XXX vs. People of the Philippines

Marital infidelity per se is not punished by Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262; what is punished is the infliction of psychological violence causing mental or emotional anguish on the woman, and all four elements under Dinamiling vs. People must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. An acquittal in a separate concubinage case does not preclude conviction under Section 5(i) because the offenses are distinct.

XXX and AAA were married on May 15, 1999, and had two children, BBB and GGG. Both are lawyers, and their marriage and family life became the subject of a charge under Republic Act No. 9262, a landmark legislation meant to equalize the gender-based power imbalance between men and women and to penalize all forms of abuse, including psychological violence committed through marital infidelity. A separate concubinage case filed by AAA against XXX and HHH had resulted in acquittal.

XXX and AAA were married on May 15, 1999, and had two children, BBB and GGG. Before 2009, they lived together as a normal family. In October 2009, AAA began to notice that XXX would come home very late at night, sometimes already early in the morning. When confronted, XXX said he was busy with his work as a lawyer and with their convenience store and was working hard to provide for the family. He later became aloof, was remiss in his responsibilities, brushed AAA off when she tried to talk about their problems, and missed numerous family occasions. Although he claimed he was working hard for the family, AAA became the sole provider; from the time XXX became a lawyer, their finances were separate, and when AAA asked for help with family expenses, he said he had just started as a lawyer and had few or no clients.

On January 10, 2010, AAA received a text message from XXX saying that he would not return home anymore and wanted to start a new life alone; he told her not to call him and said he would file a petition for declaration of nullity of their marriage to finalize their separation. AAA cried the whole time and stopped only when BBB saw her. She later noticed that some of XXX's clothes were no longer in their closet and learned that he had asked their helpers to bring his belongings to the convenience store they owned. XXX sent more messages saying he had no plans to come home, did not love her anymore, and wanted to start a new life without her. AAA's pleas for him to return and try again were ignored. XXX later asked to see their sons in [place], but only if accompanied by their house helpers; after the visit, one helper relayed to AAA that she should stop hoping for him to return because he already had another wife.

Because of this information, AAA sought help from her brother CCC and private detective Victoriano Valdez to conduct surveillance on XXX. The surveillance showed that XXX was always with HHH, one of the salespersons in their convenience store, and that they would go home together to HHH's house. CCC and Valdez showed AAA videos of the two together. AAA claimed she suffered mental and emotional torture, attempted to commit suicide due to depression, and lost her self-confidence and dignity; their children also suffered.

At trial, BBB testified that he knew his father had abandoned them because AAA showed him XXX's message that he no longer loved her and had no plans to return. He saw his mother crying, sad, and depressed; after XXX left, AAA did not want to go out with them, did not eat or join family occasions like Christmas or New Year, and would lock herself in her room. He also experienced bullying and later saw XXX and HHH acting like husband and wife. CCC corroborated AAA: on January 30, 2010, he secretly followed XXX and saw him ride a Hilux with HHH to a bungalow home in [place]; he followed them again on January 31, 2010, and the next day took a video of XXX coming out of the same house. FFF, a psychologist from the Philippine Mental Health Association, testified that she evaluated AAA and found her highly disturbed, with signs of depression such as social inaccessibility, lack of concentration, loss of confidence, lack of vigor, sleep deprivation, and sleep disturbances. EEE testified that XXX rented the first floor of her son's two-story house with a "friend"; XXX deposited PHP 3,000.00 and the next day gave an additional PHP 10,000.00, for a total of PHP 13,000.00 as one month advance and deposit, and the "friend" was later confirmed to be HHH. DDD, HHH's aunt, testified that in March 2010 XXX was introduced to their family as HHH's kua or gayyem, which for her meant kabit in Filipino; she saw XXX in HHH's home despite not being a boarder there, and in one month in 2010 XXX and HHH slept together in her sister's room.

XXX denied all allegations. He claimed he never abandoned their children but had no opportunity to see them because AAA prevented him; despite his meager income, he continued to give support, left a business for AAA to manage, and presented two checks and a Banco San Juan passbook. He denied marital infidelity and relied on his acquittal, together with HHH, in a separate concubinage case filed by AAA. The trial court found no conclusive evidence that XXX abandoned his children, as AAA prevented him from seeing them and admitted she could not entrust their youngest child to him, but found that XXX was guilty of marital infidelity because his relationship with HHH was proven by the concurring testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's factual findings.

• Ill Motive of AAA: Petitioner argued that the Court of Appeals failed to consider the apparent bad attitude and ill motive of AAA against him.
• Denial of Marital Infidelity: Petitioner denied the allegation of marital infidelity and relied on his acquittal, together with HHH, in the separate concubinage case filed by AAA.
• No Abandonment and Continued Support: Petitioner claimed that he never abandoned their children, that AAA prevented him from seeing them, and that he continued to give support despite his meager income; he left a business for AAA and presented two checks and a Banco San Juan passbook.

