ASG Law

Tag: Psychological Violence

  • Financial Abuse as Psychological Violence: Upholding VAWC Protection for Wives

    The Supreme Court affirmed that intentionally withholding financial support from a wife constitutes psychological violence under the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act (VAWC). This ruling emphasizes that financial abuse is a form of control and harm, and those who deprive their wives of needed support can face criminal penalties. The decision underscores the importance of protecting women from all forms of abuse, including economic, within domestic relationships.

    When Love Turns to Law: Can Withholding Support Be a Crime?

    Esteban Donato Reyes challenged his conviction for violating Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262, the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 (VAWC). The case arose after Reyes stopped providing financial support to his wife, AAA, leading to her suffering and prompting her to file charges. Reyes argued that the information filed against him was defective and that he had no legal obligation to support AAA, disputing the validity of their marriage. The central legal question was whether the deliberate denial of financial support to a wife constitutes psychological violence under the VAWC, warranting criminal prosecution.

    The Supreme Court addressed whether the information filed against Reyes sufficiently alleged the elements of a violation of Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262. The Court referenced Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, which outlines the requirements for a sufficient complaint or information, including stating the accused’s name, the designation of the offense, the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and the offended party’s name.

    The Court emphasized the importance of a fully stated indictment that includes every element of the specific offense. To determine the sufficiency of the information, the Court turned to Section 3(c) of R.A. No. 9262, which 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 mental infidelity. It includes causing or allowing the victim to witness the physical, sexual or psychological abuse of a member of the family to which the victim belongs, or to witness pornography in any form or to witness abusive injury to pets or to unlawful or unwanted deprivation of the right to custody and/or visitation of common children.”

    Additionally, the Court referred to Section 5(i) of R.A No. 9262, which penalizes specific forms of psychological violence inflicted on women and children, including the denial of financial support. In Dinamling v. People, the Court outlined the elements of this violation:

    (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.

    The Court found that the information against Reyes sufficiently included these elements, specifying that AAA was Reyes’s wife, she experienced mental and emotional anguish, and this anguish resulted from Reyes’s deliberate denial of financial support. The Court emphasized that psychological violence and the resulting mental or emotional anguish are indispensable elements of a Section 5(i) violation. These elements were proven through the testimonies of AAA and her daughter, which clearly demonstrated that Reyes’s actions caused AAA to suffer to the point where her health was affected.

    Reyes argued that he could not be held liable because he had no legal obligation to support AAA, as he claimed they were never legally married. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, citing the certified copy of their marriage certificate as positive evidence of a valid marriage. As the Court pointed out, the marriage remains valid until a judicial proceeding declares otherwise, obligating Reyes to support AAA in proportion to his resources and her needs.

    Even if the marriage were declared void, Reyes would not be exonerated. R.A. No. 9262 covers violence against women and children perpetrated by a husband, former husband, or any person with whom the woman has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom she shares a common child. The law aims to address violence within various relationship contexts, not only formal marriages. It was undisputed that AAA and Reyes had four children together.

    The Court highlighted that Reyes could also be convicted under Section 5(e), par. 2 for economic abuse. The pertinent portion of the law states:

    (e) Attempting to compel or compelling the woman or her child to engage in conduct which the woman or her child has the right to desist from or desist from conduct which the woman or her child has the right to engage in, or attempting to restrict or restricting the woman’s or her child’s freedom of movement or conduct by force or threat of force, physically or other harm or threat of physical or other harm, or intimidation directed against the woman or child. This shall include, but not limited to, the following acts committed with the purpose or effect of controlling or restricting the woman’s or her child’s movement or conduct:

    x x x x

    (2) Depriving or threatening to deprive the woman or her children of financial support legally due her or her family, x x x;

    (3) Depriving or threatening to deprive the woman or her child of a legal right;

    Criminal liability under Section 5(e) arises when an accused deprives a woman of legally entitled financial support, with deprivation or denial of support specifically penalized. Reyes deliberately refused to provide financial support to AAA after June 2005, citing her filing of a bigamy case against him as the reason. The Court deemed this excuse unacceptable, as AAA’s legal action was to protect her rights as Reyes’s legal wife. This denial of financial support was viewed as an attempt to subjugate AAA’s will and control her conduct.

