The Court’s Ruling

The Petition is meritorious. The Court acquits Caridaoan on the basis of reasonable doubt.

In our criminal justice system, the overriding consideration is not whether the court doubts the innocence of the accused but whether it entertains reasonable doubt as to his guilt.³³ It is therefore incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that the accused is indeed guilty beyond reasonable doubt³⁴ of the crime charged. The evidence of the prosecution must be strong enough to overcome the presumption of innocence and to exclude every hypothesis except that of the guilt of the accused. If the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not pass the test of moral certainty and will not suffice to support a conviction.³⁵

In this case, the prosecution failed to prove that the acts complained of gave rise to psychological violence under Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 as its own evidence tends to support Caridaoan’s innocence.

Caridaoan is being charged for violating 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 denial of access to the woman’s child/children.

From the plain language of the afore-quoted provision, what the law punishes is the infliction of psychological violence on the woman or her child and not the means employed by the accused to perpetrate the crime.³⁶ Notably, Section 5(i) does not contain an exclusive list on what the accused may employ to cause mental or emotional anguish as indicated by the phrase “but not limited to.”³⁷ Section 5(i) identifies examples of acts that may fall under Section 5(i) such as repeated verbal and emotional abuse, denial of financial support or custody of minor children, or denial of access to the woman’s children. In relation thereto, Section 3(a) defines psychological violence as “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.”

Considering that the enumeration of acts that may be used by the accused to cause mental or emotional anguish upon a woman and/or her child is not exclusive, proving specific criminal intent bears greater significance in determining whether Section 5(i) was indeed violated. Stated otherwise, to be considered as psychological violence under Section 5(i), the act/s of the accused must be done with the intent or purpose to cause the woman mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule, or humiliation.

Moreover, jurisprudence has consistently underscored the distinction between the psychological violence committed by the perpetrator and the effect caused to or the damage sustained by the offended party.³⁸ These are elements of violation of Section 5(i) which the prosecution must also separately prove beyond reasonable doubt. To establish the first, it is necessary to show proof of commission of any of the acts enumerated in Section 5(i) or such similar acts. Mental and emotional anguish, public ridicule, and humiliation suffered by the woman, on the other hand, 1s established by her testimony as these experiences are personal to her.³⁹

In addition, it is absolutely necessary that there be a causal link between the acts complained of, the requisite criminal intent, and the mental or emotional anguish experienced by the woman.⁴⁰ There must be proof that the woman’s mental or emotional anguish was a result of or directly attributable to the alleged acts intentionally committed by the accused for the exact purpose of inflicting emotional violence upon her. This is because, depending on the circumstances of each case and for varied reasons, actions of a husband or partner may or may not cause a woman mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule, or humiliation.⁴¹ Conversely, not every suffering or distress experienced by a woman in an intimate relationship could automatically be said to be intentionally caused by or directly attributable to her partner. As the threshold in criminal cases is proof beyond reasonable doubt, there must necessarily be a strong causation between the acts of the accused, the criminal intent to inflict the violence, and the mental and emotional anguish suffered by the woman.

Hence, to convict an accused for violating Section 5(i), the following elements must be proven:

(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 acts or omissions.⁴²

Applying the foregoing to the present case, there is reasonable doubt as to the existence of the third and fourth elements of the crime:

To recall, the Information stated that AAA’s mental and emotional anguish, humiliation, anxiety, and depression were caused by the following acts committed by Caridaoan sometime in February 2010: (1) purposely carrying an affair with Michelle and flaunting their relationship to AAA, and (2) excluding AAA from the business by making Michelle co-manage their business to the detriment of AAA.

However, based on the evidence on record, the Court is not convinced that Caridaoan committed these acts.

First, there is no credible proof that Caridaoan carried an affair with Michelle and brandished their relationship to AAA during the alleged period.

AAA’s testimony reveals that in November 2009, she hired Michelle as stay-in secretary and accommodated her in their rented apartment in ZZZ City. AAA let Michelle sleep on the upper deck of the double deck bed while Caridaoan and AAA stayed at the lower deck. Per agreement, Caridaoan and AAA manned their shop during the day, while Michelle was in charge of listing the customers and counting daily earnings at night.⁴³

In February 2010, AAA suspected that Caridaoan and Michelle were having a romantic relationship as she saw Michelle standing very close to Caridaoan’s knee, who was sitting on the sofa. According to AAA, her suspicion was confirmed when Caridaoan and Michelle checked-in in a hotel and called her to meet them. At the hotel, Caridaoan embraced Michelle in front of AAA and told the latter that he will not choose between the two. Thereafter, Caridaoan accompanied Michelle to her province. When they returned to ZZZ City, Caridaoan stayed with Michelle and rented another apartment.⁴⁴

The above version was totally contradicted by Caridaoan who narrated that he did not have a relationship with Michelle while he was still living with AAA. Caridaoan recalled that they were happy at the beginning of their relationship. However, as time passed, AAA manifested her true character. They began fighting a lot about money. Caridaoan kept his feelings to himself and stayed with AAA because he knew that she has a rheumatic heart disease.

