Philippines: Is Marital Infidelity Punishable Under The Anti-Vawc Law?

Marital Infidelity is Psychological Violence under Republic Act No. 9262 otherwise known as Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004 (Anti-VAWC Act)

In a Decision (G.R. No. 250219 – XXX v. People) dated March 1, 2023, the Supreme Court, through Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, upheld the conviction for violation of the Anti-VAWC Act committed by a man who cohabited with and impregnated another woman while his wife was working abroad.

Emphasizing that marital infidelity is one of the forms of psychological violence, the Supreme Court agreed with the trial court and the Court of Appeals and ruled that all the elements to establish a violation of Sec. 5(i) were present. These elements are: 1) the offended party is a woman and/or her child or children; 2) the woman is either the wife or former wife of the offender; 3) the offender causes on the woman and/or child 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 to such acts or omissions.

The Supreme Court held that there are several forms of abuse, the most visible form of which is physical violence. The others are sexual violence, psychological violence, and economic abuse.

The Court ruled that the prosecution in this case was able to satisfactorily establish petitioner's marital infidelity, petitioner's cohabitation with CCC who even bore him a child, and his abandonment of AAA.

The CA rulings affirmed the conviction of XXX by a Regional Trial Court (RTC) which found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5(i) of the Anti-VAWC Act which states that the crime of violence against women and their children is committed by "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."

Emphasizing that marital infidelity is one of the forms of psychological violence, the High Court agreed with the CA and the RTC and ruled that all the elements to establish a violation of Sec. 5(i) were present. These elements are: 1) the offended party is a woman and/or her child or children; 2) the woman is either the wife or former wife of the offender; 3) the offender causes on the woman and/or child 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 to such acts or omissions.

Petitioner XXX and AAA were married on December 29, 2006. Out of their union, their daughter BBB was born. To sustain their family, in 2008, AAA flew to Singapore to work. Couple of years later, or in 2015, AAA learned that XXX is in a romantic relationship with another woman, CCC. XXX even messaged AAA not to communicate with him anymore. To make matters worse, in July 2015, AAA discovered that CCC was pregnant with XXX's child.

AAA later learned that petitioner XXX brought the other woman CCC to their hometown prompting the latter to return to the country. Learning that her husband and his mistress started to cohabit, AAA sought the assistance of the Department of Social Welfare and Development in getting her daughter BBB from her mother-in-law.

XXX on the other hand denied knowing CCC, but subsequently clarified that they went to the same secondary school, but had not seen CCC in a long time. When asked if he was providing support to BBB, he replied that since October 2015 when the child was taken from him, he stopped giving support because AAA does not allow BBB to be near him nor show her to him.

XXX was charged with violation of Sec. 5(i) of RA 9262 before the RTC in January 2016. The RTC found XXX guilty of inflicting psychological violence against his wife and daughter through emotional and psychological abandonment.

Aggrieved, XXX appealed before the Court of Appeals and imputed the following errors, among others to the RTC: holding him liable for psychological violence and abandonment when he was only charged with economic abuse; failing to consider that it was his wife who alienated their child from him; and disregarding the fact that it was him who took custody of BBB from when she was seven-months old until October 2015.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. It held that contrary to XXX's claims, the Information charged him not only with deprivation of financial support to the child, but also the act of abandoning her and her mother, which may be considered as having been subsumed in the phrase "similar acts or omissions" mentioned under Sect. 5(i) of RA 9262. Notably, while the prosecution was not able to establish that XXX denied them financial support, the prosecution was able to clearly show that XXX abandoned them, and such abandonment caused them mental or emotional anguish." XXX moved for reconsideration but the same was denied by the Court of Appeals.

The Supreme Court held that there are several forms of abuse, the most visible form of which is physical violence. The others are sexual violence, psychological violence, and economic abuse.

The Court ruled that the prosecution in this case was able to satisfactorily establish petitioner's marital infidelity, petitioner's cohabitation with CCC who even bore him a child, and his abandonment of AAA.

Psychological violence is an element of violation of Section 5(i) just like the mental or emotional anguish caused on the victim. Psychological violence is the means employed by the perpetrator, while mental or emotions anguish is the effect caused to or the damage sustained by the offended party. To establish psychological violence as an element of the crime, it is necessary to show proof of commission of any of the acts enumerated in Section 5(i) or similar such acts. And to establish mental or emotional anguish, it is necessary to present the testimony of the victim as such experiences are personal to this party.

In the present case, BBB's psychological trauma was evident when she wept in open court upon being asked to narrate petitioner's infidelity. In particular, BBB explained that she was deeply hurt because her father had another family and loved another woman other than her mother, BBB.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.