The Court’s Ruling

The petition is unmeritorious.

At the outset, it must be emphasized that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari as the Court is not a trier of facts. This Court will not review facts, as it is not the Court’s function to analyze or weigh all over again evidence already considered in the proceedings below.¹⁶ This rule admits of exceptions, among them, when the lower courts have ignored, overlooked, or misconstrued relevant facts, which if taken into consideration will change the outcome of the case.¹⁷ However, no exception warranting factual review exists in this case.

Petitioner was charged, and later on convicted by the RTC and the CA, of violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262, which provides:

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:

 

…………..

 

(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.

The information alleged that petitioner committed:

[A]cts of verbal, mental, emotional and psychological violence against complainant. . . left and abandoned complainant who is lawfully wedded to him in order to live with and unlawfully marry his co-accused. . . and having child with her, both accused having made public their pre-nuptial alleged wedding and family pictures as well as their relationship, thus causing mental and emotional anguish, public ridicule and humiliation on the said [AAA268392].¹⁸

In Dinamling v. People,¹⁹ the Court already had the occasion to enumerate the elements of psychological violence under Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262, 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.²⁰ (Citations omitted)

The case of AAA v. BBB²¹ clarified that what Republic Act No. 9262 seeks to penalize is not the occurrence of marital infidelity but the psychological violence from the accused’s act of unfaithfulness, the abandonment of his family and the utter disregard of the feelings of his wife and children, which resulted in the mental and emotional sufferings of the latter.

Further, the commission of acts that cause psychological violence must be impelled by a guilty mind, as stated in Acharon vs. People:²²

[T]he crimes penalized under Section 5(i) and 5(c) of RA 9262 are mala in se, not mala prohibita, even though RA 9262 is a special penal law. The acts punished therein are inherently wrong or depraved, and the language used under the said penal law requires a mental element.²³ (Citations omitted)

In this case, the prosecution established all the elements for violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262.

The first and second elements are undisputed. The complainant, AAA268932, is petitioner’s wife with whom she had two children as evidenced by a marriage certificate.

As to the fourth element, the Information sufficiently alleged that petitioner committed various acts of verbal, mental, emotional and psychological violence, including abandonment and emotional anguish arising from marital infidelity. The prosecution also proved the following acts that cause mental or emotional anguish:

1. During their marriage, petitioner pointed a gun at AAA268932 and shot her. Luckily, AAA268932 was able to take cover behind the Elf truck and missed the gunshot. This incident was reported to the police.²⁴

2. While still married, petitioner checked-in at a hotel with another woman and BBB268932. When BBB268932 woke up at midnight, he saw his accused father and a woman naked in the same room.

3. Petitioner threw glass at AAA268932, and some broken pieces of the glass hit her lower leg.²⁵

4. Petitioner maintained illicit relations with YYY268932 during the existence of his marriage with AAA268932.²⁶

5. AAA268932, accompanied by EEE268932, caught YYY268932 naked in an apartment and was later on fetched by petitioner using his pick-up.²⁷

6. Petitioner got YYY268932 pregnant during the existence of his marriage with AAA268932.²⁸

7. Petitioner converted into Islam to secure a divorce decree against AAA268932²⁹ and insisted that AAA268932 sign the divorce agreement.³⁰

8. Petitioner immediately married YYY268932, who was also converted to Islam for that purpose.³¹ Their relationship and marriage were made public.

9. Petitioner sent harassing text messages to complainant AAA2689³² to withdraw the complaint filed against him and that the criminal case will not succeed because she is dumb. These text messages were recorded in a blotter and reported to WCPD.³²

Undoubtedly, these acts constitute verbal and emotional abuse, if not public ridicule or humiliation.

The only disputed element left is the mental or emotional anguish suffered by the complainant. In Dinamling, the Court emphasized that to establish mental or emotional anguish, the prosecution must present the testimony of the victim as such acts are personal to the party.³³ Here, AAA268932’s complaint-affidavit before the Office of the Prosecutor sufficiently established her emotional anguish. Unfortunately, however, AAA268932 was gunned to death before she was able to reaffirm the contents of her affidavit in court.

Capitalizing on AAA268932’s death, petitioner argues that he should be acquitted because AAA268932 died before giving her testimony on the alleged mental or emotional anguish she suffered from him.

The Court disagrees. AAA268932’s untimely death will not preclude petitioner’s conviction.

