[ G.R. No. 264870. April 21, 2025 ] SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 264870. April 21, 2025 ]
XXX264870,* PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT. DECISION
LEONEN, SAJ.:
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 Court resolves a Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] assailing the Court of Appeals Decision[2] and Resolution,[3] which affirmed the Decision[4] of the Regional Trial Court of xxxxxxxxxxx.The courts found XXX264870 guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004. XXX264870 was charged with violation of Section 5(h)[5] of Republic Act No. 9262 committed against his wife, AAA264870.[6] The Information reads:
Sometime in the month of November 2015 and subsequent thereto, in the xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, the Philippines, accused, XXX264870, legally married to complainant AAA264870, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously at [sic] 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. CONTRARY TO LAW.[7]
Upon arraignment, XXX264870 pleaded not guilty to the charges. Trial then ensued.[8] The prosecution established that XXX264870 and AAA264870 were married on June 28, 2014 at the Iglesia ni Cristo House of Worship in xxxxxxxxxxx.[9] About a year and a half into their marriage, AAA264870 read messages on XXX264870’s phone and later learned that her husband was having an affair with her friend, BBB264870.[10] She fainted upon discovering this and was brought to xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.[11] When she returned home, XXX264870 had already moved out.[12] AAA264870 messaged BBB264870 on Facebook Messenger, confronting her about the affair.[13] In an attempt to save their marriage, AAA264870 met with XXX264870 a few days after, where XXX264870 admitted to having sexual intercourse with BBB264870.[14] XXX264870 even invited AAA264870 to spend the holidays with his family in xxxxxxxxx, Rizal,[15] which AAA264870 accepted because she wanted their marriage to work.[16] However, during the celebrations, AAA264870 again read messages from BBB264870 on XXX264870’s phone, which resulted in a fight.[17] It was at that time that XXX264870 said he no longer wanted to continue the marriage.[18] His decision remained the same even after the intervention of their parents.[19] XXX264870 and BBB264870 sent messages to AAA264870 apologizing to her and telling her to move on. AAA264870 later learned that the two were already living together and that they already had a child on October 2016.[20] AAA264870 underwent psychological assessment by clinical psychologist Nedy L. Tayag, where she was found to be having “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."[21] For his part, XXX264870 admitted to having a child with BBB264870 but denied any romantic involvement with her.[22] He also 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,” “Basta napatawad na kita wag muna ako alalahanin wala ka ng atraso saakin."[23] Further, AAA264870 asked XXX264870 to file for the annulment of their marriage, saying that she herself had found a boyfriend whom she wanted to marry. XXX264870 agreed and filed the case and even paid for the filing fee.[24] The Regional Trial Court found XXX264870 guilty of violating Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262, finding that the prosecution established that XXX264870 inflicted psychological or emotional harm on AAA264870 due to his marital infidelity, which caused AAA264870 to become sad, depressed, and traumatized.[25] The dispositive portion of its Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the court hereby finds the accused [XXX264870] GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of psychological violence defined and penalized under Section 5(i) of [Republic Act] No. 9262. Consequently, the court hereby sentences him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional[,] as minimum[;] to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor[,] as maximum, plus a fine of [PHP] 100,000.00. The same accused is ordered to pay moral damages in the amount of [PHP] 20,000.00 with interest of 6% per annum beginning from the finality of this decision until full payment. In addition, the accused is required to undergo mandatory psychological counseling every month and submit compliance to the court. Costs de oficio. SO ORDERED.[26]
XXX264870 moved for reconsideration, which was denied by the trial court in its Order.[27] He then appealed the case to the Court of Appeals. In its assailed Decision, the Court of Appeals denied XXX264870’s appeal and affirmed the Regional Trial Court’s Decision convicting him of violating Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated 20 November 2018 of the Regional Trial Court, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, in Criminal Case No. R-MKT-18-00092-CR, is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.[28]
