Facts
AAA discovered that her spouse, XXX, has been keeping a mistress for four years, with whom he has begotten a child. XXX admitted this during a confrontation before the barangay, but maintains that the child is merely a result of a one-night stand with YYY. AAA claimed that she was so affected by the incident that she was unable to work for three to four months and could not sleep, while XXX denied maintaining any intimate relationship with YYY, stating that he did not live with YYY and their child. Thus, it is the position of XXX that he could not have caused AAA emotional and mental anguish.
AAA filed a complaint for violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 against XXX.
ISSUE: Did XXX violate Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 for causing mental and emotional anguish against AAA due to his unfaithfulness?
Ruling
YES. Marital infidelity was specifically mentioned in Section 3(a)(C) Republic Act No. 9262 as constitutive of psychological violence, which evidently falls under the phrase any form of harassment or violence under Section 5(i) of the same law.
While XXX argues that there is no presumption of deliberate intent in marital infidelity, the Supreme Court held that the requirement of specific criminal intent to cause mental and emotional suffering is already satisfied the moment the perpetrator commits the act of marital infidelity. This is because marital infidelity is inherently immoral and depraved under prevailing societal, cultural, and religious norms.
When the cause of mental or emotional distress is marital infidelity, which is inherently wrongful, specific intent is not necessary, as the spouse’s intent to cause mental or emotional anguish upon the spouse or their child is already presumed upon the spouse’s mere commission of the act of marital infidelity.
This is supported by the language of Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262. A careful reading of the said provision reveals that the law merely looks at the consequences or effects of marital infidelity upon the aggrieved spouse or child – that is, whether or not the conduct causes mental or emotional anguish to the aggrieved spouse or her child. In contrast, Sections 5(e), 5(f), and 5(h) of the same law specifically require intent on the part of the violator in order to support a conviction. Verily, the absence of any such term requiring intent on the part of the defendant supports the conclusion that intent is not required in Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262.