XXX vs. People of the Philippines and AAA

A judgment of acquittal may be assailed by the People through a Rule 65 petition for certiorari without violating double jeopardy where the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; marital infidelity that causes mental or emotional anguish to the wife constitutes psychological violence under Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262.

XXX and AAA were husband and wife, and their son BBB was born during the marriage. Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262, the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004, penalizes causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to a woman or her child, while Section 3(c) defines psychological violence to include marital infidelity. The case tests whether marital infidelity after de facto separation can constitute psychological violence and whether the People may challenge an acquittal through Rule 65 without violating double jeopardy.

XXX and AAA were married on May 6, 2005, and their son BBB was born on January 15, 2008. While AAA was pregnant with BBB, XXX would come home in the wee hours of the morning and say he had been out with friends. AAA suspected an affair after seeing messages on XXX’s phone, but she hoped he would change after BBB was born. After BBB’s birth, XXX continued coming home early in the morning, and AAA saw a text message on his phone saying “AYAW KO NG MAGING KABIT.” When she confronted him, XXX dismissed it as a prank by his friends; to avoid a marital quarrel, AAA did not raise it again.

The next day, XXX left their home and never lived with AAA and BBB again, although he visited BBB every weekend. AAA testified that XXX never inflicted physical harm on her, but she suffered mental and emotional anguish when he left their conjugal home. Her suffering was aggravated when she discovered that XXX and his mistress PPP had two children, MMM and NNN, and that XXX and PPP flaunted their relationship on social media, announcing their children’s birthdays and posting pictures of them together.

The Information charged XXX with violation of Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262, alleging that sometime in 2008 and on subsequent dates he committed psychological violence against AAA by committing marital infidelity with PPP, with whom he has two minor children, causing AAA mental or emotional anguish; AAA was diagnosed with symptoms of dysthymia. When arraigned, XXX pleaded not guilty. During pre-trial, the parties stipulated that AAA and XXX are husband and wife; the incident took place in xxxxxxxxxxx City; they have a son named BBB; they have lived separately since 2008; there is no public record showing XXX inflicted physical harm on AAA; and the civil registry records bear the live birth certificates of MMM and NNN indicating XXX as their father and PPP as their mother. During trial, the prosecution presented AAA and Dr. Maria Carmen P. Lambuson, who conducted a psychiatric evaluation on AAA. Dr. Lambuson testified that AAA engaged her sometime in 2012 after AAA filed the criminal complaint and diagnosed AAA with depression or dysthymia; she noted that the condition cannot be solely attributed to XXX leaving AAA and can ordinarily be experienced by anybody in circumstances such as the death of a loved one or abandonment. The prosecution also presented AAA’s sworn statement, Dr. Lambuson’s certification and prescription, printouts from PPP’s Twitter account showing XXX carrying a female child and posing with PPP and two children and announcing NNN’s birthday, the marriage certificate, BBB’s birth certificate, MMM and NNN’s birth certificates, and AAA’s psychiatric evaluation.

XXX testified for the defense, along with Dr. Visitacion G. Revita, and presented his sworn statements, pictures of AAA, and Dr. Revita’s psychological report. XXX said his marriage with AAA became sour sometime in March 2008 because of their differences; AAA was totally dependent and overly attached to her family and never displayed marital maturity. In August 2008, AAA’s mother told him to pack up his things and leave, and he left their conjugal home because of AAA’s incessant immaturity and overdependence on her parents, although he tried to win AAA back. He claimed AAA continued texting him with vulgar and sarcastic language, told him his parents were happy about the separation because they would benefit from his earnings, and shrugged off marriage counseling; she denounced reconciliation and expressed a desire to file for annulment. He said AAA filed the criminal complaint after he refused to enroll BBB in AAA’s chosen school and demanded a huge amount of support, and that she filed the case to harass him.

The RTC noted that both prosecution witnesses admitted the complaint was filed four years after the incident; AAA admitted XXX consistently communicated with her and BBB and provided support after separation; Dr. Lambuson was engaged only five years after the incident and the filing of the criminal case; and the de facto separation was a natural consequence of irreconcilable differences. The CA found the records replete with evidence of XXX’s affair with PPP, the social media posts, the birth certificates showing XXX as father of MMM and NNN, and Dr. Lambuson’s evaluation that AAA suffered depression.