Unsatisfied with this, XXX264870 filed a Motion for Reconsideration.[29] Thereafter, he filed an Urgent Motion for Leave to Admit Supplement to Motion for Reconsideration,[30] and a Supplement to Motion for Reconsideration,[31] attaching an Affidavit of Recantation[32] voluntarily executed by AAA264870 before Assistant City Prosecutor Paolo C. Barcelona of the Office of the Prosecutor of xxxxxxxxxxx.[33] In her Affidavit of Recantation, AAA264870 categorically stated that she “was not hurt nor devastated” when she learned about XXX264870’s affair.[34] She said they both “had an understanding about new relationships outside of [their] marriage and [she] knew it would happen to him or to [her] in due time."[35] However, her feelings towards BBB264870 were different because she felt betrayed by a close friend.[36] She retaliated by filing an administrative case against BBB264870 before the Professional Regulation Commission, and to file the criminal case against her and XXX264870 “against better judgment."[37] AAA264870 also retracted her earlier testimony about fainting and being brought to xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; she said in her Affidavit that this incident did not happen.[38] As to the family celebration in xxxxxxxxx, Rizal, AAA264870 said that there was no fight between them, and that they had “a grand time together."[39] XXX264870 also never told her that he no longer wanted to save their marriage because he was already seeing BBB264870.[40] AAA264870 also denied seeing a clinical psychologist because of XXX264870’s illicit affairs. Instead, she said that she went to see a clinical psychologist only after the filing of the criminal case against XXX264870 two years after the affair, because she was told she needed medical evidence in that case.[41] The present criminal case was filed because the first criminal case for concubinage she filed was dismissed.[42] In her Affidavit, Sheila also stated that “[t]he truth of the matter is that… [XXX264870]… and I had already been living separately long before his illicit affair, and we were open to the possibility of creating new relationships outside of our marriage."[43] She also mentioned that they are “now talking regularly, without fighting, and we are now listening to each other."[44] On XXX264870’s affair with BBB264870, AAA264870 states that “[w]hile I realize that XXX264870… and I had been separated when he had an affair with BBB264870…, there is still no excuse for an extra-marital affair, but understanding what kindled the affair is a key to being able to move forward. For now I would like to view this affair as a turning point, an opportunity to grow separately and together, and reconnect in a way that is stronger and closer."[45] Ultimately, AAA264870 hopes that her statements will be considered and that they be given the opportunity to rekindle their relationship, making this a step towards reconciliation.[46] Despite this, the Court of Appeals denied XXX264870’s Motion for Reconsideration. It said that AAA264870’s Affidavit failed to persuade it to overturn XXX264870’s conviction.[47] It said that recantations are generally not viewed favorably, and that in any case, the elements of the offense were also proven during trial from the testimonies of other witnesses.[48] Hence, the present Petition was filed. Petitioner XXX264870 argues that the Court of Appeals erred in not finding that private complainant AAA264870’s Affidavit of Recantation cast serious doubt on his liability, considering that private complainant admitted that she did not experience emotional anguish and mental suffering, elements of the crime for which he was convicted.[49] This Affidavit was freely and voluntarily executed.[50] Its delayed submission was because it was only executed after the trial court had already tried the case.[51] Nonetheless, petitioner asks that the Affidavit of Recantation be viewed favorably, considering that it was executed voluntarily and that he and private complainant are already at the verge of reconciliation.[52] Petitioner also claims that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming his conviction because even the clinical psychologist testified during her cross-examination that the cause of private complainant’s emotional suffering was not due to petitioner’s marital infidelity. It was because petitioner told her that he was no longer happy with her.[53] Moreover, petitioner claims that forgiveness on private complainant’s part does not extinguish criminal liability per se but proves that she did not suffer mental or emotional anguish.[54] He also points to several facts to show this, particularly, private complainant’s Facebook post about their meeting regarding their annulment case.[55] Finally, petitioner maintains that there was a violation of his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him because the case filed against him was for violation of Section 5(h) of Republic Act No. 9262, but he was convicted under Section 5(i) of the same law.[56] He rejects the applicability of the variance doctrine because the two sections have different elements.[57] During trial, the prosecution did not adduce evidence to show that he engaged in any form of violence against private complainant, as punished under Section 5(h) for which he was charged. To him, this should warrant his acquittal.[58] He also questions the lack of particularity of time, place, names, and circumstances constituting the crime in the Information.[59] For its part, respondent People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed its Comment.[60] In its Comment, respondent argues that petitioner’s appeal raises questions of fact, which are outside the scope of a Rule 45 petition.