Foremost, Section 25 of Republic Act No. 9262 categorically states that violence against women and children is a public crime:

SECTION 25. Public Crime. – Violence against women and their children shall be considered a public offense which may be prosecuted upon the filing of a complaint by any citizen having personal knowledge of the circumstances involving the commission of the crime. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

In Garcia vs. Drilon,³⁴ the Court noted that the law recognizes, with factual support based on statistics, that women and children are the most vulnerable victims of violence who need legal protection. Thus, a paradigm shift was needed to change the character of domestic violence from a private affair to public crime:

The enactment of R.A. 9262 aims to address the discrimination brought about by biases and prejudices against women. As emphasized by the CEDAW Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, addressing or correcting discrimination through specific measures focused on women does not discriminate against men. Petitioner’s contention therefore, that R.A. 9262 is discriminatory and that it is an “anti-male,” “husband-bashing,” and “hate-men” law deserves scant consideration. As a State Party to the CEDAW, the Philippines bound itself to take all appropriate measures “to modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudices and customary and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women. Justice Puno correctly pointed out that “(t)he paradigm shift changing the character of domestic violence from a private affair to a public offense will require the development of a distinct mindset on the part of the police, the prosecution and the judges.”³⁵ (Citations omitted)

Being a public offense, a case falling under Republic Act No. 9262 may be initiated by any citizen having personal knowledge of the circumstances involving its commission. This is to be distinguished from private crimes, such as adultery and concubinage, which may only be prosecuted upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse.³⁶

Second, Section 5, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court provide that once commenced and instituted, a criminal action is already under the direction and control of the prosecutor, as follows:

Section 5. Who must prosecute criminal actions. — All criminal actions commenced by a complaint or information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the prosecutor. However, in Municipal Trial Courts or Municipal Circuit Trial Courts when the prosecutor assigned thereto or to the case is not available, the offended party, any peace officer, or public officer charged with the enforcement of the law violated may prosecute the case. This authority shall cease upon actual intervention of the prosecutor or upon elevation of the case to the Regional Trial Court.

Therefore, even if the complainant is absent or can no longer give a testimony, the criminal proceedings may even proceed, so long as there are other witnesses with personal knowledge, and supporting pieces of evidence, to support the prosecution’s theory. Here, despite AAA268932’s death, the prosecution may still prove the commission of the crime through documentary evidence and testimonies from other witnesses.

Third, the death private complainant in a public crime is not one of the causes of extinguishment of criminal liability under Article 89³⁷ of the Revised Penal Code.

Finally, it is a settled rule in this jurisdiction that criminal laws are enacted to protect the State and the society from dangerous transgressions. Since it is the State and the society who are the real victims of a crime, and not any individual, the proceedings may continue despite the private complainant’s death:

A crime is a liability against the state. It is prosecuted by and for the state. Acts considered criminal are penalized by law as a means to protect the society from dangerous transgressions. As criminal liability involves a penalty affecting a person’s liberty, acts are only treated criminal when the law clearly says so.³⁸

For these reasons, the Court holds that the testimony of prosecution witnesses who saw the abusive acts and mental anguish suffered by the complainant-wife are sufficient—not only to initiate the criminal case—but also to constitute the very building blocks sufficient to convict the accused for violation of Republic Act No. 9262.

Despite her death, AAA268932’s mental and emotional anguish may still be established by (1) the documentary evidence offered by the prosecution and (2) testimonies of the other witnesses.

As discussed, the records show that AAA268932 filed two police blotters against petitioner, the first when petitioner pointed a gun at her, and the second, when petitioner sent her harassing text messages. These alone are sufficient to establish that AAA268932 feared for her own life and security, stemming from her confrontation with petitioner on his illicit relations with YYY268932.

Secondly, in her complaint-affidavit, AAA268932 also alleged that she suffered mental anguish due to petitioner’s extramarital relationship with YYY268932 and the consequent birth of an extramarital child. Although AAA268932 failed to testify on this matter, petitioner himself admitted these allegations as follows:

COURT:
Q: Do you have a son in the name of [ZZZZ268932]?
A: Yes, your Honor.

Q: When was he born?
A: He is already five years old now.

Q: So he was born on November 25, 2014?
A: Yes, Your Honor.

Q: You said a while ago that you started courting YYY268932 sometime in March 2014, right?
A: Yes, Your Honor.

Q: And you had a child with her on November 25, 2014 right?
A: Yes, Your Honor.

Q: This child of yours was on a normal delivery?
A: Cesarian [sic], Your Honor.

Q: But nine (9) months of pregnancy?
A: Yes, Your Honor.

Q: At the time you started courting [YYY268932] she was already pregnant?
A: Yes, Your Honor.

Q: Are you the father?
A: Yes, Your Honor.