• Double Jeopardy: Petitioner argued that the People is proscribed from appealing the RTC’s judgment of acquittal under the rule against double jeopardy; a judgment of acquittal is final, unappealable, and immediately executory upon promulgation, especially because the RTC complied with the law and carefully considered the facts and evidence.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Petitioner maintained that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it acquitted him.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Petitioner argued that in any case the prosecution failed to establish his guilt to a moral certainty; the totality of circumstances—AAA’s admission that she considered annulling the marriage, his consistent support for their child, and their civility after separation—belied her claim of psychological violence.

• Non-Impleader of the People: Respondent People, through the OSG, argued that the petition must be dismissed because the People was not impleaded as a respondent.
• Propriety of Rule 65: Respondent People argued that the CA did not err in granting the Rule 65 petition because the People may file it without placing the accused in double jeopardy, especially since the RTC failed to act in contemplation of R.A. No. 9262 when it acquitted XXX.
• Elements of Section 5(i): Respondent People emphasized that all elements of violation of Section 5(i) through marital infidelity were proven: XXX is AAA’s husband and has a son with her; he abandoned them when AAA discovered the affair; he lived with PPP and had two children with her; he publicly flaunted the relationship; and AAA suffered emotional, mental, and psychological anguish, depression, public humiliation, and embarrassment.
• Bad Faith in Impleading AAA: Respondent AAA manifested that she fully adopted the OSG’s arguments and averred that XXX exhibited bad faith by failing to implead the People and instead impleading her, although she was not even included as a party before the CA.

• Double Jeopardy: Whether XXX’s right against double jeopardy was violated when the OSG filed a petition for certiorari before the CA assailing the RTC’s verdict of acquittal.
• Psychological Violence: Whether XXX is guilty of psychological violence under Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262.

• Double Jeopardy: No. A judgment of acquittal may be assailed by the People through a Rule 65 petition for certiorari without placing the accused in double jeopardy where the trial court acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; the RTC committed such grave abuse.
• Psychological Violence: Yes. XXX committed marital infidelity, which Section 3(c) of R.A. No. 9262 expressly includes in psychological violence, and the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that it caused AAA mental and emotional anguish.

• Double Jeopardy: Article III, Section 21 of the Constitution guarantees that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense; a verdict of acquittal is immediately final and a re-examination of its merits will put the accused in jeopardy again. However, a judgment of acquittal may be assailed by the People in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 without placing the accused in double jeopardy, provided the People establishes that the court below acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction. Grave abuse of discretion connotes judgment exercised in a capricious and whimsical manner tantamount to lack of jurisdiction; it must be despotic by reason of passion or personal hostility and so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by law or to act at all in contemplation of law. The RTC failed to justify its verdict of acquittal: it hinged its ruling on the belated filing of the complaint, the parties’ civility after separation, and XXX’s continued support for BBB, matters that do not delve into the essence of the offense and do not dispel the mental and emotional anguish suffered by AAA. The RTC also mistakenly viewed XXX’s marital infidelity as outside R.A. No. 9262 because it was committed after the spouses’ de facto separation; legal separation does not sever the marriage bonds, and a de facto separation does not exclude the act from the law’s coverage. The CA thus correctly granted the Rule 65 petition.
• Psychological Violence: Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262 penalizes causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to a woman or her child, including similar acts. Under Dinamling vs. People, the elements are: (1) the offended party is a woman and/or her child; (2) the woman is the wife or former wife of the offender, or had a sexual or dating relationship with him, or has a common child with him; (3) the offender causes mental or emotional anguish; and (4) the anguish is caused through public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal or emotional abuse, denial of financial support or custody or access, or similar acts or omissions. The first two elements are not in dispute: AAA is the legal wife of XXX, as shown by their Certificate of Marriage. Section 3(c) defines psychological violence to include marital infidelity, and the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that XXX maintained a relationship with PPP and fathered two children with her; the social media posts and the certificates of live birth of MMM and NNN supported this, and XXX never denied the affair. His defense imputing vindictive motives to AAA and blaming her immaturity and overdependence did not justify leaving the conjugal home and reneging on his marital obligations. The records also showed that XXX was unfaithful even before the de facto separation: AAA saw the text message “AYAW KO NG MAGING KABIT,” confronted him, and XXX left home after that confrontation. R.A. No. 9262 does not criminalize marital infidelity per se but the psychological violence causing mental or emotional suffering on the wife. Dr. Lambuson’s psychiatric evaluation showed that AAA suffered sleep disturbances, self-pity, feelings of hopelessness and worthlessness, crying episodes, palpitations, social withdrawal, and depression, and that the main cause was XXX leaving her. The late consultation did not negate her prior suffering, and the law does not require proof that the victim became psychologically ill; it only requires emotional anguish and mental suffering to be proven, which may be established by the victim’s testimony. AAA testified in detail how she suffered, especially when she saw PPP’s social media posts flaunting the affair. XXX’s intention was immaterial; his leaving the conjugal home and building a family with his mistress were conscious and deliberate acts. In marital infidelity, the requirement of specific criminal intent to cause mental and emotional suffering is already satisfied at the moment the perpetrator commits the act of marital infidelity. XXX is therefore guilty of psychological violence under Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262.