• Elements Proven: The People, through the Office of the Solicitor General, riposted that the prosecution established with moral certainty the presence of all the elements of psychological violence under Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262.
• Questions of Fact: The Office of the Solicitor General alleged that the Petition raises numerous questions of fact which cannot be raised through a Rule 45 petition.

• Elements of Section 5(i): Whether all the elements of psychological violence under Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 were established beyond reasonable doubt.
• Marital Infidelity: Whether marital infidelity per se is the act punished by Section 5(i), or whether the prosecution must prove psychological violence causing mental or emotional anguish.
• Prior Acquittal for Concubinage: Whether petitioner's acquittal in the separate concubinage case bars his conviction under Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262.
• Ill Motive and Credibility: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in failing to consider AAA's alleged bad attitude and ill motive against petitioner.

• Elements of Section 5(i): Yes. All four elements under Dinamiling vs. People were established beyond reasonable doubt: AAA is a woman and the wife of XXX; XXX caused her mental and emotional anguish; and that anguish was caused by his marital infidelity and abandonment.
• Marital Infidelity: No. Marital infidelity per se is not punished by Republic Act No. 9262; what is punished is the infliction of psychological violence causing mental or emotional anguish, with purpose or intention being indispensable.
• Prior Acquittal for Concubinage: No. Acquittal in the separate concubinage case has no bearing on the prosecution under Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 because the offenses are distinct.
• Ill Motive and Credibility: No. The trial court and the Court of Appeals found the prosecution witnesses clear, straightforward, and convincing; credibility findings are entitled to great weight absent overlooked facts.

• Elements of Section 5(i): Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 penalizes causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to the woman or her child, including repeated verbal and emotional abuse, denial of financial support or custody of minor children or access to the children. Section 3(C) defines psychological violence to include marital infidelity. Under Dinamiling vs. People, four elements must concur: (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 with whom he has a common child; (3) the offender causes 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 acts. The first and second elements were undisputed: AAA is a woman and the wife of XXX, as shown by their Certificate of Marriage dated May 15, 1999. As to the third element, AAA testified that she suffered trauma, humiliation, and depression, attempted suicide several times, and lost her self-esteem, confidence, and dignity. FFF's Psychological Report found depressive trends, emotional maladjustment, self-depreciation, inferiority feelings, interpersonal inadequacy, crying spells, sleep disturbance, diminished appetite, and lack of concentration; FFF testified that AAA's self-depreciation manifested in suicidal thoughts and identified the cause as XXX's abandonment for another woman. BBB corroborated that he saw his mother crying, sad, and depressed for two years or more, and that she did not eat or join family occasions. As to the fourth element, DDD, HHH's aunt, testified that XXX and HHH cohabited in a bungalow house; CCC followed them and took videos; EEE testified that XXX rented a house with HHH. The trial court and the Court of Appeals found the prosecution witnesses clear, straightforward, and convincing. XXX's mere denial and reliance on his concubinage acquittal did not overcome this evidence. All elements were thus proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• Marital Infidelity: The Court reiterated XXX vs. People: marital infidelity per se is not punished by Republic Act No. 9262; it is already punished by the Revised Penal Code under adultery and concubinage. What Section 5(i) punishes is the infliction of psychological violence, where purpose or intention is indispensable. AAA vs. BBB, quoted in XXX vs. People, held that what Republic Act No. 9262 criminalizes is not marital infidelity per se but the psychological violence causing mental or emotional suffering on the wife; marital infidelity is only one of the various acts by which psychological violence may be committed, and the mental or emotional suffering of the victim is an essential and distinct element. Here, the prosecution proved not merely infidelity but the psychological violence and the resulting mental and emotional anguish suffered by AAA.
• Prior Acquittal for Concubinage: The Court of Appeals correctly held that XXX's acquittal in the concubinage case has no bearing on the prosecution under Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 because the offenses involved are distinct. Concubinage is punished under the Revised Penal Code, while psychological violence under Section 5(i) is a separate statutory offense with different elements. The acquittal therefore did not preclude conviction in this case.
• Ill Motive and Credibility: The Court found no reason to depart from the rule that the trial court's factual findings on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great weight and respect, particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, absent any showing that the trial court overlooked facts or circumstances that could substantially affect the outcome. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found the prosecution witnesses clear, straightforward, and convincing. The positive evidence on record proved AAA's mental and emotional suffering, contrary to XXX's assertion that she could not have felt emotional anguish because of her strong character. Thus, the Court of Appeals did not err in failing to consider the alleged bad attitude and ill motive of AAA.