    The Supreme Court emphasized that R.A. No. 9262 is designed to protect victims of violence, and its provisions are to be construed liberally to ensure the safety and protection of women and children. There is no vagueness or ambiguity in the law that would confuse individuals about what conduct is penalized under the VAWC, ensuring that persons of ordinary intelligence can understand its prohibitions. Finally, the Court upheld the directive under the Temporary Protection Order (TPO) requiring Reyes to resume providing monthly financial support to AAA, as he had presented no evidence to demonstrate an inability to do so.

    FAQs

    What is Section 5(i) of R.A. 9262? Section 5(i) of the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act penalizes causing mental or emotional anguish to a woman or her child through acts such as public ridicule, repeated verbal abuse, or denial of financial support. This section aims to protect women and children from psychological violence within domestic relationships.
    What constitutes “psychological violence” under the law? “Psychological violence” includes acts or omissions that cause mental or emotional suffering, such as intimidation, harassment, stalking, public ridicule, repeated verbal abuse, and denial of financial support. It also includes causing a victim to witness abuse of family members or unwanted deprivation of custody rights.
    Can a husband be held liable for violating R.A. 9262 even if their marriage is void? Yes, R.A. 9262 applies not only to husbands but also to any person with whom the woman has or had a sexual or dating relationship or with whom she has a common child. The law aims to protect women and children from violence regardless of the formal marital status.
    What is the significance of a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) in VAWC cases? A TPO is issued by the court to provide immediate protection to victims of violence, including directives such as restraining the abuser from contacting the victim or requiring financial support. The TPO aims to ensure the victim’s safety and well-being while the case is ongoing.
    What evidence is needed to prove a violation of Section 5(i) of R.A. 9262? To prove a violation, evidence must show that the offended party is a woman or child, the offender caused mental or emotional anguish, and the anguish was caused by acts such as public ridicule, repeated abuse, or denial of financial support. Testimonies from the victim and witnesses are crucial in establishing these elements.
    What is the penalty for violating Section 5(i) of R.A. 9262? Acts falling under Section 5(i) are punished by prision mayor. The court may also impose a fine ranging from P100,000 to P300,000 and require the perpetrator to undergo mandatory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment.
    Can the denial of financial support alone be considered a form of economic abuse under R.A. 9262? Yes, the denial of financial support legally due to a woman or her family is considered a form of economic abuse under Section 5(e) of R.A. 9262. This provision aims to protect women from being deprived of the resources necessary for their well-being.
    What should a woman do if she is experiencing economic abuse from her partner? A woman experiencing economic abuse should seek legal advice and consider filing a complaint under R.A. 9262. She may also apply for a protection order from the court to ensure her safety and well-being.

    This case highlights the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the rights of women and children under the VAWC law. By recognizing financial abuse as a form of psychological violence, the Supreme Court reinforces the comprehensive protection afforded to victims and sends a clear message that such acts will not be tolerated.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: ESTEBAN DONATO REYES, PETITIONER, V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT, G.R. No. 232678, July 03, 2019

  • Transnational Marital Infidelity and Psychological Violence: Defining Jurisdiction under R.A. 9262

    The Supreme Court ruled that Philippine courts can exercise jurisdiction over cases of psychological violence under Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004), even if the act causing the violence, such as marital infidelity, occurs outside the Philippines. This jurisdiction applies if the victim experiences mental or emotional anguish within the Philippines. This decision protects Filipino women and children from abuse, regardless of where the abusive acts take place, ensuring that perpetrators cannot evade prosecution by committing abuse abroad.

    When Love Knows No Borders, Does the Law? Examining Transnational Psychological Abuse

    In the case of AAA v. BBB, the Supreme Court grappled with a critical question: Can Philippine courts intervene when a Filipino woman suffers psychological violence due to her husband’s infidelity, which occurs outside the country? This case arose when AAA accused her husband, BBB, of causing her mental and emotional anguish through an affair he allegedly had in Singapore. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially dismissed the case, asserting it lacked jurisdiction over acts committed outside the Philippines. AAA challenged this decision, arguing that the emotional suffering she experienced in the Philippines should suffice for local jurisdiction.

