XXX268392 vs. People of the Philippines

Violations of Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262 are public crimes that may be prosecuted and adjudicated despite the death of the private complainant-wife, provided other witnesses with personal knowledge and supporting documentary evidence sufficiently establish the mental or emotional anguish caused by the accused's acts. The offense is mala in se, requiring a showing of mens rea, and the acts penalized are not limited to marital infidelity per se but encompass the psychological violence flowing from the accused's unfaithfulness, abandonment, and disregard for the feelings of his wife and children.

XXX268392 and AAA268392 were married on June 10, 2006 in Cotabato and had two children—a son, BBB268392, and a daughter, CCC268392. During the subsistence of their marriage, XXX268392 entered into an extramarital relationship with YYY268392, sired a child with her, converted to Islam to secure a divorce decree, and publicly married YYY268392. Republic Act No. 9262, enacted in 2004, penalizes violence against women and their children and, under Section 25, classifies such violence as a public offense prosecutable upon the filing of a complaint by any citizen having personal knowledge of the circumstances of the crime.

XXX268392 and AAA268392 were married on June 10, 2006 in Cotabato. They had two children: a son named BBB268392 and a daughter named CCC268392. The marriage deteriorated when, in 2013, XXX268392 left the conjugal home, ostensibly to focus on his business, but in fact to live with YYY268392, with whom he was having an affair. The affair predated his departure: BBB268392, then in Grade 3, recounted an incident where XXX268392 brought him to a hotel room already occupied by a woman; upon waking at midnight, BBB268392 saw his father and the woman naked in the same bed. BBB268392 immediately told his mother, and a fight ensued during which XXX268392 declared he would no longer return to their house.

The abuse was not confined to infidelity. BBB268392 witnessed his father throw a glass at AAA268392, with broken pieces striking her lower leg. On another occasion, XXX268392 discharged a firearm toward AAA268392, who avoided being hit only by taking cover behind an Elf truck. This shooting incident was reported to the police and recorded in a blotter filed in February 2014 at the WCPD. AAA268392's sister-in-law, EEE268392, accompanied her to an apartment owned by a certain Grell Abasolo, where they discovered that XXX268392 and another woman had rented the unit; AAA268392 caught YYY268392 naked in the apartment, and XXX268392 later fetched YYY268392 using his pick-up truck.

During the subsistence of his marriage to AAA268392, XXX268392 converted to Islam and insisted that AAA268392 sign a divorce agreement. He then married YYY268392, who likewise converted to Islam for that purpose, in Davao City in July 2014. Their relationship and marriage were made public through Facebook posts showing pre-nuptial and wedding photos and a family picture. XXX268392 sired a child with YYY268392, born on November 25, 2014, which he admitted in open court. He also ceased providing financial support for his children's education. After AAA268392 filed her complaint, XXX268392 begged her to drop the case and, upon her refusal, sent harassing text messages telling her she would not win because she was "dumb"; these messages were recorded in a second blotter report filed with the WCPD.

In 2015, AAA268392 lodged a judicial affidavit-complaint before the Office of the Prosecutor alleging mental torture from XXX268392's illicit relationship, abandonment, public posting of pre-nuptial photos, flaunting of his extramarital affair, and the bullying their children suffered at school because of the public affair. The Information was filed on January 4, 2016. Upon arraignment, XXX268392 pleaded not guilty. For his defense, XXX268392 testified that he had signed a Mutual Divorce Agreement with AAA268392 and that she filed the case only because he refused to give her PHP 2,000,000.00 as capital for her business. YYY268392 testified that, as far as she knew, XXX268392 was already single when she married him.

On July 31, 2017, during the pendency of the case, AAA268392 was shot to death and thus never gave oral testimony in court. The prosecution instead presented three witnesses: DDD268392, AAA268392's close friend, who authenticated her handwritten notes stating she had left Cotabato for security reasons; EEE268392, AAA268392's sister-in-law, who corroborated the blotter reports and the apartment discovery; and BBB268392, AAA268392's son, who testified to the gun-pointing, glass-throwing, and hotel incidents, as well as his father's abandonment and failure to provide support. The RTC found both accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt. On appeal, the CA acquitted YYY268392—holding that only persons with a sexual or dating relationship with the victim may be liable under R.A. No. 9262—but sustained XXX268392's conviction.

• Sufficiency of Evidence on Mental Anguish: Petitioner argued that the courts a quo erred in ruling that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses established the mental anguish suffered by AAA268392, particularly because AAA268392 died before she could testify in court on the alleged anguish.
• Marital Infidelity vs. Psychological Violence: Petitioner maintained that the mere admission of a relationship with another woman is not tantamount to psychological violence under Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262.
• Effect of Complainant's Death: Petitioner argued that he should be acquitted because AAA268392 died before giving her testimony on the alleged mental or emotional anguish she suffered, and her testimony was indispensable to establish that element.

