XXX264870 vs. People of the Philippines

Marital infidelity per se is not an act of violence criminalized under R.A. No. 9262; for conviction under Section 5(i), the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt both (1) that the acts constituting psychological violence were committed with the intention of causing mental or emotional anguish to the woman, and (2) that mental or emotional anguish was in fact caused. The effect on the victim alone is insufficient to sustain a conviction.

Petitioner XXX264870 and private complainant AAA264870 were married on June 28, 2014 at the Iglesia ni Cristo House of Worship. The case arises from an Information charging petitioner with violation of Section 5(h) of R.A. No. 9262 for having an extramarital affair with BBB264870 and impregnating her, allegedly causing psychological violence to AAA264870. R.A. No. 9262, the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004, is social legislation designed to protect women from violence committed in the context of intimate relationships, including physical, sexual, psychological, and economic abuse, addressing patriarchal dominance that disadvantages women.

Petitioner XXX264870 and private complainant AAA264870 were married on June 28, 2014 at the Iglesia ni Cristo House of Worship. About a year and a half into the marriage, AAA264870 read messages on XXX264870's phone and discovered that her husband was having an affair with her friend, BBB264870. She fainted upon learning this and was brought to a hospital. When she returned home, XXX264870 had already moved out. AAA264870 confronted BBB264870 via Facebook Messenger. In an attempt to save the marriage, AAA264870 met with XXX264870 a few days later, where he admitted to having sexual intercourse with BBB264870. XXX264870 invited AAA264870 to spend the holidays with his family in Rizal, which she accepted. However, during the celebrations, AAA264870 again read messages from BBB264870 on XXX264870's phone, resulting in a fight, after which XXX264870 said he no longer wanted to continue the marriage — a decision that remained unchanged despite parental intervention. XXX264870 and BBB264870 later sent messages to AAA264870 apologizing and telling her to move on. AAA264870 subsequently learned that the two were living together and had a child in October 2016. AAA264870 underwent psychological assessment by clinical psychologist Nedy L. Tayag, who found her to be suffering from "a severe case of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder with mood coloring, attributed and as caused by the psychological abuse she was subjected to by her husband."

For his part, XXX264870 admitted to having a child with BBB264870 but denied any romantic involvement with her, claiming it was a one-time encounter. He denied any psychological abuse, pointing to AAA264870's messages to him saying, "[a]t wag ka na mag sorry. Pinapatawad na kita okay. Just be happy with your choice," "Thanks for these years. You made me learn how to love," and "Basta napatawad na kita wag muna ako alalahanin wala ka ng atraso saakin." AAA264870 also asked XXX264870 to file for annulment of their marriage, saying she had found a boyfriend she wanted to marry; XXX264870 agreed, filed the case, and paid the filing fee.

XXX264870 was charged in an Information captioned as violation of Section 5(h) of R.A. No. 9262, alleging that he "willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have an extramarital affair with BBB264870 and impregnated her, thereby causing psychological violence to AAA264870, which resulted in her mental and emotional anguish, psychological distress, humiliation, harm, and suffering." Upon arraignment, he pleaded not guilty. The Regional Trial Court convicted him of violation of Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262, finding that his marital infidelity caused AAA264870 to become sad, depressed, and traumatized. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and denied his motion for reconsideration despite the submission of an Affidavit of Recantation executed by AAA264870, who stated that she "was not hurt nor devastated" upon learning of the affair, that they had an understanding about new relationships outside their marriage, that she did not faint, that there was no fight during the family celebration, that she did not see a clinical psychologist because of the affair but only to obtain medical evidence for the criminal case, and that the criminal case was filed because her earlier concubinage complaint was dismissed.

• Affidavit of Recantation: Petitioner argued that the Court of Appeals erred in not finding that AAA264870's Affidavit of Recantation cast serious doubt on his liability, considering that the private complainant admitted she did not experience emotional anguish and mental suffering — elements of the crime for which he was convicted. He maintained that the Affidavit was freely and voluntarily executed, and that its delayed submission was because it was executed only after the trial court had already tried the case. He asked that it be viewed favorably, considering that he and the private complainant were on the verge of reconciliation.
• Insufficient Proof of Causation: Petitioner claimed that even the clinical psychologist testified during cross-examination that the cause of AAA264870's emotional suffering was not his marital infidelity but his statement that he was no longer happy with her. He pointed to AAA264870's messages and Facebook posts about their annulment meeting as evidence that she did not suffer mental or emotional anguish, arguing that forgiveness, while not extinguishing criminal liability per se, proves she did not suffer such anguish.
• Right to Be Informed of the Accusation: Petitioner maintained that there was a violation of his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation because he was charged with violation of Section 5(h) but convicted under Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262. He rejected the applicability of the variance doctrine because the two sections have different elements, and noted that the prosecution adduced no evidence of violence as punished under Section 5(h). He also questioned the lack of particularity of time, place, names, and circumstances constituting the crime in the Information.

