Manila
THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 270257, August 12, 2024 ]
XXX270257*, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND AAA, RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
INTING, J.:
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 filed by petitioner XXX270257 assailing the Decision2 dated February 8, 2023, and the Resolution3 dated September 6, 2023, of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 45361. The CA affirmed the Judgment4 dated July 3, 2020, of ███████, Regional Trial Court (RTC), ███████, Benguet in Criminal Case No. 18-CR-12464 that found XXX270257 guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Psychological Violence defined and penalized under Section 5(i)5 of Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise known as the Anti-Violence against Women and their Children Act.
The Antecedents
The instant case stemmed from an Information6 for violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 filed against XXX270257. The accusatory portion of the Information reads:
That on the 1st day of January 2017, and on the days prior and subsequent thereto, at ███████, Municipality of ███████, Province of Benguet, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without any justifiable cause or reason whatsoever, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly subject his wife [AAA] and their children to mental and emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation by abandoning them and living with another woman thereby denying them marital love and affection, and financial support to their children despite being financially capable, to the damage and prejudice of said [AAA] and their children.
CONTRARY TO LAW.7
Upon arraignment, XXX270257 entered a plea of "Not Guilty" to the charge.
Trial on the merits ensued.
Version of the Prosecution
XXX270257 was married to private complainant AAA on November 27, 1998; they have three children.8 On December 23, 2016, AAA discovered several calls from a single unknown number on the call log of XXX270257's phone. AAA tried calling the number and a woman answered. This prompted AAA to drop the call.9 On January 1, 2017, XXX270257 left their home. It was at this point that AAA discovered that he was living with another woman, CCC. Days later, CCC, in the presence of AAA and her children, informed AAA that she would leave XXX270257 for the benefit of the children. This promise went unfulfilled, however, as XXX270257 never returned to their home.10
AAA decided to file a case against XXX270257. However, she was prevailed upon by XXX270257's relatives to desist as the latter had already promised to sever his relationship with CCC. Such promise was written in an agreement signed by both AAA and XXX270257. Nevertheless, the promise was left unfulfilled as XXX270257 cohabited with CCC in his mother's house adjacent to their residence. Later, XXX270257 and CCC had a child, whom XXX270257 acknowledged as his own. XXX270257 failed to give any financial support to his children with AAA. This prompted AAA to file a complaint for violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act No.9262.11
Version of the Defense
XXX270257 denied cohabiting with CCC. He asserted that she was only an acquaintance of his family who used to visit their ancestral house. He stated that he had already filed a case for annulment of marriage against AAA. Anent his alleged child with CCC, he said that he merely stood as the child's father because he wanted to have a male child. Finally, he maintained that he opened separate accounts in the name of his minor children, where he deposited his financial support for them.12
The Ruling of the RTC
In the Judgment13 dated July 3, 2020, the RTC convicted XXX270257 of violation of Republic Act No. 9262. The dispositive portion of which states:
WHEREFORE, from the foregoing, there being proof beyond reasonable doubt that accused committed the crime charged, [XXX270257] is hereby found GUILTY of Violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262.
He is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of Prision Correccional in its medium period as minimum to ten (10) years of Prision Mayor in its medium period as maximum.
He is also directed to pay a fine in the amount of Php200,000.00 and to undergo mandatory psychological counselling or psychiatric treatment.
SO ORDERED.14
The RTC held that the prosecution established all the elements of Psychological Violence under Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262. The offended party, AAA, is a woman who is married to XXX270257. The element of emotional anguish was proven through the testimonies of AAA and BBB, their daughter. In contrast, XXX270257's only defense to the charge was denial, which is inherently weak and negative evidence; it cannot overcome the positive testimonies of the witnesses.15
Aggrieved, XXX270257 appealed to the CA.16
The Ruling of the CA
In the Decision17 dated February 8, 2023,18 the CA affirmed in toto the RTC Judgment. The fallo of the CA Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is hereby DENIED. The Judgment of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), First Judicial Region, ███████, ███████, Benguet in Criminal Case No. 18-CR-12464, dated 3 July 2020 is UPHELD and AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.19
The CA held that XXX270257's acts of: (1) engaging in an extramarital relationship; (2) abandoning his wife; (3) siring an illegitimate child; and (4) failing to financially support his children, brought emotional anguish to AAA and her children as proven by their respective testimonies.20
XXX270257 moved for reconsideration,21 but the CA denied it in the assailed Resolution.22 The dispositive portion thereof reads:
WHEREFORE, finding no new, valid and compelling reasons to reconsider and/or set aside the Decision rendered, the Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED.23
Hence, the present petition.
Petitioner's Arguments
In his Petition,24 XXX270257 submits that independent evidence in the form of a psychological evaluation or assessment is needed to support a finding of psychological violence suffered by the victim.25 XXX270257 maintains that the prosecution listed only AAA and her children as its witnesses and did not mention the psychologist. Thus, XXX270257 vehemently opposed the presentation of the psychologist as a witness.26 Finally, he points out that the psychological evaluation was conducted on April 21 and 25, 2017, or approximately 22 months before the pre-trial conference on February 8, 2019. Thus, the presentation of the psychologist and the psychological report she executed, not having been listed as a witness or reserved as evidence, violates his right to due process.27
Issue
The issue to be resolved is whether the CA erred in finding XXX270257 guilty of violation of Republic Act No. 9262.
