XXX vs. People of the Philippines

Psychological violence under Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262 is established through marital infidelity and public ridicule or humiliation causing mental or emotional anguish to the wife, even if she learns of the infidelity through third persons, where the statements are independently relevant and corroborated by competent evidence. Conviction under Section 5(i) also carries, in addition to imprisonment, a fine and mandatory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment under Section 6(f).

Petitioner XXX and private complainant YYY were spouses for 23 years and had five children. R.A. No. 9262, the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004, penalizes violence against women and their children, including psychological violence. Section 5(i) of the law specifically penalizes causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule, or humiliation to a woman or her child, including through marital infidelity and similar acts, while Section 3(c) defines psychological violence.

Petitioner XXX and private complainant YYY were married for 23 years and had five children, namely AAA, BBB, CCC, DDD, and EEE. According to YYY, during their marriage petitioner had a habit of getting drunk and womanizing. Sometime in October 2010, petitioner started a fight with YYY while intoxicated, drove YYY and their four children AAA, BBB, CCC, and DDD out of the house, and claimed that he alone owned the house. YYY and her daughters fled to her parents' house. The spouses' eldest child, EEE, convinced his three sisters to return to their house so their father would be forced to support them, leaving CCC with their mother.

Later, YYY's daughters, particularly AAA, reported to her through text messages that petitioner was always drunk and even brought them to a videoke bar and introduced one Pearl Manto as their aunt. YYY thereafter learned from her daughter that Pearl had already been eating lunch in their house for two months and ultimately lived with them. AAA corroborated her mother's allegations and testified that her parents had a fight and they were driven out of their home; out of fear that her father would hurt them, she, along with her mother and siblings, went to her grandmother's house. AAA admitted that when she and her two sisters returned to their house and lived with their father, the latter always had drinking sprees. She also knew Pearl as her father's mistress and that her father frequented the videoke bar where Pearl worked. During her stay with her father, Pearl lived with them and had her own room in the house; often, when her father thought that she and her sisters were already asleep, he would transfer to Pearl's room. After two months, the sisters decided to leave their father as he had no time for them and they did not like his mistress.

For his part, petitioner denied having an extramarital or any romantic affair with Pearl. He admitted though that he knew Pearl to be a guest relations officer of a videoke bar, which had already closed. Petitioner alleged that the reason he and YYY fought was the mismanagement by YYY of the family resources by being an incorrigible borrower, as evidenced by a real estate mortgage executed by YYY without his consent and a case for estafa filed against her. He likewise denied driving his wife and children away from their conjugal home; rather, it was YYY who left the house when they had a fight.

The RTC gave greater weight to the categorical and positive testimony of YYY and her daughter AAA over petitioner's defenses of denial and alibi. YYY testified that she was hurt and could not sleep because she was thinking of her children, and that she was really hurt and could not accept what happened. The RTC found that petitioner evicted his wife and children from their conjugal home and invited his mistress to live with him in the same house in the presence of their three minor daughters. The CA concurred that YYY suffered mental and emotional anguish, public ridicule, and humiliation because petitioner evicted her and their children and maintained an extramarital affair with Pearl in their conjugal home where they lived as a couple.

• Insufficiency of Evidence: Petitioner argued that the testimony of YYY did not prove the presence of anguish caused through acts of public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, denial of support or custody, or access to their children.
• Hearsay: Petitioner maintained that the allegation of his extramarital affair with Pearl is hearsay.
• Victim of Mental Anguish: Petitioner argued that the mental and emotional anguish brought about by the introduction of Pearl to their children was suffered by their children and not by YYY.
• Affidavits of Desistance: Petitioner argued that he should be acquitted since YYY and their daughter already executed their respective affidavits of desistance.
• Moral Certainty and Proof of Anguish: Petitioner asserted that the CA erred in ruling that the offense charged was proven by moral certainty; that mental or emotional anguish must be proven by the testimony of the victim herself; that YYY did not narrate the form of mental or emotional anguish she suffered through acts of public ridicule and humiliation; and that YYY's mental or psychological pain is merely imaginary.
• Denial and Defense: Petitioner denied having an extramarital or romantic affair with Pearl; admitted knowing Pearl as a guest relations officer of a videoke bar; alleged that the fight was due to YYY's mismanagement of family resources, being an incorrigible borrower, a real estate mortgage executed without his consent, and an estafa case against her; and denied driving his wife and children away, claiming that YYY left the house after a fight.

