Dear PAO,
My husband is a philanderer, so I filed a complaint for psychological violence under Republic Act 9262 against him. He is now claiming that marital infidelity is not one of the acts that constitutes emotional abuse under the law. He also insists that he never intended to cause me emotional pain whenever he had a mistress, and that I must prove such intent before he can be held liable. Is it necessary to prove intent to cause emotional abuse under these circumstances?
Dear Taytana,
Causing emotional abuse may fall under the following provision of Republic Act 9262, or otherwise known as Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004:
“Section 5. The crime of violence against women and their children is committed through any of the following acts: x x x
“(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.”
The elements of the aforestated offense were enumerated in the case of Dinamling vs. People of the Philippines, GR 199522, June 22, 2015, which was penned by Chief Justice Diosdado Peralta:
“(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, or is a woman with whom the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or is a woman with whom such offender has a common child. As for the woman’s child or children, they may be legitimate or illegitimate, or living within or without the family abode.
“(3) The offender causes on the woman and/or child mental or emotional anguish.
“(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 such acts or omissions.”
Marital infidelity causing emotional abuse falls under the aforesaid provision of the law. Also, specific intent to cause emotional abuse in marital infidelity need not be proven. This finds support in XXX vs. People of the Philippines, GR 252739, April 16, 2024, where the Supreme Court speaking through Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando stated that:
“Marital infidelity resulting to mental and emotional anguish is punishable under Republic Act 9262.”
The court went further and said that:
“While We agree with Acharon that the crimes penalized under Sec. 5(i) are mala in se and not mala prohibita, thereby requiring specific criminal intent, we hereby hold that in instances of marital infidelity, the requirement of specific criminal intent to cause mental and emotional suffering is already satisfied at the moment the perpetrator commits the act of marital infidelity. This finds basis in the fact that marital infidelity is inherently immoral and depraved under prevailing societal, cultural and religious norms. In the normal course of human behavior, an aggrieved wife will never approve of a rogue and wandering husband, and vice versa. The same line of reasoning just cannot be applied in cases of willful denial of financial support. In other words, marital infidelity, divorced from its legal connotations, is an act which is essentially wrong in itself. To pose a rhetoric, what else could adulterers have expected to cause upon their spouse when they committed an act of unfaithfulness, aside from mental and emotional pain?”
Applying the above-quoted decision to your situation, marital infidelity causing emotional abuse indeed falls under Section 5 (i) of RA 9262. Further, the criminal intent to cause emotional or mental abuse is already satisfied the moment your husband committed marital infidelity. This is so because marital infidelity is inherently immoral and depraved under prevailing societal, cultural and religious norms. Thus, there is no need to prove intent to cause emotional abuse.
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.
Thank you for your continued trust and support.
Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net.
