The act of a husband taking conjugal properties against his wife's will, accompanied by verbal and physical abuse, thereby causing her mental or emotional anguish, constitutes psychological violence under Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262; the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation is not applicable if the victim-wife committed no unlawful act sufficient to produce such a state of mind in the offender.

The petitioner, AAA, and the private complainant, BBB, were married for 19 years with two children. Petitioner worked abroad and sent money to BBB, who was a full-time housewife. BBB used this money to buy household items. The dispute arose from BBB incurring debts, using their television and refrigerator as collateral, which led to a heated argument and the petitioner's subsequent actions.

• Petitioner AAA and private complainant BBB were married for 19 years and had two children.
• Petitioner worked abroad, while BBB was a housewife who purchased household items (television, refrigerator, karaoke, washing machine, dining table, "sleeprite" bed) from money sent by petitioner.
• On February 17, 2010, petitioner and BBB had a heated argument regarding BBB's indebtedness, for which the family's television set and refrigerator were used as collateral. BBB incurred the debt to repay siblings for money borrowed for petitioner's work applications.
• Following the argument, petitioner hauled the family's television set, refrigerator, divider, "sleeprite" bed, and dining table to his parents' house.
• BBB tried to stop him, but petitioner "mauled" her, verbally abused her, and shamed her in the presence of their children.
• Petitioner admitted taking the appliances and some furniture to his parents' house, claiming it was for safety as a debt collector had threatened confiscation. He also admitted pushing BBB aside when she blocked the door.

• Petitioner argued that his act of moving their personal properties to his parents' house was not intended to inflict emotional pain on BBB but to protect the properties from creditors.
• Petitioner claimed he did not deprive his wife of the use of their properties and did not inflict emotional violence upon her.
• Petitioner contended that protecting family properties against seizure cannot be considered abuse or violence under R.A. No. 9262.
• Petitioner asserted that BBB's testimony was insufficient to prove psychological violence as it lacked details of her hurt feelings directly attributable to him.
• Petitioner maintained that the prosecution failed to overcome his constitutional right to be presumed innocent.

• The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing the People, maintained that BBB's candid testimony established that petitioner's acts caused her mental or emotional anguish and humiliation.
• The OSG argued that BBB was hurt, confused, and shamed when petitioner verbally abused her in the presence of their children.
• The OSG contended that good faith and absence of criminal intent are not valid defenses in offenses punished under R.A. No. 9262, as it is a special law.

• Whether the prosecution has overthrown the constitutional right of the petitioner to be presumed innocent.
• Whether the act of the petitioner in taking conjugal properties and bringing them to his mother's house, accompanied by verbal and physical abuse against his wife, constitutes emotional and psychological abuse under Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262.
• Whether the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation was correctly applied by the Court of Appeals.

• The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction with modification.
• The Court found that all elements for conviction under Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262 were present: (1) the offended party is a woman; (2) the woman is the wife of the offender; (3) the offender caused mental or emotional anguish on the woman; and (4) the anguish was caused by acts of public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, or similar acts.
• The Court held that BBB's testimony, detailing how petitioner "mauled" her, verbally abused her, shamed her, and took their conjugal properties against her will, causing her to feel "so hurt" and "confused," sufficiently established mental and emotional anguish.
• Petitioner's defense that he only intended to protect the properties was deemed not credible, especially since he took items beyond those used as collateral, including the family's bed, and did so against BBB's will, even hurting her.
• The Court ruled that the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation was improperly applied by the CA because BBB did not commit any unlawful act sufficient to produce such a condition of mind in the petitioner, nor was her act of incurring debt a legitimate stimulus for petitioner's loss of reason and self-control.
• The Court modified the CA's decision by removing the mitigating circumstance, thus affirming the RTC's original indeterminate penalty of six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum, and additionally imposed a fine of P100,000.00 and mandated petitioner to undergo psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment, as required by Section 6 of R.A. No. 9262.

