Case Digest: AAA v. BBB, G.R. No. 212448, January 11, 2018

      RA 9262 Jurisdiction | Criminal Law

Facts:

BBB being then legally married to AAA, caused AAA mental and emotional anguish by having an illicit relationship with a certain Lisel Mok as confirmed by his photograph with his purported paramour Lisel Mok and her children and the e-mailed letter by his mother mentioning about the said relationship, to the damage and prejudice of AAA.

Petitioner AAA and BBB were married in 2006 in Quezon City. Their union produced two children. In 2007, BBB started working in Singapore as a chef, where he acquired permanent resident status in September of 2008. This petition nonetheless indicates his address to be in Quezon City where his parents reside and where AAA also resided from the time they were married until March of 2010, when AAA and their children moved back to her parents' house in Pasig City.

AAA claimed, that BBB sent little to no financial support, and only sporadically. This allegedly compelled her to fly extra hours and take on additional jobs to augment her income as a flight attendant. There were also allegations of virtual abandonment, mistreatment of her and their son CCC, and physical and sexual violence. To make matters worse, BBB supposedly started having an affair with a Singaporean woman named Lisel Mok with whom he allegedly has been living in Singapore. Things came to a head on 2011 when AAA and BBB had a violent altercation at a hotel room in Singapore during her visit with their kids

The investigating prosecutor found sufficient basis to charge BBB with causing AAA mental and emotional anguish through his alleged marital infidelity. The Information having been filed, a warrant of arrest was issued against BBB. AAA was also able to secure a Hold-Departure Order against BBB who continued to evade the warrant of arrest. An Entry of Appearance as Counsel for the Accused With Omnibus Motion to Revive Case, Quash Information, Lift Hold Departure Order and Warrant of Arrest was filed on behalf of BBB. 

Granting the motion to quash on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and thereby dismissing the case, the trial court reasoned that the acts complained of BBB had occurred in Singapore, and dismissal of this case is proper since the Court enjoys no jurisdiction over the offense charged, it having transpired outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

The trial court is not convinced by the prosecution's argument that since AAA has been suffering from mental and emotional anguish "wherever she goes", jurisdiction over the offense attaches to this Court notwithstanding that the acts resulting in said suffering had happened outside of the Philippines. Here, such act was the alleged maintenance of "an illicit relationship with a certain Liesel Mok" which has been conceded to have been committed in Singapore. The Court draws the attention of Congress to the arguments on jurisdiction spawned by the law.

Issues:

I. WoN the grant of the motion to quash is in effect an acquittal

II. WoN the RTC has jurisdiction in view of the peculiar provisions of R.A. No. 9262.

Held:

I. Acquittal is always based on the merits, that is, the defendant is acquitted because the evidence does not show that defendant's guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt; but dismissal does not decide the case on the merits or that the defendant is not guilty. Dismissal terminates the proceeding, either because the court is not a court of competent jurisdiction, or the evidence does not show that the offense was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, or the complaint or information is not valid or sufficient in form and substance, etc. If the prosecution fails to prove that the offense was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the court and the case is dismissed, the dismissal is not an acquittal, inasmuch as if it were so the defendant could not be again prosecuted before the court of competent jurisdiction; and it is elemental that in such case, the defendant may again be prosecuted for the same offense before a court of competent jurisdiction.

The grant of BBB's motion to quash may not therefore be viewed as an acquittal, which in limited instances may only be repudiated by a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 upon showing grave abuse of discretion lest the accused would be twice placed in jeopardy.

II. Contrary to the interpretation of the RTC, what R.A. No. 9262 criminalizes is not the marital infidelity per se but the psychological violence causing mental or emotional suffering on the wife. Otherwise stated, it is the violence inflicted under the said circumstances that the law seeks to outlaw. Thus, the mental or emotional suffering of the victim is an essential and distinct element in the commission of the offense.

What may be gleaned from Section 7 of R.A. No. 9262 is that the law contemplates that acts of violence against women and their children may manifest as transitory or continuing crimes; meaning that some acts material and essential thereto and requisite in their consummation occur in one municipality or territory, while some occur in another. 

 

It is necessary, for Philippine courts to have jurisdiction when the abusive conduct or act of violence under Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262 in relation to Section 3(a), Paragraph (C) was committed outside Philippine territory, that the victim be a resident of the place where the complaint is filed in view of the anguish suffered being a material element of the offense. Even if the alleged extra­ marital affair causing the offended wife mental and emotional anguish is committed abroad, the same does not place a prosecution under R.A. No. 9262 absolutely beyond the reach of Philippine courts.

Crime Committed by the Appellant:

Sec. 3. Definition of Terms.- As used in this Act,

(a) "Violence against women and their children" refers to any act or a series of acts committed by any person against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a common child, or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the family abode, which result in or is likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse including threats of such acts, battery, assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty. It includes, but is not limited to, the following acts:

A. "Physical Violence" refers to acts that include bodily or physical harm;

B. "Sexual violence" refers to an act which is sexual in nature, committed against a woman or her child. It includes, but is not limited to:

x x x x

C. "Psychological violence" refers to 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 marital 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.

D. "Economic abuse" refers to acts that make or attempt to make a woman financially dependent which includes, but is not limited to the following:

x x x x

The elements of psychological violence under Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262, as follows:

Section 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:

x x x x

(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 or access to the woman's child/children.

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.

x x x x

It bears emphasis that Section 5(i) penalizes some forms of psychological violence that are inflicted on victims who are women and children. Other forms of psychological violence, as well as physical, sexual and economic violence, are addressed and penalized in other sub- parts of Section 5.

x x x x

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 the damage sustained by the offended party. To establish psychological violence as an element of the crime, 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 this party. x x x.

Recit Version:

Facts:

AAA and BBB were legally married in 2006 and had two children. BBB started working in Singapore in 2007 and allegedly had an affair with a Singaporean woman named Lisel Mok. AAA claimed that BBB sent little financial support and was physically and sexually violent towards her and their son CCC. BBB was charged with causing AAA mental and emotional anguish through his alleged marital infidelity, but the trial court dismissed the case due to lack of jurisdiction since the acts complained of BBB had occurred in Singapore. The court noted that the arguments on jurisdiction need to be addressed by Congress.

RTC & CA: Dismissed.

Issues:

I. WoN the grant of the motion to quash is in effect an acquittal

II. WoN the RTC has jurisdiction in view of the peculiar provisions of R.A. No. 9262.

Held:

I. Acquittal is always based on the merits, that is, the defendant is acquitted because the evidence does not show that defendant's guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt; but dismissal does not decide the case on the merits or that the defendant is not guilty.

The grant of BBB's motion to quash may not therefore be viewed as an acquittal, which in limited instances may only be repudiated by a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 upon showing grave abuse of discretion lest the accused would be twice placed in jeopardy.

II. R.A. No. 9262 criminalizes not the marital infidelity but the psychological violence causing mental or emotional suffering on the wife. It is the violence inflicted under the said circumstances that the law seeks to outlaw. Thus, the mental or emotional suffering of the victim is an essential and distinct element in the commission of the offense.

Section 7 of R.A. No. 9262 contemplates that acts of violence against women and their children may manifest as transitory or continuing crimes;

 

It is necessary, for Philippine courts to have jurisdiction when the abusive conduct or act of violence was committed outside Philippine territory, that the victim be a resident of the place where the complaint is filed in view of the anguish suffered being a material element of the offense. 

Even if the alleged extra­ marital affair causing the offended wife mental and emotional anguish is committed abroad, the same does not place a prosecution under R.A. No. 9262 absolutely beyond the reach of Philippine courts.