• Elements of Psychological Violence: Whether all the elements of psychological violence under Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262 were duly established.
• Hearsay and Independently Relevant Statements: Whether YYY's testimony regarding petitioner's marital infidelity, which she learned through their daughter AAA, was inadmissible hearsay.
• Proof of Mental or Emotional Anguish: Whether mental or emotional anguish was proven, considering that YYY did not personally witness the infidelity and allegedly did not narrate the form of anguish she suffered.
• Affidavits of Desistance: Whether the affidavits of desistance executed by YYY and their children warranted petitioner's acquittal.
• Penalty and Additional Penalties: Whether the penalty and additional penalties under Section 6(f) of R.A. No. 9262 were correctly imposed.

• Elements of Psychological Violence: Yes. All elements were duly established: YYY is a woman and the wife of petitioner; petitioner caused her mental or emotional anguish; and the anguish was caused through marital infidelity and public ridicule or humiliation.
• Hearsay and Independently Relevant Statements: No. The hearsay rule does not apply to independently relevant statements; YYY's testimony was admissible to establish that the statements were made, and it was corroborated by AAA's competent testimony.
• Proof of Mental or Emotional Anguish: Yes. Mental anguish was established through YYY's testimony, and the factual findings of the RTC, affirmed by the CA, are accorded respect and finality.
• Affidavits of Desistance: No. Affidavits of desistance, especially when made after conviction, deserve scant consideration; the State is the real complainant.
• Penalty and Additional Penalties: Modified. The indeterminate penalty is six months and one day of prision correccional as minimum to eight years and one day of prision mayor as maximum; petitioner must pay a P100,000.00 fine and undergo mandatory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment.

• Elements of Psychological Violence: Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262 penalizes psychological violence against women and their children. Its elements are: (1) the offended party is a woman and/or her child or children; (2) the woman is the wife or former wife of the offender, or a woman with whom the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or a woman with whom the offender has a common child; (3) the offender causes mental or emotional anguish on the woman and/or child; and (4) the anguish is caused through acts of public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, denial of financial support or custody of minor children or access to the children, or similar acts or omissions. The first and second elements were uncontested: YYY is petitioner's wife and they have five children. The third and fourth elements were established through petitioner's marital infidelity and public ridicule or humiliation, which caused mental anguish and emotional suffering to YYY. Section 3(c) of R.A. No. 9262 defines psychological violence to include marital infidelity and public ridicule or humiliation. Petitioner's denial was inherently weak and could not prevail over the positive and categorical testimony of YYY and AAA. The RTC and CA findings that petitioner committed marital infidelity were affirmed.
• Hearsay and Independently Relevant Statements: Hearsay is inadmissible under Section 36, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, but the rule does not apply to independently relevant statements. Under the doctrine, only the fact that the statements were made is relevant, and the truth or falsity thereof is immaterial; conversations communicated to a witness by a third person may be admitted as proof that they were actually made. YYY did not have personal knowledge of petitioner's marital infidelity, but her testimony that she learned through AAA that petitioner was having an affair with Pearl, who eventually lived with petitioner and their children in the conjugal home, was an independently relevant statement. The making of such statements was circumstantially relevant and admissible. AAA's testimony corroborated YYY's statements with non-hearsay evidence. Thus, the hearsay rule did not bar YYY's testimony.
• Proof of Mental or Emotional Anguish: The determination of whether mental anguish and suffering were duly proven is a question of fact beyond the province of a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, which is limited to questions of law. Factual findings of the RTC, especially when affirmed by the CA, are accorded respect and even finality. In Dinamling vs. People, psychological violence is the means employed by the perpetrator, while mental or emotional anguish is the effect caused to or the damage sustained by the offended party; to establish mental or emotional anguish, the testimony of the victim is necessary because such experiences are personal. YYY testified that she was hurt and could not sleep because she was thinking of her children, and that she was really hurt and could not accept what happened. The RTC and CA gave credence to her testimony. Even if YYY was not bodily present to witness the infidelity, this did not negate the emotional pain and anguish caused her; gossip in small towns compounded the public ridicule and humiliation.
• Affidavits of Desistance: Affidavits of desistance, more so when made by a witness after the conviction of the accused, deserve scant consideration. In People vs. Dela Cerna, an affidavit of desistance, especially when executed as a mere afterthought, has no persuasive value. The State is the real complainant in a criminal case. The CA properly ruled that the affidavits of desistance were merely noted without action because petitioner had already been convicted and the State is the real complainant.
• Penalty and Additional Penalties: Section 6(f) of R.A. No. 9262 punishes acts falling under Section 5(i) with prision mayor. Because the special penal law adopts the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code, the Indeterminate Sentence Law is applied using the rules for crimes punishable under the Revised Penal Code. The minimum term is taken from the penalty next lower in degree, prision correccional, or anywhere from six months and one day to six years, while the maximum term is that which could be properly imposed under the law, eight years and one day to ten years of prision mayor, there being no aggravating or mitigating circumstances. The Court imposed six months and one day of prision correccional as minimum to eight years and one day of prision mayor as maximum. Section 6 also requires, in addition to imprisonment, a fine of not less than P100,000.00 but not more than P300,000.00 and mandatory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment with report of compliance to the court. The RTC and CA failed to impose these, so the Court imposed a P100,000.00 fine and mandatory counseling or treatment.

