MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court (SC) Second Division has affirmed the conviction of a husband for psychological violence under the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 (RA 9262), ruling that the death of the complainant-wife does not extinguish criminal liability or stop the legal proceedings. In a Decision promulgated on May 19, 2025, and penned by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez, the Court emphasized that since violence against women is a public offense, the State can continue the prosecution so long as there is sufficient evidence from other sources to prove the crime.
The case involved a petitioner, identified by the pseudonym XXX268392, who was charged with inflicting mental and emotional anguish on his wife, AAA268932. The prosecution established that the husband abandoned his family in 2013 to live with a paramour, whom he eventually “married” after converting to Islam to circumvent the Family Code’s prohibition on bigamy. The husband also flaunted his extramarital relationship and pre-nuptial photos on social media, causing public ridicule and humiliation for his wife and children.
A critical turn in the case occurred in 2017 when AAA268932 was shot to death before she could testify in court to reaffirm her judicial affidavit. The husband argued that his right to confront his accuser was violated and that the case should be dismissed because the primary victim—whose personal mental anguish is a key element of the crime—was no longer able to testify. He contended that without her oral testimony, the prosecution could not prove the emotional suffering required for a conviction under Section 5(i) of RA 9262.
The Supreme Court rejected this defense, explaining that RA 9262 transformed domestic violence from a “private affair” into a “public crime.” Unlike private crimes like adultery or concubinage, which require the offended spouse to initiate and maintain the action, a public offense is considered a transgression against the State and society. The Court clarified that once a criminal action is instituted, it remains under the control of the prosecutor, and the death of the private complainant is not among the legal grounds for the extinguishment of criminal liability.
The ruling further clarified that while the testimony of the victim is often the primary way to establish mental anguish, it is not the only way. The Court held that emotional suffering can be proven through the testimonies of other witnesses with personal knowledge of the abuse, as well as documentary evidence. In this case, the prosecution successfully presented the couple’s son, the wife’s friend, and her sister-in-law, all of whom testified to the husband’s abusive behavior, including an incident where he discharged a firearm at his wife and another where the son witnessed his father with a paramour in a hotel room.
The Court also took note of the husband’s own admissions during the trial, where he confirmed siring a child with his paramour while still legally married to AAA268932. The presence of police blotters and harassing text messages sent by the husband further bolstered the prosecution’s claim that the wife lived in fear and experienced deep emotional distress. The Court underscored that these “building blocks” of evidence were more than sufficient to establish the husband’s “guilty mind” and the resulting psychological trauma.
In affirming the conviction, the Supreme Court sentenced the husband to an indeterminate penalty of six months and one day to eight years and one day of imprisonment. He was also ordered to pay a fine of PHP 100,000.00 and moral damages to the heirs of the deceased wife. The ruling serves as a landmark clarification that the State’s duty to protect women and children continues even in the face of the complainant’s death, ensuring that perpetrators are held accountable for the “inherently wrong or depraved” acts defined under the law.