• Finality of Acquittal and the Rule 65 Exception — A judgment of acquittal is final and immediately executory, and the State cannot appeal it without violating double jeopardy; however, the People may assail an acquittal through a Rule 65 petition for certiorari without placing the accused in double jeopardy if the trial court acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The SC applied this because the RTC’s acquittal rested on a mistaken view of R.A. No. 9262 and disregarded evidence.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Grave abuse of discretion is a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment tantamount to lack of jurisdiction; it must be despotic by reason of passion or personal hostility and so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law or to act in contemplation of law. The SC found it when the RTC failed to justify the acquittal and disregarded basic rules and evidence.
• Psychological Violence under Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262 — The crime is committed by causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule, or humiliation to a woman or her child, including similar acts. The elements under Dinamling vs. People are: (1) the offended party is a woman and/or her child; (2) the woman is the wife or former wife of the offender, or had a sexual or dating relationship with him, or has a common child with him; (3) the offender causes mental or emotional anguish; and (4) the anguish is caused through public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal or emotional abuse, denial of financial support or custody or access, or similar acts or omissions. The SC found all elements present.
• Marital Infidelity as Psychological Violence — R.A. No. 9262 does not criminalize marital infidelity per se; it criminalizes the psychological violence causing mental or emotional suffering on the wife. Marital infidelity is expressly included in Section 3(c)’s definition of psychological violence. The SC applied this to XXX’s affair, children with PPP, and public flaunting, which caused AAA’s depression.
• Specific Criminal Intent in Marital Infidelity — In instances of marital infidelity, the requirement of specific criminal intent to cause mental and emotional suffering is already satisfied at the moment the perpetrator commits the act of marital infidelity. The SC applied this to XXX, making his intent immaterial once the affair was shown.
• De Facto Separation Does Not Exclude Liability — R.A. No. 9262 covers the wife or former wife of the offender; a de facto separation does not remove the act from the law’s coverage, and legal separation does not sever the marriage bonds. The SC applied this to reject the RTC’s view that XXX’s infidelity after separation fell outside the law.
• Emotional Anguish Need Not Amount to Psychological Illness — The law does not require proof that the victim became psychologically ill due to the psychological violence; it only requires emotional anguish and mental suffering to be proven, which may be established by the victim’s testimony. The SC applied this despite Dr. Lambuson’s clarification that AAA’s depression could not be solely attributed to XXX’s abandonment.

• “It is settled that a judgment of acquittal may be assailed by the People in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court without placing the accused in double jeopardy. However, in such case, the People is burdened to establish that the court below acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction.” — States the exception to the finality of acquittal and the burden on the People.
• “‘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.” — Section 3(c) expressly includes marital infidelity in the definition of psychological violence.
• “True, what Republic Act No. 9262 criminalizes is not marital infidelity per se but the psychological violence causing mental or emotional suffering on the wife. For it is the violence inflicted under the said circumstances that the law seeks to outlaw.” — Clarifies that the crime is not infidelity alone but the psychological violence it causes.
• “the law does not require proof that the victim became psychologically ill due to the psychological violence done by her abuser. The law only requires emotional anguish and mental suffering to be proven.” — Holds that psychological illness is not an element; emotional anguish and mental suffering suffice.

