Dear PAO,
One day, our son received a low grade in one of his examinations because he had been spending too much time playing instead of studying. My husband became very angry and wanted to teach him a lesson. Instead of disciplining him appropriately, my husband intentionally hurt our son’s dog in our presence, knowing how much our son loved and cared for the animal. Witnessing this violent act caused both my son and me extreme fear, emotional anguish, and psychological distress. Can my husband be held liable under Republic Act 9262, or the Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act for causing psychological and emotional distress to me and our son?
Annie
Dear Annie,
It bears emphasizing at the outset that, although your husband did not physically assault you or your child, his deliberate intention and action to inflict violence on your son’s helpless pet served as a frightening display of aggression. Such act conveyed the message that he was capable of violence and instilled fear.
Republic Act (RA) 9262, or the Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004, is primarily designed to punish not only physical violence but also psychological violence. Section 3(c) thereof defines psychological violence as 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 mental 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. Relative thereto, under Section 5(h)(4) of RA 9262, acts of violence against women and their children include inflicting harm to animals or pets of the woman or her child.
Simply stated, psychological violence includes acts or omissions that cause mental or emotional suffering, intimidation, harassment, or fear to the woman or her child. An abusive partner may use violence against a beloved pet as a means of intimidation or emotional abuse because pets often share deep connection with and have profound emotional value to family members. The intentional harming of a family pet can therefore be evidence of psychological violence when it is done to terrorize, threaten, control, or emotionally harm the woman or her child.
Based on the facts you have narrated, your husband’s violent act has clearly created an atmosphere of fear in your home. Furthermore, your child witnessed the suffering of his dog, which appears to have caused him emotional pain and trauma. Such an incident cannot be dismissed as merely “teaching your son a lesson.” Rather, it is an act of violence intended to intimidate and cause fear, which may even leave lasting psychological scars, especially since your son considered the dog a member of the family and had consistently loved and cared for the animal. Instead of viewing his father as a protector, your son has been conditioned to fear him. Therefore, pursuant to Section 5(h)(4) of RA 9262, which penalizes acts that cause severe mental or emotional distress to a woman or her child, your husband may be held criminally liable for causing you and your child psychological distress.
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice was 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