The Ruling of the Court
The Court resolves to deny the petition for failure to sufficiently show that the CA committed reversible error in rendering its assailed dispositions as to warrant the exercise of the Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
The Court adopts the finding of the CA that all the elements of Psychological Violence under Section 5(i) or Republic Act No. 9262 are present. In Dinamling v. People,28 the Court held:
From the aforequoted Section 5(i), in relation to other sections of RA No. 9262, the elements of the crime are derived as follows:
(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; 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 such acts or omissions.29 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
It is undisputed that AAA is a woman married to XXX270257. Thus, what the Court must resolve now is the presence of the third and fourth elements, i.e., the offender causing on the woman and/or child mental or emotional anguish 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.
Regarding the third element, XXX270257 argues that the element of psychological violence was not proven. He contends that the prosecution failed to effectively adduce a psychological report when it did not stipulate, during the trial, on its presentation as evidence and the psychologist as a witness; the RTC nonetheless favorably considered both.30
The argument utterly lacks merit.
In Labrador v. People,31 the Court categorically held that a psychological evaluation is not indispensable in proving the infliction of psychological violence under Republic Act No. 9262. Thus:
Moreover, petitioner harps on the absence of a psychological evaluation from an expert witness which would show that CCC had indeed suffered mentally and emotionally as a result of his actions. Ineluctably, the absence of such evaluation is inconsequential since it is not an element of the crime of Violation of Section 5 (h) of R.A. No. 9262. Nowhere in the law can such a requirement be inferred. In any event, the law does not actually require proof that the victim became psychologically ill due to the psychological violence done by her abuser.32 (Citation omitted)
Further, the Court has also categorically held that the victim's testimony in court suffices to prove the element of emotional anguish. In Araza v. People,33 the Court declared that therein petitioner committed psychological violence upon his wife by committing marital infidelity, which caused the latter emotional anguish and mental suffering. The Court elucidated in this wise:
Psychological violence is an indispensable element of violation of Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262. Equally essential is the element of emotional anguish and mental suffering, which are personal to the complainant. Psychological violence is the means employed by the perpetrator, while emotional anguish or mental suffering are the effects caused to or the damage sustained by the offended party. The law does not require proof that the victim became psychologically ill due to the psychological violence done by her abuser. Rather, the law only requires emotional anguish and mental suffering to be proven. To establish emotional anguish or mental suffering, jurisprudence only requires that the testimony of the victim to be presented in court, as such experiences are personal to this party.34 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
Here, the testimony of AAA detailing her emotional ordeal suffices to prove the element of emotional anguish.(awÞhi( XXX270257's insistence that a psychological report is indispensable to the prosecution of the violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 has no basis in law and jurisprudence. As such, it cannot serve to acquit him.
Anent the fourth element of psychological violence, it must be noted that XXX270257 merely denied committing the acts charged. Specifically, he denied cohabiting and having an affair with CCC, who, according to him was a mere acquaintance. He also alleged that he did not have a child with CCC and that he only stood as the father of her child because he wanted a son.35
The Court is not persuaded.
It is settled that the positive and categorical testimony of the victim prevails over the bare denial of the accused.36 Thus, XXX270257's flimsy and incredible defenses do not merit consideration from the Court. Denial, being a self-serving negative defense, cannot be given greater weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.37
Moreover, the prosecution sufficiently adduced proof, through the testimony of AAA, that she suffered mental and emotional anguish due to the actions of XXX270257. To reiterate, as the CA aptly summarized,38 XXX270257 had an extramarital relationship, left AAA and their children for CCC, cohabited with CCC in full view of their children, sired an illegitimate child, and flaunted such affair on social media.
All told, XXX270257 is guilty of psychological violence under Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262. In fine, the RTC and the CA did not err in finding petitioner guilty of violating Sec. 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262.
Anent the penalty to be imposed, Section 6 of Republic Act No. 9262 reads:
SECTION 6. Penalties. — The crime of violence against women and their children, under Section 5 hereof shall be punished according to the following rules:
....
(f) Acts falling under Section 5(h) and Section 5(i) shall be punished by prision mayor.
....
In addition to imprisonment, the perpetrator shall (a) pay a fine in the amount of not less than One hundred thousand pesos ([PHP] 100,000.00) but not more than three hundred thousand pesos ([PHP] 300,000.00); (b) undergo mandatory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment and shall report compliance to the court. (Emphasis supplied)
Pursuant to Section 6 of Republic Act No. 9262, the penalty for Psychological Violence under Section 5(i) of the same law is prision mayor, or six years and one day to 12 years. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum term of the penalty shall be taken from prision mayor in its medium period, or eight years and one day to 10 years, there being no aggravating or mitigating circumstances attending the commission of the crime. The minimum term of the penalty is that next lower in degree, which is prision correccional, or six months and one day to six years.
