Marital infidelity is a crime. Under our Revised Penal Code, it is called adultery if committed by the wife when she engages in sex with a man not her husband and both may be imprisoned for two to six years [Article 333, RPC]. It is called concubinage if committed by the husband under three [3] circumstances [i] having sex under scandalous circumstances with a woman not his wife, [ii] keeping a mistress in the conjugal home or [iii] cohabiting in any other place. The husband may be imprisoned from six months to four years and the mistress is prohibited from residing within 25 kilometer radius [destierro] from actual residence of the accused [Article 334, RPC].
Some find this law unfair to women until the passage of Republic Act 9262 in 2004 known as anti-VAWC law or Anti-Violence Against Women and Children. The law penalizes a man who commits on his woman and children any violence, categorized into four kinds; [1] physical, [2] sexual, [3] psychological and [4] economic, penalized from minimum of one to six months to as high of 12 years imprisonment.
The law gives abused women the right to get a protection order from the barangay for a period of 15 days [Section 14] removing the abusive man from their conjugal home [Section 8 (c)]. The court can even compel the man’s employer to provide support by regularly deducting from the man’s salary a certain percentage and remit it to the woman and any violation will be treated as indirect contempt of court [Section 8 (g)]. The abused woman, if working, can even apply for a 10-day leave with pay from her employer [Section 43]. She is entitled to free legal service if she wants to sue so she will not worry about any expenses of litigation.
A novel issue was raised on the anti-VAWC law on March 1, 2023 before the Supreme Court in the case of XXX v. People, G.R. 250219 – whether marital infidelity may be considered psychological violence under Republic Act No. 9262?
In 2006 XXX and AAA got married and begot a child. In 2008 AAA went to Singapore to work to sustain their family. In 2015 AAA learned XXX’s romantic relationship with CCC, who got pregnant by XXX. For several times, AAA would receive spiteful texts from CCC like “I got pregnant out of love, while you got pregnant out of lust”. XXX also brought CCC to his hometown. This forced AAA to return home and took custody of their child BBB. In 2016, AAA sued XXX for violation of Section 5 [j] of R.A. 9262 for depriving her child of financial support and abandoning them totally, causing them psychological and emotional anguish. Both mother and child cried while testifying. XXX denied knowing CCC and he stopped giving support because AAA does not allow him to see their child. The RTC found XXX guilty of inflicting psychological violence under Section 5 [i] of Anti-VAWC law, which states that violence against women and 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, denial of financial support or custody of minor children or access to the woman’s child. XXX was sentenced from two to six years.
On appeal, XXX argued that the RTC erred in considering psychological violence since he was only accused of mere economic abuse. The CA affirmed his conviction because the Information reads deprivation of financial support and abandoning his family, which is considered subsumed in the phrase “similar acts or omission” causing emotional anguish. His sentence was increased to eight years. On appeal, XXX argued that the RTC and CA erred in convicting him.
The Supreme Court ruled that the BBB’s psychological trauma was proven when she wept in open court when asked to narrate XXX’s infidelity. 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 emotional anguish is the effect caused to or damage sustained by the offended party. To establish psychological violence as an element of the crime under VAWC law, 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 the party. Thus, the SC ruled that the RTC and CA did not err because marital infidelity is one of the forms of psychological violence.
