Philippines: Supreme Court rules that ‘criminal intent’ is automatically presumed in marital infidelity

Manila: “Criminal intent” is automatically presumed under the law when determining whether or not an act of marital infidelity caused psychological violence, the Philippine Supreme Court has ruled recently.

In a landmark decision, the country's highest court ruled that in cases of marital infidelity under Republic Act 9262, or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act (Anti-VAWC Act), marital infidelity is automatically considered a crime – regardless of the offender’s intent.

Landmark decision

The top court denied the petition for a "certiorari" of a man earlier convicted by lower courts of violating Section 5(i) of the Anti-VAWC Act for causing psychological violence to his wife.

The court emphasised that the law focuses on the effects of the act, not the offender’s intent or motive.

Psychological violence

Court records show that in case No. G.R. No. 252739, the wife found out that her husband had an extramarital affair and a child with another woman.

The man was originally charged with psychological violence under the Anti-VAWC Act for causing his wife mental and emotional distress.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found the man guilty – and ruled that the psychological violence and distress suffered by the wife was caused by his infidelity and dishonesty.

The case was then elevated to the Court of Appeals, where the husband contested his conviction, but the Appeals Court upheld the RTC’s ruling.

The man petitioned the Supreme Court for a "certiorari", or a judicial review of the lower courts' decisions.

En banc decision

In an "En banc" decision (a ruling made by the entire court, rather than by a panel of judges), a majority of the 15 Supreme Court justices found that all the elements of psychological violence as defined by Section 5(i) of the Anti-VAWC law (Act 9262, enacted in 2004) were present.

“Hence, the law looks at the effects of a certain act or omission against a woman or their child rather than the offender’s motive. Thus, in cases of marital infidelity, the requirement of specific criminal intent to cause mental and emotional suffering is already satisfied once the offender commits the act of infidelity. This is because marital infidelity is inherently wrong under current social, cultural, and religious norms,” the ruling stated.

“The third element is met once it is shown that the victim suffered mental or emotional anguish due to the acts committed by the offender,” it added.

The SC decision was dated April 16, 2024, and was only reported by the Philippine News Agency on Friday (September 6, 2024).

Not all the judges agreed.

In his strongly-worded dissenting opinion against the majority decision, Supreme Court Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, stated that the "evidence of the prosecution simply failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt" that the man violated Section 5(i) of Act No. 9262 by causing psychological violence upon his wife.

"Marital infidelity per se is not penalized under Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262," Justice Caguioa stated.

He added: "In the recent En Banc case of Acharon v. People (Acharon), the Court underscored that crimes penalized in Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 are crimes mala in se (wrongful in itself). As such there must be a specific intent to inflict mental or emotional anguish upon the woman to constitute a violation of Section 5(i). Stated differently, without any proof that the accused had intended to cause mental or emotional anguish upon the victim, the acts complained of will not give rise to any criminal liability under Section 5(i).”

"The fundamental duty of a court is to interpret the law as it is and not as it should be. Here, the majority renege on this duty by interpreting Republic Act No. 9262 based on their presumptions and beliefs of what it should be and not based on what the language of the law per se provides," he added.

The final ruling also clarified that not all extramarital relationships are punishable under Section 5(i) of the Anti-VAWC Act.

“In non-traditional family setups and modern relationship arrangements with consciously consenting spouses, extramarital relationships may not inflict mental or emotional suffering and is not punishable as a crime under the law,” the court decision stated, as reported by PNA.

Its decision highlights the importance of protecting victims of domestic violence and ensuring that perpetrators are held accountable for their actions.

Study

Results of a 2009 study presented at the International Population Conference (IPC) in 2009, stated that 21 per cent of Filipinos in legal union admitted having had sex outside the union. The rate of infidelity for men in consensual union is even higher — at 28 per cent.

Those who have no living children also reported a higher level of extramarital affair (27.6 per cent) than those who have at least one living child (21 per cent).

Moreover, men who practice sexual activity outside marriage are seen as a “key agent” of the HIV/AIDS because they “unwittingly” facilitate the entry of the deadly virus into the household.

The Anti-VAWC Act is a crucial piece of legislation that has made significant strides in protecting women and children from violence in the Philippines.

In case number G.R. No. 252739, the man was charged and convicted by the trial court and the Court of Appeals of psychological violence resulting from marital infidelity, under Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262, committed as follows: “On July 19, 2016[,] or prior thereto, in the [C]ity of Makati, the Philippines, [XXX], being the husband of complainant [AAA], did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously kept a mistress, thereby causing upon complainant mental and emotional anguish, in violation of the aforesaid law.”

As per court protocol, the names of offended parties, along with all other personal circumstances that may tend to establish their identities, are made confidential to protect their privacy and dignity.