Considering the circumstances of the case, the Court deems it proper to impose on XXX270257, the indeterminate penalty of six months and one day of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight years and one day of prision mayor, as maximum.39
Section 36 of Republic Act No. 9262 provides that any victim of violence shall be entitled to moral damages.
The actions of XXX270257 in abandoning AAA and their children, maintaining an extramarital relationship with CCC and siring illegitimate children with her, and flaunting such illicit relationship, caused AAA undeniable mental suffering and emotional anguish, as sufficiently proven by her testimony. Thus, the severity of the actions of the petitioner clearly warrants the award of moral damages.
In recent cases involving violation of Republic Act No. 9262, moral damages have not been consistently imposed by the Court. For instance, in the recent cases of XXX v. People.40 Labrador v. People,41 and XXX v. People,42 the Court did not award moral damages, despite Section 36 of Republic Act No. 9262, and notwithstanding the private complainants' testimony relating emotional anguish. In the few cases where moral damages were awarded43 the Court has merely affirmed the award of PHP 50,000.00 as imposed by the lower courts. In the case of People v. Araza,44 the amount of moral damages imposed by the Court was further decreased to PHP 25,000.00.
Thus, in light of the deep and repeated emotional anguish and stress suffered by the victim, and a need to firm up the Court's approach in imposing moral damages in cases involving Republic Act No. 9262, the Court deems it prudent to impose moral damages in the amount of PHP 75,000.00.
Further, XXX270257 is directed to pay a fine of PHP 200,000.00.
He shall also undergo a mandatory psychological counselling or psychiatric treatment and report compliance therewith to the RTC.
ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated February 8, 2023, and Resolution dated September 6, 2023, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 45361 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION:
1. Petitioner XXX270257 is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 and is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six months and one day of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight years and one day of prision mayor, as maximum, and to PAY a fine equivalent to PHP 200,000.00;
2. He is also ORDERED to PAY the victim, AAA, moral damages in the amount of PHP 75,000.00; and
3. Further, he is DIRECTED to UNDERGO a mandatory psychological, counselling or psychiatric treatment, and to REPORT his compliance therewith to the court of origin within 15 days after the completion of such counselling or treatment.
SO ORDERED.
Gaerlan and Dimaampao, JJ., concur.
Caguioa (Chairperson), J., see concurring opinion.
Singh,* J., on official leave.
Footnotes
* The identity of the victim or any information to establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family or household members, shall be withheld pursuant to Republic Act No. (RA) 7610, "An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination, Providing Penalties for its Violation and For Other Purposes;" RA 9262, "An Act Defining Violence Against Women and Their Children, Providing for Protective Measures for Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefor, and For Other Purposes;" Section 40 of Administrative Matter No. 04-10-11-SC, known as the "Rule on Violence against Women and Their Children," effective November 15, 2004; People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703 (2006); and Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 dated September 5, 2017, Subject: Protocols and Procedures in the Promulgation, Publication, and Posting on the Websites of Decisions, Final Resolutions, and Final Orders Using Fictitious Names/Personal Circumstances.
* On official leave.
1 Rollo, pp. 9-28.
2 Id. at 29-39. Penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison and concurred in by Associate Justices Perpetua Susana T. Atal Paño and Maximo M. De Leon of the Seventh Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
3 Id. at 47-48. Penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison and concurred in by Associate Justices Perpetua Susana T. Atal Paño and Maximo M. De Leon of the Former Seventh Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
4 Id. at 52-55. Penned by Judge Marietta S. Brawner-Cualing.
5 Sec 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.
6 Rollo, p. 30.
7 Id.
8 Id. at 52.
9 Id.
10 Id.
11 Id.
12 Id. at 53.
13 Id. at 52-55.
14 Id. at 55.
15 Id. at 54.
16 Id.
17 Id. at 29-39.
18 Id.
19 Id. at 38.
20 Id. at 36-37.
21 Id. at 40-46.
22 Id. at 47-48. Dated September 6, 2023.
23 Id. at 48.
24 Id. at 9-28.
25 Id. at 15.
26 Id. at 22.
27 Id. at 23.
28 761 Phil. 356 (2015).
29 Id. at 373.
30 Rollo, p. 34.
31 G.R. No. 260275, April 17, 2023.
32 Id.
33 882 Phil. 905 (2020).
34 Id. at 919.
35 Rollo, p. 53.
36 XXX v. People, 893 Phil. 840 (2021).
37 People v. Peteluna, et al., 702 Phil. 128, 142 (2013).
38 Rollo, p. 37.
39 Araza v. People, 882 Phil. 905 (2020).
40 G.R. No. 250219, March 1, 2023.
41 G.R. No. 260275, April 17, 2023.
42 G.R. No. 263449, November 13, 2023.
43 Villalon v. People, G.R. No. 234520, February 28, 2018 [Notice].
44 882 Phil. 905 (2020).
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