• Psychological Violence under Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 — The offense requires: (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 with whom he has a common child; (3) the offender causes 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 acts. The Court applied these elements and found all proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• Marital Infidelity per se Not Punished — Republic Act No. 9262 does not punish marital infidelity by itself; it punishes 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 victim's mental or emotional suffering is an essential and distinct element. The Court relied on this doctrine to affirm conviction based on the proven psychological violence.
• Victim's Testimony and Psychological Report — To establish psychological violence, the prosecution must show proof of any of the acts enumerated in Section 5(i) or similar acts. To establish mental or emotional anguish, the victim's testimony is necessary because such experiences are personal to her. The Court used AAA's testimony, corroborated by FFF's psychological report and BBB's testimony, to prove the third element.
• Credibility of Witnesses — Factual findings of the trial court on witness credibility are entitled to great weight and respect, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, absent a showing that the trial court overlooked facts that could substantially affect the outcome. The Court applied this rule in upholding the prosecution witnesses' clear, straightforward, and convincing testimonies.
• Distinct Offenses: Concubinage and Psychological Violence — Acquittal in a concubinage case does not bar conviction under Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 because the offenses are distinct. The Court applied this to reject XXX's reliance on his acquittal.
• Penalty for Section 5(i) — Section 6(f) of Republic Act No. 9262 imposes prision mayor for acts under Section 5(i), with a fine of not less than PHP 100,000.00 but not more than PHP 300,000.00, and mandatory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment. The Court affirmed the indeterminate sentence, fine, moral damages, and counseling order.

• "the following must concur for the successful prosecution for violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262, viz.: (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 from Dinamiling vs. People states the four elements of Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262, which the Court applied to affirm the conviction.
• "What is punished by Section 5(i), Republic Act No. 9262 is the infliction of psychological violence where purpose or intention is indispensable." — This is the ratio decidendi distinguishing marital infidelity per se from the psychological violence punished by Republic Act No. 9262.
• "[W]hat [Republic Act] No. 9262 criminalizes is not the marital infidelity per se but the psychological violence causing mental or emotional suffering on the wife." — This is the canonical formulation, quoted from AAA vs. BBB, that the law targets the psychological violence and the resulting suffering, not the infidelity alone.
• "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 acts. 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 states the evidentiary rule for proving the third and fourth elements of the offense.

• Dinamiling vs. People, 761 Phil. 356 (2015) — Controlling precedent enumerating the four elements of Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262; applied by the Court to affirm the conviction.
• XXX vs. People, 953 Phil. 462 (2024) — Reiterated that marital infidelity per se is not punished by Republic Act No. 9262; what is punished is the infliction of psychological violence, with purpose or intention being indispensable. Followed.
• AAA vs. BBB — Quoted in XXX vs. People; held that Republic Act No. 9262 criminalizes not marital infidelity per se but the psychological violence causing mental or emotional suffering on the wife. The provided text does not state its citation.
• Garcia vs. Drilon, 712 Phil. 44 (2013) — Cited for context that Republic Act No. 9262 is a landmark legislation meant to equalize the gender-based power imbalance between men and women and to penalize all forms of abuse.
• People vs. Delos Reyes, 945 Phil. 832 (2023) — Cited for the rule that factual findings of the trial court on witness credibility are entitled to great weight and respect, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
• XXX260547 vs. People, 961 Phil. 281 (2024) — Cited for the evidentiary requirement that psychological violence be established by proof of any of the acts in Section 5(i) or similar acts, and that mental or emotional anguish be established through the victim's testimony.
• Lara's Gifts & Decors, Inc. vs. Midtown, 929 Phil. 754 (2022) — Cited for the rule that monetary awards earn 6% interest per annum from finality of the decision until full payment.

• Section 5(i), Republic Act No. 9262 — Defines an act of violence against women and their children as causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to the 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 XXX's marital infidelity and abandonment, which caused AAA's mental and emotional anguish.
• Section 3(C), Republic Act No. 9262 — Defines psychological violence as acts or omissions causing or likely to cause mental or emotional suffering of the victim, including marital infidelity. Applied to classify XXX's marital infidelity as one of the acts by which psychological violence may be committed.
• Section 6(f), Republic Act No. 9262 — Prescribes the penalty of prision mayor for acts falling under Section 5(i), and a fine of not less than PHP 100,000.00 but not more than PHP 300,000.00. Applied to affirm the indeterminate sentence and the PHP 100,000.00 fine.
• Rule 45, Rules of Court — The procedural vehicle for the Petition for Review on Certiorari. The Office of the Solicitor General argued that the petition raised questions of fact not permitted under Rule 45.
• Constitutional principle of inviolability of marriage (as cited in the text) — The Court stated that marital infidelity causing mental and emotional suffering is contrary to this constitutional principle and public policy. The text does not identify a specific article.

Lazaro-Javier, J. (ponente); Lopez, Kho, Jr., and Villanueva, JJ., concur.

• Justice Leonen, SAJ — Dissented. Marital infidelity by itself should not be considered an act of violence under Republic Act No. 9262. The prosecution failed to prove that petitioner's marital infidelity was precisely done to inflict mental or emotional anguish on his wife. The record showed that petitioner left because he no longer loved her, intended to start a new life, and planned to file a petition for declaration of nullity; he merely fell out of love and did not find another person to love just to cause mental or emotional anguish. Emotional suffering is not sufficient; the law requires deliberate intent to inflict mental or emotional anguish. Without this element, the requisites for conviction for psychological violence are not complied with. He voted to grant the Petition for Review on Certiorari, set aside the Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution, and acquit petitioner of violating Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262.