In the first week of February 2010, Caridaoan finally broke up with AAA. AAA initially did not accept it and asked for forgiveness and a second chance. Caridaoan admitted to AAA that he wanted to court Michelle, and AAA accepted his decision and even helped them look for a place to stay. After leaving AAA, Caridaoan and Michelle stayed together and got married on March 22, 2010.⁴⁵

As the Court sees it, nothing about the events that transpired in February 2010 or even thereafter conclusively establish that Caridaoan engaged in an intimate relationship with Michelle and flaunted it to AAA, as the Information alleges. Considering their living arrangement, seeing Caridaoan and Michelle together in their apartment or at work is not proof beyond reasonable doubt of the acts complained of. To the mind of the Court, what undoubtedly stands out even from the prosecution’s own version of the events is that, during this period, Caridaoan confessed to AAA his intention to be with Michelle; and it was only after such confession did Caridaoan leave AAA, stayed and lived with Michelle, and later on married the latter. These are acts which are not part of, and even contrary to, the allegations in the Information.

Moreover, the prosecution’s evidence do not show that Caridaoan excluded AAA from their business by purposely letting Michelle co-manage the same. It must be noted that Michelle had been a stay-in secretary since 2009. Also, contrary to the prosecution’s allegation, Caridaoan never excluded AAA from the affairs of their business and/or deprived her of the income. AAA admitted that after her operation until August of 2010, she had been receiving from Caridaoan monthly financial support in the form of food and medicine. Caridaoan also gave AAA a share in the income from their business for the period of September 30 to October 10, 2010.⁴⁶ While AAA insists that this amount did not reflect the true income of their business, no conclusive evidence was presented proving how much income the business actually earns.⁴⁷

Further, the reason why Caridaoan prohibited AAA from visiting their shop was not because he wanted to deprive her of her share in the business and from managing the same. AAA was advised by her doctor to rest for three months-from June to September of 2010-after her heart operation. This coincides with the period when Caridaoan and Michelle were the ones running the business.

In her testimony, AAA said:

Q: By the way, who was then tending to your business?
A: Both of them, ma’am, Michelle and [Caridaoan].

Q: What about you?
A: I just stayed home, ma’am, because I was advised by the doctor that I should avoid stress.

Q: Why, why were you supposed to avoid stress?
A: Because I had a heart disease.

Q: And what was your arrangement with the business considering that you were advised by your doctor not to go to work to avoid stress?
A: [Caridaoan] advised me not to go to the shop, ma’am, because anyway Michelle is there to look after the shop with him.

Q: And after you had agreed not to go to the shop because Michelle was already there tending to it anyway, what happened?
A: I just stayed home, ma’am.

Q: You said that you were suffering from a heart ailment at that time, what happened with your disease?
A: I had my operation.

Q: Why did you have to be operated upon?
A: Because my heart ailment got worse.

Q: And what kind of an operation did you have to go through?
A: They did an open heart procedure.

Q: How long were you at the hospital and how end [sic] the recuperation period from the operation?
A: Three months.

Q: By the way, when were you operated on?
A: June 28, 2010, ma’am.

Q: From that time you had your operation until three months, that would be roughly around September of last year you were not able to go to work?
A: Yes, ma’am.

Q: From March as you said to around September of last year, who managed the business?
A: Michelle and [Caridaoan].⁴⁹ (Emphasis supplied)

Second, the prosecution’s evidence failed to establish that Caridaoan intended to cause AAA mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule, or humiliation. On the contrary, the records of the case support Caridaoan’s defense of good faith.

In the case of Acharon v. People⁵⁰ (Acharon), the Court En Banc said that:

[In] the crimes penalized under Section 5(i) and 5(e) of [Republic Act No.] 9262 are mala in se, not mala prohibita, even though [Republic Act No.] 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. Being a crime mala in se, there must be a concurrence of both actus reus and mens rea to constitute the crime. “Actus reus pertains to the external or overt acts or omissions included in a crime’s definition while mens rea refers to the accused’s guilty state of mind or criminal intent accompanying the actus reus.”⁵¹ (Citations omitted)

It is settled that in crimes mala in se, good faith and lack of criminal intent are available defenses. This is because in such crimes, the penal act is only punished when the person committing it is morally blameworthy. On the other hand, if a person commits the actus reus without intending any wrongdoing, then there is no mens rea that can fulfill the elements of the crime pertaining to intent.⁵² For violation of Section 5(i), the requisite criminal intent or mens rea is “causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule, or humiliation” upon the woman and/or her child.

In a catena of cases the Court applied Acharon and acquitted the accused upon finding that the prosecution’s evidence failed to prove accused’s criminal intent.

In the cases of Calingasan v. People,⁵³ XXX v. People,⁵⁴ and XXX v. People,⁵⁵ the accused were all charged with violating Section 5(i) for denying the woman and/or their child financial support. The Court acquitted all the accused because the evidence failed to prove that they purposely and deliberately refused to provide financial support to cause the woman and/or her child mental and emotional anguish, public ridicule, or humiliation. On the contrary, what was proven in these cases was that the accused’s failure or delay to provide financial support was not motivated by ill will but was in fact reasonable and justified given the accused’s limited and erratic sources of income.