Q: When did your sexual relationship start? Before you courted her, because the courting is late. So there was already a sexual relationship before the courting. So when did the sexual relationship start?
A: I could not remember, Your Honor?

Q: It might be 2013?
A: Yes, Your Honor.

Q: And even before you were converted into Islam, you already had sexual relationship with [YYY26893]?
A: Yes Your Honor.³⁹ (Emphasis supplied)

At any rate, the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies sufficiently established the following circumstances: (1) AAA268932’s confrontation of her husband upon learning that he had a paramour; (2) AAA268932’s uneasiness which led to her launching of her own investigation as to the existence of petitioner’s paramour; (3) AAA268932’s leaving of the conjugal dwelling home with her children to live with her mother and be physically away from petitioner; (4) AAA268932’s writing of a note that she and her children are no longer secure, which writing was authenticated by DDD268932;⁴⁰ and (5) AAA268932’s consistent warning to her son that if anything happens to her, it is because of accused petitioner.⁴¹ More importantly, BBB268932, who has sufficient personal knowledge of the abusive acts committed by petitioner against AAA268932, testified that (a) he saw petitioner point a gun towards AAA268932, and (b) he was there when petitioner and his paramour checked-in at a hotel. The shooting incident narrated by petitioner was corroborated by the blotter report filed by AAA268932 before the WCPD.

Indubitably, the records and evidence demonstrate the mental and emotional anguish suffered by AAA268932 and BBB268932 from the hands of petitioner.

Notably, Dinamling does not require a medical expert to testify on the mental anguish of the victim. In XXX270257 v. People,⁴² the Court emphasized that a psychological report is not necessary because the complainant’s own testimony will already suffice. However, since AAA268932 had already died, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who have personal knowledge on the matter may be admitted in evidence under Section 52, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court:

Section 53. Opinion of ordinary witnesses. – The opinion of a witness, for which proper basis is given, may be received in evidence regarding –

 

(a) The identity of a person about whom he or she has adequate knowledge;

 

(b) A handwriting with which he or she has sufficient familiarity; and

 

(c) The mental sanity of a person with whom he or she is sufficiently acquainted.

 

The witness may also testify on his or her impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a person. (Emphasis supplied)

Here, the witnesses’ observations and impressions on AAA268932’s emotions, behavior, and condition sufficiently established AAA268932’s mental or emotional anguish.

Finally, and in accordance with Acharon, the prosecution established that petitioner committed a violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 with a guilty mind. Petitioner deliberately entered into an extramarital relationship with YYY268932, sired a child with her, and publicly advertised their relationship. He even converted to Islam to circumvent the Family Code provisions which do not recognize divorce to publicly marry YYY268932. He also threatened AAA268932 to drop the case against him. These actuations satisfy the mens rea component that must accompany the actus reus of the accused.

Finally, we emphasize that the factual findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any clear showing that the trial court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would have affected the result of the case. The reason is that the trial court judge has the unique opportunity to observe the witnesses’ deportment and demeanor on the witness stand and can, therefore, discern whether they are telling the truth. When the trial court’s findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, these are generally binding and conclusive upon this Court. Here, the Court sees no reason to depart from the RTC and the CA’s factual findings. Anent the court’s penalty, Section 6 of Republic Act No. 9262 provides that:

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 prison mayor.

 

In addition to imprisonment, the perpetrator shall (a) pay a fine in the amount of not less than One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) but not more than three hundred thousand pesos (300,000.00); (b) undergo mandatory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment and shall report compliance to the court.

Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum penalty should come from the penalty one degree lower than prision mayor which is prision correccional, whose range is from six months and one day to six years. In the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the maximum penalty should be taken from the medium period of prision mayor or eight years and one day to 10 years, as maximum. Thus, the RTC correctly imposed the penalty of imprisonment of six months and one day of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight years and one day of prision mayor, as maximum.

Anent the civil liabilities, the RTC also correctly imposed a fine of PHP 100,000.00 and PHP 25,000.00 as moral damages due to the emotional anguish caused by petitioner to AAA268932. Since AAA268932 had already died, her heirs may receive the monetary awards.

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DISMISSED. The Court of Appeals’ Decision dated September 30, 2022 in CA-G.R. CR No. 02109-MIN, finding the accused XXX268932, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 is AFFIRMED. He is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment 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 of PHP 100,000.00. He is also ORDERED to PAY the heirs of AAA268932 PHP 25,000.00 as moral damages.

All monetary awards shall earn 6% interest rate per annum from finality of the Resolution until fully paid.

SO ORDERED.