• Psychological Violence under Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262 — Psychological violence is an indispensable element of violation of Section 5(i). The elements are: (1) the offended party is a woman and/or her child or children; (2) the woman is the wife or former wife of the offender, or a woman with whom the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or a woman with whom the offender has a common child; (3) the offender causes mental or emotional anguish on the woman and/or child; and (4) the anguish is caused through acts of public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, denial of financial support or custody of minor children or access to the children, or similar acts or omissions. The Court applied the elements and found them all established through petitioner's marital infidelity and public ridicule or humiliation of YYY.
• Psychological Violence and Mental or Emotional Anguish — Section 3(c) defines psychological violence as acts or omissions causing or likely to cause mental or emotional suffering, including public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal abuse, and marital infidelity. Psychological violence is the means employed by the perpetrator, while mental or emotional anguish is the effect caused to or the damage sustained by the offended party. The Court applied this distinction and found that petitioner's marital infidelity was the means and YYY's mental anguish was the effect.
• Independently Relevant Statements — Under this doctrine, only the fact that statements were made is relevant, and the truth or falsity thereof is immaterial; conversations communicated to a witness by a third person may be admitted as proof that they were actually made. The hearsay rule does not apply. The Court applied the doctrine to YYY's testimony that she learned of petitioner's infidelity through AAA, holding it admissible and corroborated by AAA.
• Proof of Mental or Emotional Anguish — To establish mental or emotional anguish, the testimony of the victim must be presented because such experiences are personal to the victim. The Court applied this rule and relied on YYY's testimony that she was hurt, could not sleep, and could not accept what happened.
• Denial as a Defense — Denial is inherently weak and cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimony of prosecution witnesses. The Court applied this rule, finding petitioner's bare denials insufficient to disprove the testimony of YYY and AAA.
• Affidavits of Desistance — Affidavits of desistance, especially when made after conviction, deserve scant consideration; an affidavit of desistance executed as a mere afterthought has no persuasive value. The State is the real complainant in a criminal case. The Court applied this rule and disregarded the affidavits executed by YYY and their daughter.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law for Special Penal Laws Adopting RPC Penalties — If a special penal law adopts the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code, the ascertainment of the indeterminate sentence is based on the rules applied for crimes punishable under the Revised Penal Code. The Court applied this rule to compute the minimum and maximum terms for violation of Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262.
• Additional Penalties under Section 6 of R.A. No. 9262 — In addition to imprisonment, the perpetrator of acts under Section 5(i) shall pay a fine of not less than P100,000.00 but not more than P300,000.00 and undergo mandatory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment and report compliance to the court. The Court applied this provision and imposed a P100,000.00 fine and mandatory counseling or treatment.

