Even if the alleged extra-marital affair causing the wife mental and emotional anguish is committed abroad, the same does not place a prosecution under R. A. No. 9262 absolutely beyond the reach of Philippine courts

May a Philippine court acquire jurisdiction in a case for psychological violence under Article 9262 when the act causing mental or emotional anguish was committed abroad?  In this case, the act causing the mental and emotional anguish which is an element of the crime in a prosecution for violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act 9262, was the alleged extra-marital affair conducted by the husband working abroad with a Singaporean woman.  

This is the question of law raised in a Rule 45 petition by AAA. 

AAA filed a case for violation of RA 9262 against BBB.  Among the allegations in her complaint before the Prosecutor’s Office was that BBB, whom she married in 2006, had an illicit affair in Singapore when the latter went there to work as a chef sometime in 2007.  Eventually, the Office of the City Prosecutor filed a case for violation of Section 5(i) of RA 9262 against BBB, for causing emotional and mental anguish on AAA by having an illicit relationship with a woman in Singapore.  Subsequently, an information was filed against BBB.

In 2013, BBB filed an Entry of Appearance with Omnibus Motion to Revive Case, Quash Information Lift Hold Departure Order and Warrant of Arrest before the RTC.  He argued that he cannot be charged with the crime as the alleged marital infidelity was committed in Singapore, thus the court had no jurisdiction over the offense charged.

The RTC sided with BBB and quashed the Information.  The court reasoned out that it had no jurisdiction over the offense as the act itself which had caused mental and emotional anguish must have been committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.  As the act which allegedly caused the mental and emotional anguish was committed in Singapore, the court had no jurisdiction over the offense charged.

AAA disagrees, and argue that the strict interpretation of the law by the RTC poses a danger that the law may become a useless piece of legislation because with its ruling, Filipino husbands may commit illicit relationship without fear of any consequence as long as they were committed abroad.  She argues further that the court may exercise jurisdiction over the offense charged as long any of the essential elements of the crime are present.  In this case, she posits that the mental and emotional anguish she experience is an essential element of the crime which she experience s wherever she goes, citing Section 7 of the law itself which provides for the jurisdiction of the RTC, in relation to Art. 4 of the law, mandating the liberal interpretation of the law in promoting the protection and safety of victims of violence against women and their children.

The Court’s ruling:

RA 9262 criminalizes the mental and emotional anguish caused by marital infidelity, not the marital infidelity itself:

“Contrary to the interpretation of the RTC, what R.A. No. 9262 criminalises is not the marital infidelity per se, but the psychological violence causing mental and emotional suffering on the wife.  Otherwise stated, it is the violence inflicted under the said circumstances that the law seeks to outlaw.  Marital infidelity as cited in the law is only one of the various acts by which psychological violence may be committed.  Moreover, depending on the circumstances of the spouses and for a myriad of reasons, the illicit relationship may or may not be even be causing mental or emotional anguish on the wife.  Thus the mental or emotional suffering of the victim is an essential and distinct element in the commission of the offense.”

Section 7 of RA 9262 contemplates that venue pertains to jurisdiction:

"In Section 7 of R.A. No. 9262, venue undoubtedly pertains to jurisdiction,  As correctly pointed out by AAA, Section 7 provides that the case may be filed there the crime or any of its elements was committed at the option of the complainant.  Which the psychological as the means employed by the perpetrator is certainly an essential element of the offense, equally essential also is the element of mental or emotional anguish which is personal to the complainant.  The resulting mental or emotional anguish is analogous to the indispensable element of damage in a prosecution for estate, viz:

x x x x

What may be gleaned from Section 7 of R.A. No. 9262 is that the law contemplates that acts of violence against women and their children may manifest as transitory or continuing crimes, meaning that some acts material and essential thereto and requisite in their consummation occur in one municipality or territory, while some occur in another.  In such cases, the court wherein any of the crime’s essential and material acts have been committed maintains jurisdiction to try the case; it being understood that the first court taking cognisance of the same excludes the other.  Thus, a person charged with a continuing or transitory crime may be validly tried in any municipality or territory where the offense was in part committed.

It is necessary for Philippine courts to have jurisdiction when the abusive conduct or act of violence under Section 5 (i) of R.A. No 9262 in relation to Section 3(a), Paragraph © was committed outside Philippine territory, that the victim be a resident of the place where the complaint is filed in view of the anguish suffered being a material element of the offense.   In the present scenario, the offended wife and children of respondent husband are residents of Pasig City since March of 2010. Hence, the RTC of Pasig City may exercise jurisdiction over the case.

Certainly, the act of causing psychological violence which under the information relates to BBB’s marital infidelity must be proven by probable cause for the purpose of formally charging the husband, and to establish the same beyond reasonable doubt for purposes of conviction.  It likewise remains imperative to acquire jurisdiction over the husband.  What this case concerns itself is simply whether or not a complaint for psychological abuse under R.A. No. 9262 may even be filed within the Philippines if the illicit relationship is committed abroad.  We say that even if the alleged extra-marital affair causing the wife mental and emotional anguish is committed abroad, the same does not place a prosecution under R. A. No. 9262 absolutely beyond the reach of Philippine courts.”

(AAA vs. BBB, G.R. No. 212448, January 11, 2018)