The act of leaving the wife for the lover could be psychological violence under VAWG, says SC

MANILA – A wife who spent years searching for her husband only to find out that he lived with her lover and their 3 children finally got her claim when the Supreme Court upheld a ruling sentencing the man to up to 8 years in prison.

In a landmark ruling dated September 8, but made public just last week, the CS said that the husband’s act of leaving his wife to live with his lover caused emotional distress and mental suffering, making him punishable as a form of psychological violence under the Republic Law 9262 or the Law Against Violence Against Women and Their Children of 2004 (VAWC).

Among the acts sanctioned under section 5 of the VAWG law are those that cause mental or emotional distress.

The law includes “marital infidelity” in the list of acts considered “psychological violence”.

But for marital infidelity to be punishable, the superior court said it must be shown that it caused emotional distress and mental suffering on the wife’s part.

Both the Regional Court of First Instance of Las Piñas and the Court of Appeals ruled that the prosecution could prove it, a position affirmed by the high court.

“Marital infidelity, which is a form of psychological violence, is the immediate cause of AAA’s emotional anguish and mental suffering, to the point where even his health was negatively affected,” said the First Division of the Supreme Court in a decision written by the Chief Justice. Diosdado Peralta.

The ruling did not mention the wife’s name. To protect your identity, ABS-CBN News will also not name the wife’s husband, the mistress’s name, or the title of the case.

WHAT HAPPENED

Married since 1989, the couple began experiencing problems when the husband was assigned to Zamboanga for his networking business in 2007.

The wife testified that she first learned of her husband’s extramarital affair later that year through advice from the lover’s friends.

She went to Zamboanga to confirm that her husband lived with the mistress, and went so far as to have the police arrested them, only to resolve a concubinage complaint through an agreement that the husband and mistress would never see each other again.

But the husband only stayed with the wife for 2 months before abruptly leaving “without saying a word.”

The wife said she was desperately looking for him and even sought the help of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).

At one point, the wife filed a habeas corpus petition thinking that the mistress was holding her husband hostage, after she allegedly received messages from the mistress that her husband was ill and needed money, and that the mistress was supposed to kill him.

But that request was dismissed in 2014 after NBI agents discovered that the husband freely left his wife to live with the mistress with whom he already had 3 children.

That revelation, according to the wife, caused insomnia and asthma, so she resorted to taking antidepressants and sleeping pills.

A doctor he consulted testified that the wife was in a “depressed mood” and that her difficulty sleeping was the result of relational distress in her marriage, but that it had not yet developed into a psychiatric disorder.

The doctor attributed the insomnia and anxiety in part to the fact that the wife could not accept that the husband could no longer stay with her, and the “loss” of her husband triggered depression and anxiety.

“During the separation, it was not understood what had really happened. And from her story that from 2007 to 2013, she was making an effort to find her husband and she was worried about what was happening to him, it is enough to be the cause of the emotional and psychological abuse, “said the doctor.

In his defense, the husband tried to deny the allegations, but later admitted to having an affair with the lover, with whom he had been staying since 2008.

SC DECISION

In ruling in favor of the wife, the CS said the law does not require the victim to become psychologically ill due to psychological violence inflicted by the abuser.

“Rather, the law only requires that emotional distress and mental suffering be demonstrated. To establish emotional distress or mental suffering, jurisprudence only requires that the victim’s testimony be presented in court, since such experiences are personal to the party, ”he said.

The high court relied heavily on the wife’s statements that she was depressed, that she was “always hospitalized” and that she did not sleep or eat until she learned that her husband was still alive.

When the court asked him what he wanted to happen, the wife said: “You have to put him in jail so that he knows (sic) that he really is, he had done something wrong to me, because I love him very much, but then he has different attitudes ( sic) and has a different answer against me (sic). I want to put him in jail, that’s all. “

On the witness stand, the wife admitted that she was still “hurt” and that she could not forget her husband, even confessed that she still loves him.

But he also accepted the fact that he can no longer love her.

“I don’t think anymore, because until now, I know that he no longer loves me because he wants to stay with another woman. So, I want him to be punished so that he knows how it feels to be hurt, both of us, ”he said.

The CV rejected the husband’s denial and noted that during his testimony, he said that he was aware of the effect of his actions on his wife.

The SC sentenced him to prison for between 6 months and 1 day, 8 years and 1 day, and ordered him to pay P100,000 in fine and P25,000 moral damages.

The court also ordered the husband to undergo compulsory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment.

IMPLICATIONS OF THE JUDGMENT

Although the case is not the first to declare marital infidelity as a form of psychological violence, it is the first time that the CS says that the act of leaving a wife to live with the lover and have children, which caused emotional anguish and mental, it is considered a form of psychological violence.

But former SC spokesman and criminal law professor Theodore warned Te that the ruling should not be relied upon for other cases of marital infidelity, as it must be “read circumstantially and contextually,” based on the factual circumstances of the case.

“The decision is a division decision that, although authorized, can still be abandoned by En Banc; of course, until it is abandoned, it has authority, ”he added.