• "The elements of the aforequoted crime are as follows: (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 causes on the woman and/or child mental or emotional anguish; and (4) The anguish is caused through acts of public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, denial of financial support or custody of minor children or access to the children or similar such acts or omissions." — This passage states the elements of violation of Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262, which the Court applied in finding petitioner guilty.
• "Under the doctrine of independently relevant statements, only the fact that such statements were made is relevant, and the truth or falsity thereof is immaterial. The doctrine on independently relevant statements holds that conversations communicated to a witness by a third person may be admitted as proof that, regardless of their truth or falsity, they were actually made. Evidence as to the making of such statements is not secondary but primary, for in itself it (a) constitutes a fact in issue or (b) is circumstantially relevant to the existence of such fact. Accordingly, the hearsay rule does not apply, and hence, the statements are admissible as evidence." — This passage defines the exception to the hearsay rule that the Court used to admit YYY's testimony about what AAA told her.
• "Psychological violence is an element of violation of Section 5(i) just like the mental or emotional anguish caused on the victim. Psychological violence is the means employed by the perpetrator, while mental or emotional anguish is the effect caused to or the damage sustained by the offended party. To establish psychological violence as an element of the crime, it is necessary to show proof of commission of any of the acts enumerated in Section 5(i) or similar such acts. And to establish mental or emotional anguish, it is necessary to present the testimony of the victim as such experiences are personal to this party." — This passage, quoted from Dinamling vs. People, distinguishes psychological violence from mental or emotional anguish and requires the victim's testimony to prove the latter.
• "It is well-settled that affidavits of desistance, more so when made by a witness after the conviction of the accused, deserve scant consideration." — This passage states the rule the Court applied in disregarding the affidavits of desistance executed by YYY and their daughter after petitioner's conviction.

• Dinamling vs. People, 761 Phil. 356, 373, 376 (2015) — Cited for the elements of violation of Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262 and for the rule that psychological violence is the means while mental or emotional anguish is the effect, and that the victim's testimony is necessary to establish mental or emotional anguish.
• Araza vs. People, G.R. No. 247429, September 8, 2020 — Cited for the rule that psychological violence is an indispensable element in violation of Section 5(i) and in relation to the penalty imposed.
• Gubaton vs. Amador, A.C. No. 8962, July 9, 2018 — Cited for the doctrine of independently relevant statements as an exception to the hearsay rule.
• People vs. Dela Cerna, 439 Phil. 394 (2002) — Cited for the rule that an affidavit of desistance, especially when executed as a mere afterthought, has no persuasive value.
• Rivac vs. People, 824 Phil. 156, 168-169 (2018) — Cited for the rule that affidavits of desistance, more so when made after conviction, deserve scant consideration.
• People vs. Salazar, 648 Phil. 520, 532 (2010) — Cited for the rule that the credibility of witnesses is a matter best assessed by the RTC, which has the unique position and firsthand opportunity to note demeanor, attitude, and candor.
• Calaoagan vs. People, G.R. No. 222974, March 20, 2019 — Cited for the rule that a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 is limited to questions of law and that factual findings of the RTC, especially when affirmed by the CA, are accorded respect and even finality.
• Melgar vs. People, 826 Phil. 177, 189 (2018) — Cited for the rule that if a special penal law adopts the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code, the indeterminate sentence is ascertained based on the rules for crimes punishable under the Revised Penal Code.
• Reyes vs. People, G.R. No. 232678, July 3, 2019 — Cited in relation to the computation of the indeterminate penalty.
• AAA vs. People, G.R. No. 229762, November 28, 2018 — Cited in relation to the additional penalties of fine and mandatory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment.

• Section 5(i), R.A. No. 9262 — Penalizes causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to a woman or her child, including repeated verbal and emotional abuse and denial of financial support or custody of minor children or access to the woman's child/children. Applied to petitioner's marital infidelity and public ridicule or humiliation of YYY.
• Section 3(c), R.A. No. 9262 — Defines psychological violence as acts or omissions causing or likely to cause mental or emotional suffering, including public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal abuse, and marital infidelity. Applied to characterize petitioner's conduct as psychological violence.
• Section 6(f), R.A. No. 9262 — Provides that acts falling under Section 5(i) are punishable by prision mayor and that, in addition to imprisonment, the perpetrator shall pay a fine of not less than P100,000.00 but not more than P300,000.00 and undergo mandatory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment and report compliance to the court. Applied in modifying the penalty and imposing the fine and counseling.
• Section 36, Rule 130, Rules of Court — Excludes hearsay testimony and confines a witness to facts known of personal knowledge. Applied but held not to bar YYY's testimony because it was an independently relevant statement.
• Rule 45, Rules of Court — Governs a Petition for Review on Certiorari and limits the Court to questions of law. Applied to decline review of the factual determination of mental or emotional anguish.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law — Applied because R.A. No. 9262 adopts the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code; the minimum term was taken from prision correccional and the maximum from prision mayor.

Leonen (Chairperson), Hernando, Inting, and Rosario, JJ., concur.