• Questions of Fact: Respondent argued that petitioner's appeal raises questions of fact, which are outside the scope of a Rule 45 petition.
• Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Respondent claimed that petitioner's guilt for violation of Section 5(i) was proven beyond reasonable doubt, asserting that the infliction of mental and emotional distress is the essence of the offense and that both elements — psychological violence as the means employed and mental or emotional suffering sustained by the offended party — were established.
• Sufficiency of the Information: Respondent insisted that the characterization of the offense in the caption of the Information is not what determines the crime for which an accused stands trial, but the facts alleged in the body of the Information. It maintained that the Information was sufficient because it alleged that petitioner had an extramarital affair and impregnated another woman, thereby causing psychological violence and mental and emotional anguish to AAA264870.
• Recantation Unreliable: Respondent argued that the Affidavit of Recantation carries no probative weight, citing the general policy of giving scant consideration to desistance due to its unreliability. It noted that AAA264870's prior actions — initiating two criminal cases and filing an administrative complaint — entailed considerable effort to establish petitioner's criminal culpability, undermining the credibility of her recantation.

• Right to Be Informed: Whether there was a violation of petitioner's constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him because the Information's caption charged him with violation of Section 5(h) of R.A. No. 9262 but his conviction was for Section 5(i) of the same law.
• Reasonable Doubt: Whether there is reasonable doubt that justifies petitioner's acquittal because of the Affidavit of Recantation executed by the private complainant, retracting her statement that she suffered mental or emotional anguish.

• Right to Be Informed: No. There was no violation of petitioner's right even if the prosecution erred in designating the proper offense; the controlling factor is the facts alleged in the Information, not the designation of the offense, and the allegations sufficiently constituted a violation of Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262.
• Reasonable Doubt: Yes. The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner's acts were committed with the intention of causing mental or emotional anguish, and the Affidavit of Recantation executed by the private complainant created reasonable doubt as to the second element of the offense.

• Right to Be Informed: The Court relied on People vs. Dimaano, which held that what is controlling is not the title of the complaint or the designation of the offense, but the description of the crime charged and the particular facts recited therein. The allegations in the Information — that petitioner willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously had an extramarital affair with BBB264870 and impregnated her, thereby causing psychological violence to AAA264870 resulting in mental and emotional anguish, psychological distress, humiliation, harm, and suffering — clearly constituted a violation of Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262. Petitioner's own Judicial Affidavit confirmed that he knew the nature of the case against him, including the allegations of extramarital affair, impregnation of another woman, and the resulting mental and emotional anguish to his wife. Despite the erroneous designation as Section 5(h), the allegations and petitioner's own understanding undoubtedly pointed to Section 5(i). It could not be said that petitioner was not properly apprised of the charge.

• Reasonable Doubt: The Court analyzed the two elements of the offense under Section 5(i): (1) actions or omissions constituting psychological violence used as a means by the perpetrator, and (2) mental or emotional anguish caused to the victim. Although connected, these elements are separate and distinct. The acts complained of must be evaluated on whether they were done with the intention of causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule, or humiliation to the woman or her child. It is when these acts are done with the intent to tilt the scales of power within the relationship against the woman, causing her to lose her autonomy, that the State has a legitimate interest in punishing them. The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove this element beyond reasonable doubt, and that the effect on the victim alone is not enough to sustain a conviction. Furthermore, in offenses under R.A. No. 9262, which closely touch on private matters to protect the woman's dignity and autonomy, the woman's word should be given great importance. The Affidavit of Recantation directly affected the second element by declaring that AAA264870 did not suffer emotional anguish and mental suffering. To affirm the conviction would create the irony where the private offended party herself declared she did not suffer, but the State insists she did. The Court emphasized that human relationships are complex and cannot be judged in black and white, and that the State has neither an interest nor a role in unnecessarily interfering with intimate, private experiences.

• Elements of Psychological Violence under Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262 — The offense requires two elements: (1) actions or omissions that constitute psychological violence used as a means by the perpetrator, and (2) mental or emotional anguish caused to the victim. Although connected, these elements are separate and distinct. The acts must be evaluated on whether they were done with the intention of causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule, or humiliation. The effect on the victim alone is insufficient to sustain a conviction.

• Marital Infidelity Per Se Is Not Psychological Violence — Marital infidelity per se is not an act of violence criminalized under R.A. No. 9262. While marital infidelity is enumerated in Section 3(C) as a form of psychological violence, the acts complained of must be done with the intent to cause mental or emotional anguish, tilting the scales of power within the relationship against the woman and causing her to lose her autonomy, before the State has a legitimate interest in punishing them.

• Sufficiency of Information — Facts Control Over Designation — What is controlling is not the title of the complaint or the designation of the offense, but the description of the crime charged and the particular facts recited. The acts or omissions must be alleged sufficiently to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is intended and to enable the court to pronounce proper judgment. Every element of the offense must be stated in the Information.

