In a landmark ruling promulgated on April 16, 2024, the Supreme Court of the Philippines in G.R. No. 252739 (XXX v. People) declared unequivocally that marital infidelity is a form of psychological violence punishable under Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262, or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children (Anti-VAWC) Act of 2004. Most significantly, the Court ruled that criminal intent to cause mental or emotional anguish is presumed in acts of marital infidelity. This decision marks a definitive moment in Philippine jurisprudence, reshaping the legal lens through which intimate partner abse is understood.
At its core, the case involved a husband who maintained an extramarital relationship for several years, resulting in the birth of a child with another woman. The betrayed wife, upon discovering the affair, suffered emotional and psychological breakdowns that rendered her unable to work and caused long-term trauma. The husband was eventually charged with and convicted of psychological violence under R.A. No. 9262—a conviction upheld by both the trial court and the Court of Appeals, and ultimately affirmed by the Supreme Court.
What sets this case apart is the Supreme Court’s emphatic ruling on mens rea, or the mental element of a crime. Typically, for mala in se offenses—those considered inherently wrong—prosecutors must establish criminal intent. However, the Court here carved out an important doctrinal clarification: in cases of marital infidelity under R.A. 9262, the specific intent to cause harm is no longer required to be separately proven. The act of unfaithfulness itself—by its very nature—gives rise to the presumption of intent to inflict psychological harm.
“While intent to inflict emotional suffering and the emotional anguish itself that is suffered by the victim are both states of mind,” the Court explained, “the key difference is that the latter may be demonstrated externally and consequently, proven through overt acts.”
It went on to say that the law “deliberately chose the phrasing ‘causing mental or emotional anguish’… without much regard to the intent of the offender.”
This ruling is rooted in the recognition that marital infidelity is not just a private transgression but can be a form of domestic vi*lence with severe mental health consequences. The Court took judicial notice of how deception, betrayal, and prolonged dishonesty—especially when discovered publicly—shatter a person’s self-worth, induce trauma, and violate the sanctity of marriage and the emotional security it is supposed to guarantee.
From a doctrinal standpoint, the Court emphasized that marital infidelity is inherently wrongful and morally reprehensible, especially under prevailing Filipino cultural and religious norms.
“To pose a rhetoric,” the Court asked, “what else could adulterers have expected to cause upon their spouse when they committed an act of unfaithfulness, aside from mental and emotional pain?”
Indeed, requiring a victim to prove the inner thoughts of the offender—intent to hurt—would be both impractical and unjust. The Supreme Court acknowledged this reality: that to demand proof of specific intent in such cases would “render the law inutile” and place an impossible burden on victims who are already struggling with the emotional aftermath of betrayal.
Notably, the decision also contains an important caveat. Not all extramarital affairs automatically give rise to criminal liability. The Court recognized modern relationship dynamics, such as estranged spouses or consensual open marriages. In such scenarios, the presence of actual mental or emotional anguish—not merely the act of infidelity—is still the touchstone for liability. The ruling thus maintains a balance between protecting women from abse and avoiding over-criminalization of personal affairs.
This ruling is also significant for its victim-centered perspective. As Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier aptly stated in her concurring opinion:
“If we seek to fully animate the intent and purpose of the law… our vantage point must lie from the eyes of those the law seeks to protect, never from the eyes of those we protect them from or against.”
For legal practitioners, this case signals a clear shift: in prosecuting VAWC cases involving infidelity, it is no longer necessary to dissect or prove the abuser’s motives. The focus is now rightly placed on the effects—the psychological and emotional damage inflicted on the woman or child.
The Supreme Court’s decision in XXX v. People is a compelling affirmation of the Anti-VAWC law’s purpose: to recognize the real, often invisible scars left by emotional and psychological abse, and to hold accountable those who inflict such harm. It reinforces the idea that domestic vi*lence is not limited to bruises and broken bones—it can be just as destructive when inflicted by betrayal and emotional abandonment.
In the long struggle to protect women and uphold the sanctity of marriage, this ruling brings us one step closer to justice—not just in law, but in lived experience.
You must be logged in to post a comment.