that XXX did not have the requisite criminal intent to cause psychological damage. This is the reason why I opined in the said case that the prosecution failed to establish XXX's intention to use his marital infidelity as the means or "weapon of choice" to cause emotional or mental anguish on his wife.16
In complete contrast, the marital infidelity of XXX270257 here was accompanied by the acts of publicly displaying his mistress and illegitimate child which wreaked havoc on AAA's mental and emotional well-being. From the prism of the crime's elements, therefore, all the elements of a violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 are all present: (a and b) AAA is the legal wife of XXX270257; (c) XXX270257 caused AAA mental and emotional anguish; and (d) such anguish was caused through his deliberate and intentional acts of flaunting his relationship with CCC and their son in full view of his legitimate family and in social media. The prosecution, therefore, proved beyond reasonable doubt that XXX270257 purposefully and willfully committed the aforementioned acts with the specific intent to cause AAA mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation.
In light of the foregoing, I concur with the affirmance of XXX270257's conviction for violation of Section 5(i), Republic Act No. 9262 and vote to DENY the Petition for Review on Certiorari.
Footnotes
1 The identity of the victims or any information which could establish or compromise their identities, as well as those of their immediate family or household members, shall be withheld pursuant to Republic Act No. (RA) 7610, entitled "AN ACT PROVIDING FOR STRONGER DETERRENCE AND SPECIAL PROTECTION AGAINST CHILD ABUSE, EXPLOITATION AND DISCRIMINATION, PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR ITS VIOLATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on June 17, 1992; RA 9262, entitled "AN ACT DEFINING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN, PROVIDING FOR PROTECTIVE MEASURES FOR VICTIMS, PRESCRIBING PENALTIES THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on March 8, 2004; and Section 40 of Administrative Matter No. 04-10-11-SC, otherwise known as the "RULE ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN" (November 15, 2004). See footnote 4 in People v. Cadano, Jr., 729 Phil. 576,578 (2014), citing People v. Lomaque, 710 Phil. 338,342 (2013). See also Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015, titled "PROTOCOLS AND PROCEDURES IN THE PROMULGATION, PUBLICATION, AND POSTING ON THE WEBSITES OF DECISIONS, FINAL RESOLUTIONS, AND FINAL ORDERS USING FICTITIOUS NAMES/PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES," dated September 5, 2017.
2 Rollo, p. 13, Petition for Review on Certiorari.
3 Id.
4 Id.
5 Id. at 52-A, Judgment dated July 3, 2020.
6 Id. at 31, Court of Appeals' Decision dated February 6, 2023.
7 Id.
8 Id. at 52-A-53, Judgment dated July 3, 2020.
9 Id. at 53.
10 Id. at 52-55, Judgment dated July 3, 2020. Penned by Judge Marietta S. Brawner-Cualing of Branch 9, First Judicial Region, Regional Trial Court, La Trinidad, Benguet.
11 Id. at 29-39. Penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison with Associate Justices Perpetua Susana T. Atal-Paño and Maximo M. De Leon concurring.
12 Id. at 47-48.
13 G.R. No. 224946, November 9, 2021 [Per J. Caguioa, En Banc].
14 G.R. No. 252739, April 16, 2024 [Per J. Hernando, En Banc].
15 J. Caguioa, Dissenting Opinion in XXX v. People, id.
16 Id.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