• Recantation in R.A. No. 9262 Cases — In offenses covered by R.A. No. 9262, especially as the law closely touches on private matters to protect the woman's dignity and autonomy, her word should be given great importance. An Affidavit of Recantation that directly affects an essential element of the offense creates reasonable doubt warranting acquittal.

• "Marital infidelity per se is not an act of violence criminalized under Republic Act No. 9262 or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004." — This is the opening line of the decision and states the core legal proposition that distinguishes marital infidelity as a factual circumstance from the criminal offense of psychological violence under the law.

• "It is when these acts are done with the intent to tilt the scales of power within the relationship against the woman, causing her to lose her autonomy does the State have a legitimate interest in punishing such acts. This Court finds that the prosecution failed to prove this element of the offense beyond reasonable doubt. To be sure, the effect on the victim alone, which is the second element, is not enough to sustain a conviction." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi: the intent element required for conviction under Section 5(i) and the insufficiency of the victim's suffering alone to sustain a conviction.

• "Indeed, to affirm petitioner's conviction will highlight the irony where the private offended party herself had declared that she did not suffer emotional anguish and mental suffering, but the State insists that she did." — This captures the Court's reasoning on why the Affidavit of Recantation creates reasonable doubt in the unique context of R.A. No. 9262, where the woman's autonomy and dignity are central to the law's purpose.

• "This acquittal is neither meant to condone marital infidelity nor to justify unfaithfulness to one's commitments. This is not to discredit the very real pain and suffering felt by persons whose trust was broken. However, these experiences are as important as they are intimate and private. In a sense, these experiences are what make us human, and the State has neither an interest nor a role in unnecessarily interfering with them." — This passage frames the limits of State intrusion into intimate relations and clarifies that the acquittal does not endorse marital infidelity.

• People vs. Dimaano, 506 Phil. 630 (2005) — Controlling precedent cited for the doctrine that the facts alleged in the Information, not the designation of the offense, determine the crime for which an accused stands trial. Applied to uphold the sufficiency of the Information despite the erroneous designation of Section 5(h) instead of Section 5(i).

• Agacid vs. People, G.R. No. 242133, April 16, 2024 — Cited for characterizing R.A. No. 9262 as social legislation that empowers women in intimate relationships and addresses patriarchal dominance as the root of violence against women.

• Estacio vs. Estacio, 885 Phil. 157 (2020) — Cited for the proposition that R.A. No. 9262 protects women from violence committed in the context of intimate relationships, including physical, sexual, psychological, and economic abuse.

• People vs. Lamsen, 721 Phil. 256 (2013) — Cited by respondent for the proposition that recantations are generally viewed with suspicion and that setting aside testimony taken in open court by way of recantation makes a mockery of trials. The majority did not rely on this case, instead giving weight to the recantation in the specific context of R.A. No. 9262.

• Section 3(a) and (C), Republic Act No. 9262 — Defines "violence against women and their children" as any act or series of acts resulting in or likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse. Defines "psychological violence" as acts or omissions causing or likely to cause mental or emotional suffering, including but not limited to intimidation, harassment, stalking, damage to property, public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal abuse, and marital infidelity. The Court noted that marital infidelity is enumerated as a form of psychological violence but held that the acts must be done with intent to cause anguish for criminal liability to attach.

• Section 5(i), Republic Act No. 9262 — Penalizes "[c]ausing 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 of access to the woman's child/children." The Court identified two elements: (1) psychological violence as the means employed, and (2) mental or emotional anguish caused to the victim, and found that the prosecution failed to prove both beyond reasonable doubt.

• Section 5(h), Republic Act No. 9262 — The section under which petitioner was originally charged in the Information's caption. The Court found that despite the erroneous designation, the facts alleged in the Information constituted a violation of Section 5(i), not Section 5(h), and that petitioner was adequately informed of the charge.

Lazaro-Javier, J., and Kho, Jr., J., concurred.

• Lopez, J. — Justice Lopez dissented, voting to deny the petition and affirm petitioner's conviction. He argued that under XXX vs. People (G.R. No. 252739, April 16, 2024), specific criminal intent to cause mental and emotional anguish is conclusively presumed from the fact of marital infidelity itself, because marital infidelity is inherently immoral and wrong in itself, unlike willful denial of financial support. He maintained that the prosecution established all elements: petitioner committed psychological violence through his infidelity, which he publicly flaunted, and AAA264870 suffered mental and emotional anguish as shown by her testimony, her message expressing pain and betrayal, and clinical psychologist Tayag's finding of severe PTSD. On the Affidavit of Recantation, he argued that recantations are exceedingly unreliable and generally viewed with suspicion, that AAA264870's earlier testimony in open court should prevail over her subsequent recantation, and that the recantation was a mere afterthought made four years after criminal proceedings began and after conviction was affirmed. He further noted that the recantation does not constitute pardon extinguishing criminal liability, and that under Section 25 of R.A. No. 9262, violence against women and their children is a public crime in which the will of the State prevails once the complaint is instituted in court.