Acharon was also applied in XXX261920 v. People⁵⁶ (XXX261920), where the accused was charged with violating Section 5(i) for ordering his wife out of their conjugal house together with their two-year-old daughter, which caused her psychological and emotional anguish. The accused was acquitted because the prosecution failed to establish that his acts were impelled by a guilty state of mind. The Court explained:

Although Acharon specifically treats of denial of financial support, there is no cogent reason to not apply the same rationale to the other predicate criminal acts mentioned in Section 5(i), namely: public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, denial of custody of minor children or access to the children, or similar acts or omissions.

 

Here, the record is bereft of any evidence that petitioner ordered AAA261920 and CCC261920 to leave the conjugal dwelling with a view to willfully and deliberately inflict mental or emotional anguish upon them. On the contrary, the testimony of AAA261920 reveals that the May 2017 incident was a result of petitioner’s lost temper due to a quarrel over finances. Petitioner allegedly accused AAA261920 of mismanaging their finances since she seemed to be unable to work her budget around and fit in all their expenses within his earnings as a government employee. Surely, this does not rise to the concept of criminal intent—i.e., the intentional doing of an act which the law declares to be a crime—as enunciated in Acharon.⁵⁷ (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)

Similar to the foregoing cases, criminal intent was not proven in this case.

It is undisputed that despite leaving AAA and marrying Michelle, Caridaoan never abandoned AAA. Instead, he continued to provide support and assistance to AAA as she recovered from her heart operation. In her testimony, AAA herself admitted that while Caridaoan did not visit her at the hospital during the surgery, he helped her with the finances. AAA narrated that to finance her surgery, she sold a vehicle co-owned by Caridaoan.⁵⁸ Caridaoan, however, did not get his share of the proceeds of the sale⁵⁹ and let AAA keep the money for her medical needs.⁶⁰ Apart from this, as earlier discussed, AAA confirmed that during her recovery, Caridaoan regularly bought her medicines and food or anything that she would tell him to bring.⁶¹ He also gave AAA her share from the income of their business,⁶² and helped her with hiring a personal helper, named Lanie, who took care of her during recovery.⁶³

Pertinent portions of AAA’s direct testimony read:

PROS. OPIANA:
Q: How did you get by [sic] from March 2010 to September 2010 when you said that you were being told by [Caridaoan] that the business was not earning?
A: He is the one buying my medicines and he would buy the things that I would tell him.

Q: You also had open heart surgery at around June, who supported for [sic] that?
A: We used the proceeds of the vehicle we sold and our savings.

Q: You said, Madam Witness, that your live-in partner would on occasion buy you the food that you can eat as well as medicines, from what period would this be?
A: March.

Q: Until?
A: Up to August.

Q: Could you tell us roughly how much he would be spending for these medicines and food in a month in the average?
A: Around [PHP 5,000.00] to [PHP 6,000.00] a month.

Q: Other than this [PHP 5,000.00] more or less receiving from him from March to August, was there any proceed that you received from the business?
A: What I received during that period is only [PHP 4,000.00].

Q: What was the [PHP 4,000.00] for?
A: My share from the business.

Q: Let’s have that be cleared, share in the business or share in the income?
A: Share in the income.

Q: For what month or what period?
A: September 30 to October 10[,] 2010.64

Q: The whole time that you were at the hospital, did [Caridaoan] come to visit you?
A: No, ma’am.

Q: When you have to be travelled back home, who was with you?
A: My aunt, ma’am, and her goddaughter Irene.

Q: And when you were already back home, who attended to you while you were recuperating?
A: [Caridaoan] hired somebody to help me, Lanie.⁶⁵

During cross-examination, AAA was consistent about Caridaoan’s assistance and support for her operation:

Q: Madam Witness, going back to the Honda car which you co-owned with [Caridaoan], you said earlier that you used the proceeds of the sale to finance your open-heart surgery, is that correct?
A: Yes, ma’am.

Q: Did [Caridaoan] receive a part of his share in the proceeds of the sale, Madam Witness?
A: No, ma’am.

Q: When you received the [PHP 190,000.00] proceeds of the sale, you never offered to give the share of [Caridaoan] to him?
A: When we got the payment, he gave it to me saying, you received this because I know this is not even enough for your medical needs.⁶⁶

The prosecution, nevertheless, harps on the argument that AAA’s mental and emotional anguish were triggered and aggravated when Caridaoan imposed an arrangement among the three of them that he would maintain his relationship with AAA and Michelle, by staying with Michelle in the morning then spending the night with AAA until 12 midnight. This alleged arrangement was underscored by the RTC and the CA as proof that Caridaoan intentionally caused AAA mental and emotional anguish. The RTC said that by imposing this arrangement upon AAA, Caridaoan took advantage of her love for him.⁶⁷ Similarly, the CA highlighted how Caridaoan could have imposed such an arrangement even after AAA found out about his relationship with Michelle and considering the emotional investment formed by the many years they had lived together.⁶⁸