• Dinamling vs. People, 761 Phil. 356 (2015) — Controlling precedent listing the elements of violation of Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262.
• XXX vs. People, 953 Phil. 462 (2024) — Followed; held that in marital infidelity, specific criminal intent to cause mental and emotional suffering is satisfied at the moment of the act.
• AAA vs. BBB, 823 Phil. 607 (2018) — Followed; held that R.A. No. 9262 criminalizes not marital infidelity per se but the psychological violence causing mental or emotional suffering.
• People vs. Hon. Velasco, 394 Phil. 517 (2000) — Relied on for the finality of acquittal and the policy against repeated prosecution.
• People vs. Arcega, 880 Phil. 291 (2020) — Relied on for the rule that the People may file a Rule 65 petition against an acquittal without double jeopardy if grave abuse of discretion is shown.
• Gacad, Jr. vs. Corpuz, 927 Phil. 259 (2022) — Relied on for the definition of grave abuse of discretion.
• People vs. Serrano, 374 Phil. 302 (1999) — Relied on for the rule that a verdict of acquittal is immediately final.
• XXX270257 vs. People, 957 Phil. 604 (2024) — Relied on for the rule that the victim’s testimony may establish emotional anguish or mental suffering.

• Article III, Section 21, Constitution — Guarantees the right against double jeopardy; applied to hold that an acquittal is final but may be reviewed via Rule 65 for grave abuse of discretion.
• Section 5(i), R.A. No. 9262 — Penalizes causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule, or humiliation to a woman or her child; applied to XXX’s marital infidelity.
• Section 3(c), R.A. No. 9262 — Defines psychological violence and expressly includes marital infidelity; applied to treat XXX’s affair as psychological violence.
• Section 6, R.A. No. 9262 — Punishes Section 5(i) acts with prision mayor, a fine of PHP 100,000 to PHP 300,000, and mandatory psychological counseling; applied to impose the indeterminate sentence, PHP 100,000 fine, and counseling.
• Rule 65, Rules of Court — Governs petitions for certiorari; applied to the People’s challenge to the RTC acquittal.
• Rule 45, Rules of Court — Governs petitions for review on certiorari; applied to XXX’s petition before the SC.
• Article 63, Family Code — Provides that legal separation entitles the parties to live separately but does not sever the marriage bonds; applied to reject the argument that de facto separation excluded XXX from R.A. No. 9262.
• Article 68, Family Code — Obliges spouses to live together, observe mutual love, respect, and fidelity, and render mutual help and support; applied to XXX’s abandonment and infidelity.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law — Applied to fix the minimum and maximum terms of the sentence.

• Justice Leonen (Concurring and Dissenting) — Concurred in the majority’s double jeopardy ruling, agreeing that the Rule 65 petition could be entertained because the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion; he dissented on the merits, finding that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the causal link between XXX’s marital infidelity and AAA’s mental or emotional suffering.

• Justice Leonen (Concurring and Dissenting) — Dissented on the merits: marital infidelity per se does not amount to psychological violence; causation must be established beyond reasonable doubt; Dr. Lambuson’s evaluation showed AAA’s depression was triggered by abandonment, not infidelity; AAA and XXX remained civil and XXX supported them; he voted to grant the petition and acquit XXX.
• Justice Kho, Jr. (Dissenting) — Dissented on double jeopardy and the merits: the finality of acquittal doctrine barred the CA from reviewing the RTC’s errors of judgment, which were not grave abuse of discretion; in any event, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that XXX’s marital infidelity caused AAA mental or emotional anguish, given continued communication and support, civil relations, belated filing, and the psychiatrist’s admission that the depression could not be solely attributed to abandonment; he voted to acquit and reinstate the RTC decision.