[61] Respondent also claims that petitioner’s guilt for violation of Section 5(i) was proven beyond reasonable doubt.[62] Section 5(i) punishes acts which cause “mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to the woman. The infliction of mental and emotional distress is the essence of the offense, hence, the prosecution’s task is to prove that by the very nature of Petitioner’s acts, the victim sustained emotional and mental suffering."[63] All the elements of the offense, particularly: “(1) psychological violence as a means employed by the perpetrator consisting of any acts enumerated in Sec. 5(i) or similar acts, and (2) the mental or emotional suffering or damage sustained by the offended party”[64] have been established.[65] As to the difference in the charge stated in the Information, respondent insists that the characterization of the offense in the caption of the Information is not what determines the crime for which an accused stands trial for, but it is the facts alleged in the body of the Information which are crucial.[66] In this case, respondent maintains that the Information is sufficient because it alleges that petitioner “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."[67] As to AAA264870’s Affidavit of Recantation, respondent argues that it carries no probative weight,[68] as it is the court’s general policy to give scant consideration to a desistance because of its unreliability.[69] It reiterates the Court of Appeals’ finding that the Affidavit “lacks credibility, particularly when considering the private complainant’s prior actions. These actions involve initiation of two criminal cases and filing an administrative complaint against petitioner, all of which entailed considerable effort to establish the petitioner’s criminal culpability."[70] Respondent cites People v. Lamsen,[71] warning of the danger of setting aside testimony taken in open court by way of recantation, saying it makes a mockery of trials and places the truth at the hands of unscrupulous witnesses.[72] The two main issues for this Court’s resolution are: first, whether there was a violation of petitioner’s constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him because the Information’s caption charged him with violation of Section 5(h) of Republic Act No. 9262 but his conviction was for Section 5(i) of the same law; and second, whether there is reasonable doubt that justifies petitioner’s acquittal because of the Affidavit of Recantation executed by private complainant, retracting her statement that she suffered mental or emotional anguish. On this first issue, the Court agrees with respondent. There is no violation of petitioner’s right even if the prosecution erred in designating the proper offense. Petitioner could still be convicted based on the facts alleged in the Information, which were sufficiently proven during trial. Respondent correctly relies on People v. Dimaano,[73] which states:
What is controlling is not the title of the complaint, nor the designation of the offense charged or the particular law or part thereof allegedly violated, these being mere conclusions of law made by the prosecutor, but the description of the crime charged and the particular facts therein recited. The acts or omissions complained of must be alleged in such form as is sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is intended to be charged, and enable the court to pronounce proper judgment. No information for a crime will be sufficient if it does not accurately and clearly allege the elements of the crime charged. Every element of the offense must be stated in the information. What facts and circumstances are necessary to be included therein must be determined by reference to the definitions and essentials of the specified crimes. The requirement of alleging the elements of a crime in the information is to inform the accused of the nature of the accusation against him so as to enable him to suitably prepare his defense. The presumption is that the accused has no independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense.[74]
In this case, the allegations contained in the Information clearly constitute a violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262. It sufficiently describes the particular elements of the offense, and petitioner was adequately informed of the charge against him. In his Judicial Affidavit, petitioner clearly admitted to knowing the nature of his case:
Q3: Do you know what is the nature of the case filed against you? A3: Yes, Sir. It is for violation of Section 5(h) of [Republic Act No. 9262 allegedly for having an extramarital affair with a certain [BBB264870] and having impregnated her which resulted to mental and emotional anguish, psychological distress, humiliation, harm and suffering to my wife, [AAA264870].[75]