    The central issue revolved around the interpretation of Republic Act No. 9262, particularly Section 5(i), which addresses psychological violence against women and children. The law defines violence against women and their children as:

    any act or a series of acts committed by any person against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a common child, or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the family abode, which result in or is likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse including threats of such acts, battery, assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty.

    Furthermore, Section 7 of R.A. No. 9262 addresses the issue of venue, stating:

    The Regional Trial Court designated as a Family Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases of violence against women and their children under this law. In the absence of such court in the place where the offense was committed, the case shall be filed in the Regional Trial Court where the crime or any of its elements was committed at the option of the complainant.

    The Supreme Court emphasized that the law does not criminalize marital infidelity itself, but rather the psychological violence resulting in mental or emotional suffering. The Court noted that marital infidelity is merely one of the ways psychological violence can be inflicted. The crucial element is the mental or emotional anguish suffered by the victim.

    Building on this principle, the Supreme Court referenced Dinamling v. People, which articulated the elements of psychological violence under Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262:

    (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.

    According to the Supreme Court:

    Psychological violence is an element of violation of Section 5(i) just like the mental or emotional anguish caused on the victim. Psychological violence is the means employed by the perpetrator, while mental or emotional anguish is the effect caused to or the damage sustained by the offended party. 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 experiences are personal to this party.

    The Court then addressed the issue of venue, noting that in criminal cases, venue is jurisdictional. It emphasized that Section 7 of R.A. No. 9262 allows a case to be filed where the crime or any of its elements was committed. While the act of psychological violence is essential, the resulting mental or emotional anguish suffered by the victim is equally critical.

    The Supreme Court analogized the resulting mental or emotional anguish to the element of damage in estafa cases, highlighting that both deceit and damage are essential elements. It stated that:

    The circumstance that the deceitful manipulations or false pretenses employed by the accused, as shown in the vouchers, might have been perpetrated in Quezon City does not preclude the institution of the criminal action in Mandaluyong where the damage was consummated. Deceit and damage are the basic elements of estafa.

    This analogy emphasizes that the location where the victim experiences the harm is a valid venue for the case, even if the acts causing the harm occurred elsewhere. R.A. No. 9262 contemplates that acts of violence against women and their children may be transitory or continuing crimes. The court where any of the crime’s essential and material acts were committed has jurisdiction, and the first court to take cognizance of the case excludes others.

    The Supreme Court clarified that Philippine courts have jurisdiction over cases under Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262, even if the abusive act occurred outside the Philippines, provided the victim is a resident of the place where the complaint is filed and experiences anguish there. In this case, AAA and her children resided in Pasig City, giving the RTC of Pasig City jurisdiction over the case.

    Therefore, the Court held that even if the extra-marital affair causing the mental and emotional anguish was committed abroad, it does not place a prosecution under R.A. No. 9262 absolutely beyond the reach of Philippine courts.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether Philippine courts have jurisdiction over psychological violence cases under R.A. 9262 when the act causing the violence (marital infidelity) occurs abroad but the victim experiences anguish in the Philippines.
    What is R.A. 9262? R.A. 9262, also known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004, defines and criminalizes violence against women and their children, providing protective measures for victims and prescribing penalties.
    What constitutes psychological violence under R.A. 9262? Psychological violence refers to acts or omissions causing or likely to cause mental or emotional suffering of the victim, including intimidation, harassment, stalking, damage to property, public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal abuse, and marital infidelity.
    Does R.A. 9262 criminalize marital infidelity itself? No, R.A. 9262 does not criminalize marital infidelity itself. It criminalizes the psychological violence that results in mental or emotional suffering, with marital infidelity being one possible act contributing to such violence.
    What are the elements of psychological violence under Section 5(i) of R.A. 9262? The elements are: (1) the offended party is a woman and/or her child; (2) the woman is the offender’s wife, former wife, or someone with whom he has a sexual or dating relationship or a common child; (3) the offender causes mental or emotional anguish; and (4) the anguish is caused through acts of public ridicule, verbal abuse, denial of support, etc.
    Where can a case under R.A. 9262 be filed? Under Section 7 of R.A. 9262, the case can be filed in the Regional Trial Court where the crime or any of its elements was committed, at the option of the complainant.
    What is the significance of the victim’s residence in determining jurisdiction? The victim’s residence is crucial because the court where the victim resides has jurisdiction if the victim experiences mental or emotional anguish in that location, even if the acts causing the anguish occurred elsewhere.
    What did the Supreme Court rule in this case? The Supreme Court ruled that Philippine courts have jurisdiction over cases of psychological violence under R.A. 9262, even if the act causing the violence occurs outside the Philippines, provided the victim experiences mental or emotional anguish within the Philippines.