• Sufficiency of Evidence Without Complainant's Testimony: Whether the testimonies of prosecution witnesses other than the complainant, together with documentary evidence, are sufficient to establish the mental or emotional anguish element of Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262 despite the complainant's death before testifying.
• Public Crime Doctrine and Survivability of the Action: Whether criminal proceedings for violation of R.A. No. 9262 may continue despite the death of the private complainant-wife.
• Psychological Violence from Marital Infidelity: Whether acts of marital infidelity, abandonment, and public flaunting of an extramarital relationship constitute psychological violence under Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262.

• Sufficiency of Evidence Without Complainant's Testimony: Yes. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses with personal knowledge of the abusive acts and their observations of the complainant's emotional state, together with documentary evidence such as the judicial affidavit-complaint and police blotters, sufficiently established the mental or emotional anguish element.
• Public Crime Doctrine and Survivability of the Action: Yes. Violence against women and children is a public crime under Section 25 of R.A. No. 9262; the death of the private complainant is not a ground for extinguishment of criminal liability under Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code, and proceedings may continue under the direction and control of the prosecutor.
• Psychological Violence from Marital Infidelity: Yes. The law penalizes not marital infidelity per se but the psychological violence resulting from the accused's unfaithfulness, abandonment, and disregard for the feelings of his wife and children, which caused mental and emotional suffering.

• Sufficiency of Evidence Without Complainant's Testimony: While Dinamling vs. People emphasized that the victim's testimony is the primary means to establish mental or emotional anguish because such acts are personal to the party, the Court held that this requirement is not absolute where the complainant has died. Under Section 53, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, a witness may testify on impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition, or appearance of a person with whom he or she is sufficiently acquainted. The testimonies of DDD268392, EEE268392, and BBB268392—each with personal knowledge of the abusive acts and of AAA268392's emotional state—were admissible and sufficient. Their accounts established: (1) AAA268392's confrontation with petitioner upon learning of his paramour; (2) her independent investigation into the affair; (3) her flight from the conjugal dwelling with her children for security reasons, corroborated by authenticated handwritten notes; (4) her written statement that she and her children were no longer secure; and (5) her consistent warning to her son that if anything happened to her, it would be because of petitioner. Additionally, AAA268392's judicial affidavit-complaint detailed her anguish in her own words, and petitioner himself admitted the extramarital relationship, the child born of it, and the timing of his sexual relationship with YYY268392 during the marriage. No psychological report or medical expert testimony was required, pursuant to XXX270257 vs. People.

• Public Crime Doctrine and Survivability of the Action: Section 25 of R.A. No. 9262 categorically declares that violence against women and children is a public offense prosecutable upon the filing of a complaint by any citizen having personal knowledge of the circumstances of the crime. In Garcia vs. Drilon, the Court explained that this paradigm shift—from treating domestic violence as a private affair to a public offense—was necessary to protect the most vulnerable victims. Being a public crime, a VAWC case may be initiated by any citizen with personal knowledge and is not dependent on the offended spouse's exclusive complaint, unlike private crimes such as adultery and concubinage. Under Section 5, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, once a criminal action is commenced, it proceeds under the direction and control of the prosecutor; thus, even if the complainant is absent or deceased, proceedings may continue so long as other witnesses and evidence support the prosecution. The death of the private complainant in a public crime is not among the causes of extinguishment of criminal liability enumerated in Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code. Because criminal liability is a liability against the State and society—Dy vs. People—the proceedings may continue despite the complainant's death.

• Psychological Violence from Marital Infidelity: In AAA vs. BBB, the Court clarified that R.A. No. 9262 penalizes not the occurrence of marital infidelity itself but the psychological violence flowing from the accused's act of unfaithfulness, abandonment, and utter disregard for the feelings of his wife and children, resulting in their mental and emotional suffering. The four elements of psychological violence under Section 5(i), as enumerated in Dinamling vs. People, were all satisfied: (1) the offended party was a woman and her children; (2) the woman was the offender's wife; (3) the offender caused mental or emotional anguish; and (4) the anguish was caused through acts of public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, denial of financial support, or similar acts. The prosecution proved multiple acts causing anguish: pointing and firing a gun at AAA268392, throwing glass at her, checking into a hotel with another woman while their child was present, maintaining an illicit relationship and siring a child during the marriage, converting to Islam to circumvent the Family Code and publicly marrying the paramour, publicly posting wedding and family photos, denying financial support, and sending harassing text messages. In Acharon vs. People, the Court held that offenses under Section 5(i) are mala in se requiring a mental element; petitioner's deliberate conduct—entering the extramarital relationship, siring a child, publicly advertising the relationship, converting religions to circumvent the law, and threatening the complainant—satisfied the mens rea component.

• Public Crime Doctrine under R.A. No. 9262 — Violence against women and children is a public offense under Section 25 of R.A. No. 9262, prosecutable upon the filing of a complaint by any citizen having personal knowledge of the circumstances of the crime. This distinguishes VAWC from private crimes such as adultery and concubinage, which require a complaint by the offended spouse. Because it is a public crime, proceedings may continue despite the complainant's death, so long as other witnesses with personal knowledge and supporting documentary evidence suffice. The death of the private complainant is not a ground for extinguishment of criminal liability under Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code.

• Elements of Psychological Violence under Section 5(i) — As enumerated in Dinamling vs. People, 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; 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.