Thus, petitioner knew that the allegations against him were for having an extramarital affair and having a child with another woman, which caused mental and emotional anguish to his wife. Despite the erroneous designation of the offense as a violation of Section 5(h), the allegations stated in the Information and as known to petitioner undoubtedly point to a violation of Section 5(i). It cannot be said that petitioner was not properly apprised of the charge against him. As to the second issue, the Court finds in favor of petitioner. Marital infidelity per se is not an act of violence against women and their children criminalized under Republic Act No. 9262. Republic Act No. 9262 “protects women from violence committed in the context of an intimate relationship, which can be physical violence, sexual violence, psychological violence, or economic abuse."[76] The law’s protection extends to women because of the patriarchal culture that dominates our society. It is important to highlight this context where the law seeks to negate patriarchal dominance, not to privilege a certain class of individuals, but to correct a historical and social phenomenon that disadvantages women simply for their gender. In Agacid v. People,[77] Republic Act No. 9262 was characterized as a legislation that empowers women:
Republic Act No. 9262 seeks to protect women from the various forms of violence they endure in their private relationships. The nature of this social legislation is to empower women who find themselves in situations where they are left vulnerable to their abusers who are their intimate partners. The dynamics within intimate relationship of two people, with all its intricacies, difficulties, and power play, is the context within which the law places the violence it penalizes. Aside from being a gender-based issue, violence against women is necessarily a power issue[.] . . . . Thus, understanding women’s struggle only as a gender issue might present a simplistic understanding as it fails to paint a complete picture of why this phenomenon occurs. The oppression of women is a result of the patriarchal view that women are proper subjects of dominance[.][78]
Therefore, at the core of this legislation is the affirmation of the woman’s inherent dignity which is unjustly diminished in a patriarchal society. Republic Act No. 9262 empowers the woman, through her own agency, to assert her dignity against acts of oppression. The law should not be treated as an unbridled license for the State to intrude into personal affairs. This is especially true because Republic Act No. 9262 necessarily touches upon matters that are characteristically private. The State, therefore, should be cautious in its actions so as not to make unwarranted intrusions into issues that belong in the intimate sphere of personal relations. Sections 3 and 5 of the law are the bases of petitioner’s conviction:
Section 3. Definition of Terms.- As used in this Act,(a) “Violence against women and their children” refers to any act or a series of acts committed by any person against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a common child, or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the family abode, which result in or is likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse including threats of such acts, battery, assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty. It includes, but is not limited to, the following acts: . . . . C. “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. It includes causing or allowing the victim to witness the physical, sexual or psychological abuse of a member of the family to which the victim belongs, or to witness pornography in any form or to witness abusive injury to pets or to unlawful or unwanted deprivation of the right to custody and/or visitation of common children. (Emphasis supplied.). . . . Section 5. Acts of Violence Against Women and Their Children.- The crime of violence against women and their children is committed through any of the following acts: . . . . (i) 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 of access to the woman’s child/children.
Taking these provisions together, the two elements for the commission of this offense are (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 two elements are separate and distinct. The acts complained of, which are the means of committing the offense, should 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."[79] 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. Another point to seriously consider is the Affidavit of Recantation executed by the offended party. In offenses covered by Republic Act 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. The Affidavit of Recantation creates reasonable doubt as to whether petitioner’s conviction should be upheld, as it directly affects an essential element of the offense, particularly the second element. 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 situation reveals exactly the reason why the State should refrain from needlessly intruding into intimate relations. Human relationships are complex; they cannot be judged as black and white. A simplistic approach will inevitably fail to capture all the intricacies and obscurities of these relationships, the moments of joy and suffering shared between partners, as well as each person’s capacity for self-reflection, healing, and even openness to reconciliation. All these said, 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. ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals January 28, 2021 Decision and December 21, 2022 Resolution in CA-G.R. CR No. 43253 are REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. Petitioner XXX264870 is ACQUITTED of violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262. Let entry of judgment be issued immediately. SO ORDERED. Lazaro-Javier, M. Lopez, and Kho, Jr., JJ., concur. J. Lopez, J., with dissenting opinion.