    This landmark ruling broadens the reach of R.A. 9262, ensuring that Filipino women and children are protected from psychological violence, regardless of where the abusive acts occur. It underscores the importance of addressing the emotional and psychological impact of abuse, emphasizing that the location of the harm is as significant as the location of the act causing it. This decision serves as a reminder that perpetrators cannot evade justice by committing acts of abuse outside the Philippines.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: AAA v. BBB, G.R. No. 212448, January 11, 2018

  • Psychological Violence in Domestic Abuse: Defining Emotional Harm Under RA 9262

    This Supreme Court decision clarifies the scope of psychological violence as a form of abuse under the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act (RA 9262). The Court affirmed the conviction of Ricky Dinamling for inflicting psychological violence on his partner, emphasizing that such violence includes acts causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule, or humiliation. This ruling reinforces the importance of recognizing and penalizing non-physical forms of domestic abuse, providing legal recourse for victims of emotional and psychological harm.

    Trash Bags and Public Humiliation: When Does Domestic Discord Become Criminal Abuse?

    The case of Ricky Dinamling v. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 199522, June 22, 2015) revolves around the interpretation and application of Republic Act No. 9262, also known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004. This law aims to protect women and children from various forms of abuse, including psychological violence. The specific question before the Supreme Court was whether the actions of Ricky Dinamling towards his partner, AAA, constituted psychological violence as defined and penalized under Section 5(i) of RA 9262. The incidents in question involved Dinamling’s verbal abuse, eviction of AAA and their children, and a particularly egregious act of public humiliation where he forcibly removed her pants and underwear.

    To fully understand the Court’s decision, it is essential to examine the facts that led to the charges against Dinamling. The prosecution presented evidence of two key incidents. On March 14, 2007, Dinamling, after a drinking session, went to AAA’s boarding house and began to evict her and their two children, ordering her to pack their belongings in a trash bag and a duckling box. He accused her of turning the place into a “whore house.” On March 20, 2007, Dinamling confronted AAA at a friend’s house, punched her, and then, in public, pulled down her pants and underwear, shouting insults as onlookers watched. These incidents, coupled with prior acts of physical abuse, formed the basis of the charges against him.

    The legal framework for this case is primarily found in RA 9262, particularly Section 5(i), which penalizes acts causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule, or humiliation to a woman or her child. Section 6(f) prescribes the penalty of prision mayor for such acts, with the penalty being increased to the maximum period if the acts are committed while the woman is pregnant. The law defines psychological violence broadly, encompassing a range of behaviors that cause or are likely to cause mental or emotional suffering. It is important to note that the law does not require physical injury for psychological violence to be established; the focus is on the emotional and mental impact on the victim.

    The Supreme Court, in its analysis, emphasized the importance of the victim’s testimony in establishing the elements of the crime. The Court noted that AAA’s testimony was clear, categorical, and straightforward, and therefore worthy of credence. The Court quoted AAA’s testimony at length, highlighting the specific acts of abuse and the emotional distress they caused her. The Court also pointed to the testimony of AAA’s mother, DDD, who corroborated the history of maltreatment and the impact it had on AAA. These testimonies, the Court found, were sufficient to establish that Dinamling’s actions caused AAA mental and emotional anguish, public ridicule, and humiliation.

