XXX256676, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

XXX256676 versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is a criminal case in which a wife, whom the Court calls AAA256676, accused her husband, XXX256676, of violence against women under the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act. The charge was that he abandoned her in favor of another woman and deliberately denied her regular and sufficient financial support, causing her mental or emotional anguish. The case matters because the Supreme Court reminds every prosecutor and every trial judge that mental or emotional anguish is not something a court may simply assume from the fact of marital infidelity; it is an element of the crime that must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, ordinarily through the testimony of the victim herself.

Procedural History

XXX256676 was charged before Branch 68 of the Regional Trial Court of Lingayen, Pangasinan with a violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262. He pleaded not guilty, and after trial the Regional Trial Court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty and ordering him to pay a fine of One Hundred Thousand Pesos, to undergo mandatory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment, and to report compliance to the court.

XXX256676 appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction, modifying only the indeterminate penalty. It held that all the elements of the offense were present, reasoning in part that no wife in her right mind would be delighted to find out that her husband has another woman and children with her. The Court of Appeals likewise denied his motion for reconsideration.

XXX256676 then filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court before the Supreme Court, asserting that the lower courts misapprehended the facts, particularly on the questions of the victim's anguish and of the alleged denial of support.

Facts

XXX256676 and AAA256676 were married in December 1982 in Dagupan City, Pangasinan. XXX256676 was a retired police officer receiving a monthly pension. In 2013 the spouses separated after AAA256676 learned that her husband was living with another woman, Mary Joy Sison, who came to the conjugal home looking for him because she needed money to buy milk for their child. AAA256676 later discovered an invitation to the christening of the child of XXX256676 and Mary Joy Sison. XXX256676 admitted that he had a mistress and a child with her. AAA256676 told him to leave the house, and he agreed.

The spouses later entered into a written agreement and undertaking to live separately, on the condition that AAA256676 would receive a share of his retirement benefits and pension. She received Six Hundred Thousand Pesos as her share of the retirement benefits. When XXX256676 later applied for a loan and began receiving his monthly pension, she received nothing from it, and she testified that this was painful because she was the legal wife while he was spending the pension on another woman.

At trial, the prosecution presented AAA256676 and her aunt. The defense presented XXX256676 alone, who testified that he did not give support to his wife, that he was working as a bodyguard earning Five Thousand Pesos monthly, and that his pension was being used to pay his loans. The trial court and the Court of Appeals convicted him, and the case reached the Supreme Court on petition for review.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that AAA256676 suffered mental or emotional anguish as a result of the acts charged.
• Whether or not the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that XXX256676 willfully refused to give or consciously denied financial support legally due to AAA256676.

Applicable Provisions

Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 defines the act charged:

SECTION 5. Acts of Violence Against Women and Their Children. — The crime of violence against women and their children is committed through any of the following acts: (i) 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 very provision under which XXX256676 was charged, and its text makes mental or emotional anguish an element of the offense.

Section 3(a) of the same law defines violence against women and their children:

SECTION 3. Definition of Terms. — As used in this Act, a. "Violence against women and their children" refers to any act or a series of acts committed by any person against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a common child, or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the family abode, which result in or is likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse including threats of such acts, battery, assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty.

The definition frames the harm the law punishes, and it anchors the requirement that the resulting suffering be shown, not presumed.

Section 3(c) of the same law defines psychological violence:

SECTION 3. Definition of Terms. — As used in this Act, c. "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.

Marital infidelity is listed as an act that may cause the suffering, but the provision still speaks of suffering caused to the victim.

Section 3(d) of the same law defines economic abuse:

SECTION 3. Definition of Terms. — As used in this Act, d. "Economic abuse" refers to acts that make or attempt to make a woman financially dependent which includes, but is not limited to the following: 1. withdrawal of financial support or preventing the victim from engaging in any legitimate profession, occupation, business or activity, except in cases wherein the other spouse/partner objects on valid, serious and moral grounds as defined in Article 73 of the Family Code; 2. deprivation or threat of deprivation of financial resources and the right to the use and enjoyment of the conjugal, community or property owned in common; 3. destroying household property; 4. controlling the victims' own money or properties or solely controlling the conjugal money or properties.

This definition supplies the meaning of the denial of financial support that the charge invokes.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled in favor of XXX256676. The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that AAA256676 suffered mental or emotional anguish. The Court held that to establish this element, it is necessary to present the testimony of the victim, because such experiences are personal to her. Here, unlike in the earlier case of Araza versus People, where the victim testified that she was depressed, hospitalized, and still hurt, AAA256676 never categorically testified that her husband's abandonment and failure to support caused her mental or emotional anguish. The lower courts merely assumed it.

The Court rejected the reasoning that no wife in her right mind would be delighted to find out that her husband has another woman and children with her. It called this an assumption not based on evidence, and observed that there is no universal standard of what a wife in her right mind is. It recalled the rule that conjectures, surmises, and suspicions cannot take the place of evidence. The Court also found the finding of abandonment itself questionable, because the idea of living separately came from, or at least with the acquiescence of, AAA256676 herself, who threw her husband out and told him to go. Her own testimony described a peaceful separation, and she said she had already accepted the situation and was only after her support.

On the second issue, the Court turned to the denial of financial support and relied on its earlier ruling in Acharon versus People, which laid down the elements of the offense insofar as it deals with denial of financial support:

The elements of a violation of Section 5(i), insofar as it deals with denial of financial support, are therefore: (1) The offended party is a woman and/or her child or children; (2) The woman is either the wife or former wife of the offender, or is a woman with whom the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or is a woman with whom such offender has a common child. As for the woman's child or children, they may be legitimate or illegitimate, or living within or without the family abode; (3) The offender willfully refuses to give or consciously denies the woman and/or her child or children financial support that is legally due her and/or her child or children; and (4) The offender denied the woman and/or her child or children the financial support for the purpose of causing the woman and/or her child or children mental or emotional anguish.

The Court stressed that the law uses the phrase denial of financial support, and that the word denial connotes willfulness. Because the element of anguish was not proven, and because the willful and purposeful denial required by the law was not established beyond reasonable doubt, the conviction could not stand.

Doctrine

Mental or emotional anguish is an element of the offense under Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262, and it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. It cannot be inferred from the mere fact of marital infidelity, and a court may not supply it by assuming how a reasonable wife would feel. The prosecution must present the testimony of the victim, because the experience of anguish is personal to her.

Where the charge rests on denial of financial support, the four elements from Acharon versus People must each be shown: the offended party is a woman or her child; she is the wife or former wife, or a woman with whom the offender had a sexual or dating relationship or a common child; the offender willfully refused or consciously denied support legally due; and the denial was for the purpose of causing her mental or emotional anguish. The word denial connotes willfulness, so a mere failure to give, without more, does not suffice.

Finally, abandonment cannot be appreciated where the separation came from, or was acquiesced in by, the complaining spouse.

Disposition

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court, and acquitted XXX256676 of the crime charged.

Remember This

Memorize this line: mental or emotional anguish is an element of the crime under Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 that must be proven beyond reasonable doubt through the victim's own testimony, never presumed from infidelity. Examiners use this case to test the Acharon elements on denial of financial support and to ask whether a court may infer anguish from the mere existence of a mistress.