• Psychological Violence under R.A. No. 9262, Section 5(i) — This refers to acts or omissions causing or likely to cause mental or emotional suffering to the victim, including public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, and denial of financial support or custody of minor children or denial of access to the woman's child/children. The Court found petitioner's act of taking conjugal properties, coupled with verbal and physical abuse, caused mental and emotional anguish to his wife, thus falling under this definition.
• Elements of Violation of Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262 — The Court reiterated the four elements: (1) offended party is a woman and/or her child; (2) woman is wife/former wife/has sexual/dating relationship/common child with offender; (3) offender causes mental/emotional anguish; (4) anguish is caused by acts like public ridicule, verbal/emotional abuse, etc. All elements were found present.
• Proof of Mental or Emotional Anguish — This is established by the testimony of the victim, as these experiences are personal to the party. The private complainant's testimony regarding her feelings of being "so hurt" and "confused" due to petitioner's actions was deemed sufficient proof.
• Presumption of Innocence — Guaranteed by Art. III, Section 14 of the 1987 Constitution, this right requires proof beyond reasonable doubt to be overcome. The Court held that all elements of the crime were proven, thus overcoming this presumption.
• Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt — This does not mean such a degree of proof as to exclude the possibility of error and produce absolute certainty, but only moral certainty or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. The Court found this standard was met.
• Appeal in Criminal Cases Opens the Entire Case for Review — An appeal throws the entire case wide open for review, allowing the appellate court to correct errors, though unassigned, in the appealed judgment, including increasing the penalty or citing the proper provision of the penal law. The Supreme Court invoked this to review the penalty and the application of mitigating circumstances, even in a petition for review on certiorari.
• Mitigating Circumstance of Passion and Obfuscation — This requires: (1) an unlawful act sufficient to produce such condition of mind; and (2) the act producing obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of the crime. The Court found this inapplicable as the private complainant committed no unlawful act against petitioner that would justify such a reaction.
• Penalties under Special Laws Referencing Revised Penal Code — When a special law imposes penalties taken from the Revised Penal Code in its technical nomenclature, its duration, correlation, and legal effects under the RPC, including modifying circumstances, may apply. However, the Court found passion and obfuscation factually inapplicable here.
• Mandatory Additional Penalties under R.A. No. 9262 — Section 6 of R.A. No. 9262 mandates, in addition to imprisonment for violations of Section 5(i), the payment of a fine and undergoing mandatory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment. The Court imposed these additional penalties which the lower courts failed to include.

• "Psychological violence is the means employed by the perpetrator, while mental or emotional anguish is the effect caused upon or the damage sustained by the offended party."
• "To establish mental or emotional anguish, the testimony of the victim must be presented, as these experiences are personal to the party."
• "Anguish causes distress to someone, or makes someone suffer intense pain or sorrow."
• "In order to be entitled to the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation, the following elements should occur: (1) there should be an act both unlawful and sufficient to produce such condition of mind; and (2) said act which produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time, during which the perpetrator might recover his moral equanimity."
• "In criminal cases, an appeal throws the entire case wide open for review and allows the reviewing tribunal to correct errors, though unassigned, in the appealed judgment."

• Dinamling v. People of the Philippines — Cited for enumerating the elements that must be present for conviction under Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262 and for the principle that testimony of the victim is necessary to establish mental or emotional anguish.
• People v. Manson — Cited for the definition of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
• Manansala v. People — Cited for the doctrine that an appeal in criminal cases throws the entire case open for review, allowing the appellate court to correct errors even if unassigned.
• Curammeng v. People — Cited as an example where the principle of an appeal opening the entire case for review was applied.
• Guelos v. People — Cited as another example where the principle of an appeal opening the entire case for review was applied.
• People v. Mantalaba (citing People v. Simon) — Cited for the principle that when a special law uses penalties from the Revised Penal Code, modifying circumstances may be appreciated.
• People v. Javier — Cited for the elements of the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation.
• People v. Caber, Sr. — Cited for explaining that passion and obfuscation is mitigating because the accused loses reason and self-control.

• Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004) — The primary law violated by the petitioner.
• Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262 — Specifically defines the act of "causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to the woman or her child..." as a form of violence against women. This was the specific provision under which the petitioner was charged and convicted.
• Section 3(C) of R.A. No. 9262 — Defines "psychological violence" as acts or omissions causing or likely to cause mental or emotional suffering to the victim. Referenced to explain the nature of the violence committed.
• Section 6 of R.A. No. 9262 — Specifies the penalties for violations of Section 5, including imprisonment, fines, and mandatory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment. The Court applied this to impose the fine and counseling requirement.
• Art. III, Section 14 of the 1987 Constitution — Guarantees the right of the accused to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proven. The Court discussed this in relation to the sufficiency of evidence against the petitioner.