SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 263449, November 13, 2023 ]
XXX, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
CONCURRING OPINION
M. LOPEZ, J.:
I register my concurrence with the ponencia, which affirmed the conviction of the accused █████ (████) for violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act (RA) No. 92621 or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 committed against his wife ████ (███). Contrary to the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court's ratiocinations, I respectfully opine that the crime of psychological violence resulted not from marital infidelity per se on the part of ███but on his acts of abandoning ████ and leaving her alone to pay for their conjugal debts.
Prefatorily, psychological violence under Section 5(i) of RA No. 9262 is a crime mala in se that requires proof of the accused's criminal intent. This is because violence, regardless of form and means, is inherently depraved and immoral. The law also does not punish marital infidelity per se but psychological violence causing mental or emotional suffering. Marital infidelity as cited in the law is only one of the various acts by which psychological violence may be committed. Moreover, depending on the circumstances of the spouses and for a myriad of reasons, the illicit relationship may or may not even be causing mental or emotional anguish on the wife.2 Indeed, not all kinds of suffering within the context of intimate relationships should be considered psychological violence. The Court must consider the entire factual setting surrounding each case of marital infidelity to determine the evil intent to cause psychological violence which refers to the means employed by the perpetrator, and the mental or emotional anguish which pertains to the effect caused or the damage sustained by the offended party.
In several cases, the Court convicted the husbands not because of marital infidelity per se but based on their evil intent and the psychological trauma and deep hurt that their wives suffered due to the illicit relationship. The marital infidelity of the husband was coupled with other significant factors ranging from abandonment of the family and cohabitation with the paramour in another place, eviction of the wife and children from the family home, deprivation of financial support, keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling, repeated verbal abuse and threats against the wife and her children, resumption of affair with the paramour, and public display of marital infidelity.3
The Court cannot oversimplify the complexity of marital infidelity and its relationship with psychological violence. Marital infidelity is an abstruse and multifaceted concept. Many permutations of interactions reshape perceptions and responses to infidelity. What constitutes infidelity can differ significantly from one person to another, making it a highly subjective experience for the victim involved.(awÞhi( The variability and intensity of intimate human relationships make it more difficult to draw the line, requiring the courts to observe a level of restraint in deciding whether the facts presented constitutes marital infidelity as psychological violence. To reiterate, it is not within the competence of the courts to reach too far into intimate relations and meddle in personal affairs. Litigation should not dictate on or even pressure a person into accepting a life of marriage with a person they reject. The Constitution directs the State to value the dignity of every human person and guarantee full respect for human rights. Freedom of choice to associate or to identify forms part of one's dignity. As much as the Family Code provides that the nature, consequences, and incidents of marriage are governed by law and not subject to stipulation, one's choice of intimate relations is also protected by the liberty and human dignity clauses of the Constitution.4
Here, the facts narrated that ████ caught ████ in 2007 kissing their househelper that led to an intense fight. ████ then spent the night at her parents' house. Upon her return, ████ discovered that ████ already left the conjugal dwelling. In 2013 or after six years, ████ found out that ████ had a child with the househelper. However, the criminal information against ████ does not allege marital infidelity as the cause of psychological violence. The isolated instance of marital infidelity even lacks context and elaboration. Immediately before and after ███ was caught in 2007, there is no clear evidence of ongoing emotional harm caused by marital infidelity. Six years later, in 2013, the wife found out that ████ had a child with the house helper. Yet, during the interceding period of six years, it is unclear if ████ continued the illicit affairs or just left the conjugal dwelling to escape his marital vow so he could, in the meantime, pursue his selfish desires. There is a gap in the circumstances that deficiently corroborate a continued pattern of psychologically abusive infidelity. The extended period between the cheating incident and the subsequent discovery of the nonmarital child blurs the connection between marital infidelity and psychological violence. The potential shifts in the parties' perspective, behavior, and circumstances during the long intervening period cannot be ignored. ████ even asserted that the marital separation was mutually agreed upon and prompted by the disapproval of ████'s parents. Suppose ███ left ███ to resume his extramarital affair, would it be safe to assume that he did so with specific criminal intent to inflict psychological violence? Or was ████ impelled by the dysfunctional or deteriorated dynamics of a failed marriage? Again, marital infidelity extends beyond casual or sexual infidelity and contemplates a pervasive, willful, and criminal intent to damage the emotional well-being of the aggrieved party.5 This nuanced approach acknowledges the complexity of human relationships and respects the autonomy of individuals in defining the parameters of their own unions, rather than simply criminalizing all instances of marital infidelity.
In contrast, the fact of desertion on the part of ████ is extant which indubitably caused ████ psychological distress and financial burden in settling the conjugal loans. The totality of circumstances presents a case of abandonment that has direct connection to the mental and emotional anguish of the victim. As the ponencia aptly observed:
Undoubtedly, a husband's abandonment of his wife falls under psychological violence and emotional abuse penalized under Republic Act No. 9262, as such an action would naturally cause mental and emotional suffering to the wife, a person whom the husband is obliged to cohabit with, love, respect, and give support to.... Sudden abandonment without any explanation would certainly cause emotional anguish.
In this case, the Information clearly alleged that ████ caused ████ mental or emotional anguish through his actions of leaving the conjugal dwelling and abandoning ████[.]
. . . .
Further, the emotional anguish suffered by ████ was exacerbated when their conjugal debts were left unpaid[,]
FOR THESE REASONS, I vote to DENY the petition. ████ is liable for psychological violence by reason of abandonment and not marital infidelity.
Footnotes
1 Entitled, "AN ACT DEFINING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN, PROVIDING FOR PROTECTIVE MEASURES FOR VICTIMS, PRESCRIBING PENALTIES THEREFORE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES." Approved on March 8, 2004.
2 AAA v. BBB, 823 Phil. 607, 620 (2018) [Per J. Tijam, First Division].
3 Araza v. People, 882 Phil. 905, 917-919 (2020) [Per C.J. Peralta, First Division]; Reyes v. People, 855 Phil. 991, 1002-1004 (2019) [Per J. Peralta, Third Division]; XXX[243049] v. People, 887 Phil. 161, 169 (2020) [Per J. Delos Santos, Second Division]; XXX[241390] v. People, G.R. No. 241390, January 13, 2021 [Per J. Delos Santos, Third Division]; XXX[250219] v. People, G.R. No. 250219, March 1, 2023 [Per J. Hernando, First Division].
4 Guevarra, et al. v. Banach, G.R. No. 214016, November 24, 2021 [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
5 Acharon v. People, G.R. No. 224946, November 9, 2021 [Per J. Caguioa, En Banc].
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
