This case is about psychological violence against a woman which is punishable under Republic Act 9262 (Section 5(i) in relation to Section 6(f)). Explained and described in this case is how this crime is committed. What kind of injury or harm is sustained by the victim for the perpetrator to be held liable? This is answered in this case of Liza and Henry.
Liza and Henry have been married for 17 years. During the early years of their marriage, they lived happily and harmoniously, resulting in the birth of two children, a girl and a boy. Eventually, however, their union turned sour because Henry had an extramarital affair with another woman. Liza learned about it when she overheard Henry telling his cousin Mando that he had been giving P1,000 weekly allowance for the child begotten with a certain “Nina” and that he had also paid P37,000 for the operation of another woman, “Minda.”
When Liza confronted Henry about having an affair and siring a child with Nina, the latter denied the accusation, which led to a heated argument between the two. Liza became hysterical and called her brother Randy to bring her out of their house. Since that fateful night, she and Henry never lived under the same roof again and had a series of fights between them, which left her emotionally wounded. She even received a letter from Henry telling her that he is already out of his mind and does not know what he might do to her. Fearing for her life and that of her children, Liza immediately reported to the police and filed a complaint against Henry for violation of RA 9262, where she reiterated what happened to her.
For his defense, Henry admitted that his marriage with Liza had its blissful moments but turned sour because of unfounded rumor that he had illicit relationship with another woman, which he vehemently denied. He said that he was forced to leave their conjugal home and lived with a friend. He also averred that their eldest child even had a nervous breakdown when Liza filed this case, forcing Liza to file an affidavit of desistance withdrawing the case.
The Regional Trial Court, however, still found Henry guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged and imposed upon him a penalty of imprisonment from six months and one day minimum to six years and one day maximum. The RTC rejected Henry’s defense and believed the version of Liza and her witness. This ruling was sustained by the Court of Appeals (CA). Were the RTC and the CA correct?
Yes, said the Supreme Court (SC). Section 5(i) of R.A. 9262 penalizes some forms of psychological violence that are inflicted on victims who are women and children. “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 (Section 3(c)). 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 experience is personal to the victim.
The RTC and the CA found this element present in this case as supported by Liza’s testimony and demeanor in open court. This testimony was corroborated by Liza’s brother who was present when she confronted Henry.
It is the basic rule that the conviction of the accused must rest not on the weakness of the defense but on the strength of the prosecution. This is premised on the constitutional presumption that the accused is innocent unless his guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. This standard is demanded by the due process clause of the Constitution which protects the accused from conviction except upon proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime he is charged with.
In the case at bar, Henry also claims that he has the right to be presumed innocent. However, such presumption can be overthrown if all the elements of the crime charged are deemed present. Surely, Article III, Section 14 of the 1987 Constitution guarantees that in all criminal prosecution, proof beyond reasonable doubt is needed. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such degree of proof as to exclude the possibility of error and produce absolute certainty. Only moral certainty is required or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. All the elements of the crime are deemed present in this case; thus, the presumption of innocence is overcome.
However, in addition to imprisonment and fine, Henry should also undergo psychological counselling or psychiatric treatment as set in Section 6 of RA 9262. So the decisions of the RTC and the CA are hereby affirmed with the modification that Henry should also undergo psychological counselling or psychiatric treatment and report to the court his compliance therewith (XXX vs. People, G.R. No. 243049, Oct. 5, 2020).
* * *
Email: js0711192@gmail.com