    Furthermore, the Court addressed Dinamling’s defenses of denial and alibi. Dinamling claimed he was on duty at the police station on the nights the incidents occurred. The Court dismissed these defenses as inherently weak, noting that Dinamling admitted the police station was only a short distance from AAA’s boarding house. This made it physically possible for him to commit the acts, negating his alibi. The Court reiterated the principle that denial and alibi cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of the victim, especially when the identification of the accused is not in question.

    In addressing the relevance of the victim’s incomplete abortion, the Court clarified that it was not an essential element of the crime. The Court explained that while the pregnancy of the victim is an aggravating circumstance that increases the penalty, the abortion itself is not a necessary component of proving psychological violence under Section 5(i) of RA 9262. The Court emphasized that the focus of the law is on the causation of non-physical suffering, such as mental or emotional distress, anxiety, and social shame or dishonor. The physical violence, in this case, was a means of causing mental or emotional suffering, thereby constituting psychological violence.

    The Court then discussed the concept of psychological violence itself. The court highlighted that it is the means employed by the perpetrator, while mental or emotional anguish is the effect caused to or the damage sustained by the offended party. In essence, the Court viewed Dinamling’s physical acts—punching, kicking, and stripping AAA—not merely as isolated instances of physical violence, but as actions designed to inflict public ridicule and humiliation, thus causing psychological harm.

    Therefore, the Court found that all the elements of the crime were proven beyond reasonable doubt. Dinamling was found guilty of violating Section 5(i) of RA 9262 in both criminal cases. The Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalties imposed by the lower courts. Taking into account the aggravating circumstance of AAA’s pregnancy, the Court sentenced Dinamling to an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment and ordered him to pay a fine and undergo psychological counseling. The court ultimately sends the message that violence against women encompasses the full breadth of psychological harm.

    FAQs

    What is psychological violence under RA 9262? Psychological violence refers to acts or omissions causing mental or emotional suffering, such as intimidation, harassment, public ridicule, or repeated verbal abuse. It focuses on the emotional and mental impact on the victim.
    Does RA 9262 require physical injury for a conviction? No, RA 9262 does not require physical injury for a conviction of psychological violence. The law focuses on the mental or emotional anguish caused by the perpetrator’s actions.
    What is the penalty for violating Section 5(i) of RA 9262? The penalty for acts falling under Section 5(i) of RA 9262 is prision mayor. The penalty is increased to the maximum period if the acts are committed while the woman is pregnant.
    How did the Court address the accused’s defense of alibi? The Court dismissed the accused’s defense of alibi, noting that the location where he claimed to be was in close proximity to the crime scene. This made it physically possible for him to commit the acts, negating his alibi.
    What was the significance of the victim’s pregnancy in this case? The victim’s pregnancy was considered an aggravating circumstance, which increased the penalty imposed on the accused. However, the pregnancy itself was not an element of the crime.
    What must the prosecution prove to secure a conviction under 5(i) RA 9262? To secure a conviction under Sec 5(i) RA 9262, the prosecution must establish these elements; (1) the offended party is a woman, (2) the woman is or was in a relationship with the offender or has a common child, (3) the offender causes on the woman 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.
    Does the testimony of a single witness suffice for a conviction? Yes, the testimony of a single witness, if credible, can suffice for a conviction. Evidence is weighed, not counted, and the testimony of the victim, if positive, categorical, and credible, is sufficient.
    How are criminal penalties under 5(i) RA 9262 determined? Criminal penalties are determined after weighing mitigating and/or aggravating circumstances. If aggravating circumstances such as if the woman or child is pregnant or committed in the presence of her child, the penalty to be applied shall be the maximum period of penalty prescribed in the section.

    This case emphasizes the judiciary’s commitment to protecting women and children from all forms of abuse, including psychological violence. It provides a framework for understanding and applying RA 9262, ensuring that perpetrators are held accountable for their actions. The Dinamling ruling serves as a guidepost for lower courts. It underscores that the court system will respond to situations that harm emotional well-being.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Ricky Dinamling v. People, G.R. No. 199522, June 22, 2015