G.R. No. 252739 , April 16, 2024
XXX, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

The case involves a petition concerning a conviction under Republic Act No. 9262 , the “Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children (VAWC) Act of 2004.” The specific charge is under Section 5(i) for causing mental or emotional anguish through marital infidelity. The dissenting opinion of Justice Caguioa argues that the prosecution’s evidence failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner, XXX, committed psychological violence against his wife, AAA, by his act of marital infidelity alone. The opinion critiques the majority’s view that male marital infidelity per se constitutes a criminal violation under the law, comparing it to an archaic and punitive approach.

ISSUE

Whether marital infidelity, by itself and without proof of intent to cause mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule, or humiliation, automatically constitutes psychological violence punishable under Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 .

RULING

No. The dissenting opinion holds that marital infidelity per se is not penalized under Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 . The essential element of the offense under Section 5(i) is the act of “causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation.” The law requires proof of a deliberate or intentional act aimed at causing such psychological harm. The mere fact of infidelity, without evidence establishing that it was committed with the specific intent to cause mental or emotional suffering, or that it resulted in public ridicule or humiliation, does not automatically translate into a violation of the law. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the infidelity was a purposeful act intended to inflict psychological violence. The dissent concludes that the evidence in this case failed to meet this standard and therefore the conviction is erroneous.