Philandering papa

Husbands, be very careful when cheating! Otherwise, it’s eight years of prison time for an extra-marital moment!

That’s the latest Supreme Court case of “XXX v. People of the Philippines and AAA” for you. In keeping with the current fashion of hiding identities of litigants in these cases, the names of the spouses have been kept secret, and these triple letters are all we have to go with. Which takes the fun out of googling their names and figuring out whether and how we know them. And then, if we do know them, excitedly contacting our friends and serving them the latest dish on so-and-so. We miss those days when the Supreme Court would blithely publish the names of high society figures in official case reports.

For the sake of ease in tagging the parties, let’s call XXX the hubby, and AAA, the wifey. In this case, hubby left wifey for his mistress, and enjoyed quality time with her, to the extent of fathering two kids. Meanwhile, wifey got depressed, and filed a criminal case for psychological violence against hubby.

Guess what? After a protracted battle in the courts, wifey finally won! Female justice Amy Lazaro Javier administered the jail time ax against hubby, ordering him to serve eight years max jail time. And so, from this seminal case, important rules to note, philandering husbands!

First, it didn’t matter that hubby and wifey had been separated in fact for a period of time. No matter the length of time, husbands should remain faithful. Conversely, cheaters should not cheat while the marriage has not been invalidated. Focus on annulling the marriage before focusing on those urges.

Second, the court ruled that there was no need for wifey to prove hubby’s criminal intent to cause physical or mental anguish. That intent is already satisfied once hubby is unfaithful.

This is important because before, a possible defense could be, husband might claim he did not intend for his wife to suffer so much with a fling. He could argue he was just lost in the moment, or just wanted some fun, or he wasn’t even thinking about the wife at all, but only the woman in front of him. Why, it would be perfectly believable for us to believe him when he says, his wife was the farthest thing from his mind!

That was possibly Justice Marvic Leonen’s point in his dissenting opinion. Justice Leonen wanted to see a causal link between the husband’s infidelity and the psychological violence committed on the woman. He probably thinks, as do a lot of people, that a cheating incident may not harm a woman. Like, what if the woman was more liberal type, and couldn’t care less about sexual fidelity so long as the man came home to her at night? What if she preferred the man to have his fun elsewhere than with her? Channeling Melania here. What if she didn’t know about it, how could she be harmed?

Well, this ruling seems to have slammed the doors on that potential excuse. In essence, the rule is now: you cheat, you intended to harm the woman. It may take another case with an entirely different set of facts for the court to refine this particular ruling.

Third, it’s no excuse you’re a decent guy in other respects. Hubby here defended himself by saying he tried to be civil with wifey after the separation, and made good on his obligations to support their kid. Uh-uh, hubby. That excuse isn’t going to fly. The court said, that fact that you were unfaithful remains. The fact that your wife suffered mental and emotional hurt remains. And off to jail you go.

Harsh, considering the macho thinking that so long as the man brings home the bacon, the wife should be content. No more of that caveman philosophy, please.

I am sure a lot of cheaters are now squirming in their pants. And I am sure we will see a lot more cases filed by women scorned. Should we expand our jails to accommodate these newly-minted criminals? Oh, and modernize those cells too, please. A lot of politicians might soon be roosting in them.