• Mala in Se Nature of Section 5(i) Offenses — Per Acharon vs. People, crimes penalized under Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262 are mala in se, not mala prohibita, even though R.A. 9262 is a special penal law. The acts punished are inherently wrong or depraved, and the statutory language requires a mental element. The prosecution must establish that the accused committed the prohibited acts with a guilty mind (mens rea) accompanying the actus reus.

• Opinion of Ordinary Witnesses on Emotional State — Under Section 53, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, a witness with proper basis may testify on his or her impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition, or appearance of a person with whom he or she is sufficiently acquainted. This rule permits prosecution witnesses to establish the complainant's mental or emotional anguish even when the complainant herself cannot testify.

• "Being a public offense, a case falling under Republic Act No. 9262 may be initiated by any citizen having personal knowledge of the circumstances involving its commission. This is to be distinguished from private crimes, such as adultery and concubinage, which may only be prosecuted upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi on the public crime doctrine, distinguishing VAWC from private crimes and explaining why proceedings survive the complainant's death.

• "What Republic Act No. 9262 seeks to penalize is not the occurrence of marital infidelity but the psychological violence from the accused's act of unfaithfulness, the abandonment of his family and the utter disregard of the feelings of his wife and children, which resulted in the mental and emotional sufferings of the latter." — This formulation, drawn from AAA vs. BBB, defines the scope of Section 5(i): the penalized act is the psychological violence produced by infidelity and abandonment, not infidelity in the abstract.

• "Therefore, even if the complainant is absent or can no longer give a testimony, the criminal proceedings may even proceed, so long as there are other witnesses with personal knowledge, and supporting pieces of evidence, to support the prosecution's theory." — This statement establishes the rule that the complainant's death does not extinguish a VAWC prosecution, provided other evidence suffices.

• "The witness may also testify on his or her impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a person." — Quoting Section 53, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, this passage provides the evidentiary basis for admitting lay-witness testimony on the complainant's emotional state when the complainant is unavailable.

• Dinamling vs. People, 761 Phil. 356 (2015) — Controlling authority enumerating the four elements of psychological violence under Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262. The Court applied this framework to find all elements satisfied. The case also stood for the proposition that the victim's testimony is the primary means to establish mental anguish, though the Court here held that this requirement yields where the complainant has died and other evidence suffices.

• AAA vs. BBB, 823 Phil. 607 (2018) — Followed. Clarified that R.A. No. 9262 penalizes not marital infidelity per se but the psychological violence resulting from unfaithfulness, abandonment, and disregard for the feelings of the wife and children.

• Acharon vs. People, 913 Phil. 731 (2021) — Followed. Established that offenses under Sections 5(i) and 5(e) of R.A. No. 9262 are mala in se, requiring a mental element. The Court applied this to find that petitioner's deliberate conduct satisfied the mens rea component.

• Garcia vs. Drilon, 712 Phil. 44 (2013) — Followed. Explained the paradigm shift from treating domestic violence as a private affair to a public offense, and upheld the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9262 against challenges of discrimination.

• XXX270257 vs. People, G.R. No. 270257, August 12, 2024 — Followed. Held that a psychological report is not necessary to establish mental anguish; the complainant's own testimony suffices. The Court extended this principle to allow substitute evidence where the complainant had died.

• Dy vs. People, 792 Phil. 672 (2016) — Cited for the principle that criminal liability is a liability against the State and society, not any individual, and that proceedings may continue despite the private complainant's death.

• Gatan vs. Vinarao, 820 Phil. 257 (2017) — Cited for the rule that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari, as the Court is not a trier of facts.

• Cruz vs. People, 821 Phil. 372 (2017) — Cited for the exception allowing factual review when lower courts have ignored, overlooked, or misconstrued relevant facts that would change the outcome; the Court found no such exception here.

• Section 5(i), Republic Act No. 9262 — Defines the act of violence penalized: causing 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 or access to the woman's child/children. Applied as the charging provision; all elements were found satisfied.

• Section 25, Republic Act No. 9262 — Declares that violence against women and children is a public offense prosecutable upon the filing of a complaint by any citizen having personal knowledge of the circumstances of the crime. Applied to hold that proceedings may continue despite the complainant's death.

• Section 6, Republic Act No. 9262 — Prescribes the penalty for acts falling under Section 5(i): prision mayor, plus 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. Applied to affirm the penalty imposed by the RTC.

• Section 5, Rule 110, Rules of Court — Provides that all criminal actions commenced by a complaint or information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the prosecutor. Applied to support the continuation of proceedings despite the complainant's absence or death.

• Section 53, Rule 130, Rules of Court — Permits a witness with proper basis to testify on impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition, or appearance of a person. Applied to admit the prosecution witnesses' observations of AAA268392's emotional state as evidence of mental anguish.

• Article 89, Revised Penal Code — Enumerates the causes of total extinguishment of criminal liability (death of the convict, service of sentence, amnesty, absolute pardon, prescription of the crime, prescription of the penalty, marriage of the offended woman). Applied to confirm that the complainant's death is not among these grounds.

Leonen, SAJ. (Chairperson), Lazaro-Javier, and Kho, Jr., JJ., concurred.