AAA,[] PETITIONER, V. BBB,[] RESPONDENT.

AAA versus BBB

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, brought by a wife against her husband to nullify the resolutions of a Regional Trial Court that quashed the criminal information charging him with psychological violence under the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act. The wife, AAA, and the husband, BBB, were married and had two children. The prosecution alleged that BBB caused AAA mental and emotional anguish through marital infidelity, carried on with another woman in Singapore. The trial court dismissed the case for lack of territorial jurisdiction, reasoning that the illicit relationship took place abroad. The case matters because it fixes the reach of Philippine criminal jurisdiction over psychological abuse committed through infidelity abroad, and it clarifies that the offense is not the infidelity itself but the anguish it inflicts on the victim.

Procedural History

The Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasig City filed an Information charging BBB with violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act Number 9262. The Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 158, found probable cause and issued a warrant of arrest. BBB evaded arrest, a hold-departure order was secured, and the case was archived. BBB later appeared through counsel and moved to revive the case, quash the Information, and lift the hold-departure order and warrant of arrest. The trial court granted the motion to quash on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and dismissed the case, even as it maintained its earlier ruling that probable cause existed. The prosecution's motion for reconsideration was denied. AAA then went directly to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on a pure question of law.

Facts

AAA and BBB were married in Quezon City. Their union produced two children. In May of 2007, BBB started working in Singapore as a chef, and he acquired permanent resident status there in September of 2008. AAA and the children resided in Quezon City until March of 2010, when they moved to her parents' house in Pasig City.

AAA claimed that BBB sent little to no financial support, forcing her to take on extra work. She also alleged virtual abandonment, mistreatment, and physical and sexual violence. She further claimed that BBB began an affair with a Singaporean woman with whom he was allegedly living in Singapore. On April 19, 2011, AAA and BBB had a violent altercation in a hotel room in Singapore during her visit with their children.

Despite the varied claims of abuse, the investigating prosecutor found sufficient basis to charge BBB only with causing AAA mental and emotional anguish through marital infidelity. The Information alleged that the illicit relationship was confirmed by a photograph and by an e-mailed letter from BBB's mother. The trial court quashed the Information, holding that the act causing the anguish occurred in Singapore and that Philippine courts had no jurisdiction.

Issues

• Whether or not the Supreme Court should entertain the petition filed by AAA in her own name, without the intervention of the Office of the Solicitor General, and whether the petition was timely filed.
• Whether or not the grant of the motion to quash amounted to an acquittal that would bar the petition.
• Whether or not Philippine courts may exercise territorial jurisdiction over a charge of psychological violence under Section 5(i) of Republic Act Number 9262 committed through marital infidelity, when the alleged illicit relationship occurred or is occurring outside the country.

Applicable Provisions

Section 3(a), Paragraph (C) of Republic Act Number 9262 defines psychological violence:

"Psychological violence" refers to 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. It includes causing or allowing the victim to witness the physical, sexual or psychological abuse of a member of the family to which the victim belongs, or to witness pornography in any form or to witness abusive injury to pets or to unlawful or unwanted deprivation of the right to custody and/or visitation of common children.

This definition shows that marital infidelity is only one of the acts by which psychological violence may be committed, and that the mental or emotional suffering of the victim is the essential effect.

Section 5(i) of the same law penalizes the act:

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 or custody of minor children or access to the woman's child/children.

This is the provision under which BBB was charged, and its elements determine whether the offense was committed within Philippine territory.

Section 7 of the law governs venue:

The Regional Trial Court designated as a Family Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases of violence against women and their children under this law. In the absence of such court in the place where the offense was committed, the case shall be filed in the Regional Trial Court where the crime or any of its elements was committed at the option of the complainant.

This provision allows the case to be filed where the crime or any of its elements was committed, at the complainant's option.

Section 4 of the law provides the rule of construction:

This Act shall be liberally construed to promote the protection and safety of victims of violence against women and their children.

This guides the Court in resolving any ambiguity in favor of protecting the victim.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition was timely filed and that the ends of substantial justice justified entertaining it despite the absence of the Office of the Solicitor General. The Court recalled that an offended party may file an appeal without the intervention of the Office of the Solicitor General when the interest of substantial justice so requires.

On the second issue, the Court held that the grant of the motion to quash was not an acquittal. A dismissal based on lack of territorial jurisdiction does not decide the case on the merits, and the accused may again be prosecuted before a court of competent jurisdiction.

On the third issue, the Court ruled that Philippine courts may exercise jurisdiction. What the law criminalizes is not marital infidelity per se but the psychological violence causing mental or emotional suffering on the wife. The mental or emotional anguish of the victim is an essential and distinct element of the offense. Since venue is jurisdictional and the case may be filed where the crime or any of its elements was committed, and since the anguish is personal to the victim and is suffered where she resides, the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, where AAA and her children had resided since March of 2010, may take cognizance of the case. The Court explained that the law contemplates transitory or continuing crimes, and that a person charged with such a crime may be validly tried in any territory where the offense was in part committed.

Doctrine

The crime of psychological violence under Section 5(i) of Republic Act Number 9262 is not the marital infidelity itself but the psychological violence causing mental or emotional suffering on the wife. Marital infidelity is only one of the acts by which psychological violence may be committed, and the mental or emotional anguish of the victim is an essential and distinct element of the offense. Because venue in criminal cases is jurisdictional and Section 7 allows filing where the crime or any of its elements was committed, at the complainant's option, and because the anguish is suffered where the victim resides, Philippine courts may exercise jurisdiction even if the illicit relationship occurred abroad, provided the victim is a resident of the place where the complaint is filed.

Disposition

The petition was granted, the assailed resolutions of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City were set aside, and the Information was ordered reinstated.

Remember This

The single line to memorize: the law punishes not the infidelity but the anguish, and that anguish is suffered where the victim resides, so Philippine courts may take cognizance even of an affair carried on abroad. Examiners use this case to test territorial jurisdiction over transitory crimes and the elements of psychological violence under the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act.