Even the simple act of of a husband’s moving out of the household the appliances and furniture that are part of the conjugal house, and transferring it to his parent’s house, when the same is against the will of the wife and causes her distress, can lead to a conviction for RA 9262.
This is one case where the Supreme Court went beyond the allegations of the Information in the case and proceeded to determine the guilt of the accused based on the testimony of the victim that she was a victim of psychological violence by her husband by appreciating previous incidents of abuse that in totality caused the victim mental and emotional anguish. Personally, I believe that this case should be a lesson for lawyers to be mindful of the testimony of adverse witness at the witness stand, so as to exclude irrelevant and immaterial matters from being included in the direct testimony by way of timely objection to the questions propounded or the answers given thereto, otherwise, those other matters not alleged in the Information should not have found its way into the records of the case. Of course, the SC made much of the fact that the relevant portion of the information was indeed proven beyond reasonable doubt, but it cannot be denied that the Court also appreciated other acts of the accused not included in the Information but forming part of the victim’s testimony to establish mental and emotional anguish on the part of the victim, leading to the accused’s conviction.
The Information in the case reads:
That on or about February 17, 2010 in the City of [XXX], Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit acts of violence against his wife [BBB], as follows: by taking their conjugal properties and bring[ing] them to the house of his mother without regard to her feelings and against her will which caused mental, emotional anguish to his legal wife [BBB].
Contrary to and in violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 otherwise known as the Anti-Violence against women and their Children Act of 2004.
The Facts:
AAA, husband and BBB, had been married for 19 years when on February 17, 2010, they had an altercation. AAA learned that AAA had incurred debts and some of the appliances which he bought with his hard-earned money were used as collateral by AAA. As a result, AAA took out some of the appliances and brought it to his parents’ house nearby, depriving AAA of the use and enjoyment of the appliances. The incident was witnessed by their child, CCC. As a result of the incident, BBB filed a case for violation of Section 5(i) of RA 9262. After trial, the court convicted AAA as charged, hence BBB appealed his case all the way to the Supreme Court. The CA modified his penalty by appreciating the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation.
In his appeal to the Supreme Court, AAA interposed the defense that he brought out the appliances in order to protect them creditors, who told him that the sheriff will take the appliances the next day.
Issues:
Whether or not AAA is guilty for violating Section 5(i) of RA 9262.
Whether or not the CA was correct in appreciating the mitigation circumstance of passion and obfuscation in AAA’s favor.
Ruling:
AAA is guilty of Section 5 (i) of RA 9262.
XXXX
The Court will address the final two elements as the first two are undoubtedly present in this case.
The cited section has been ruled to penalize certain forms of psychological violence. As defined in law, psychological violence refers to acts or omissions causing or likely to cause mental or emotional suffering to the victim. Psychological violence is the means employed by the perpetrator, while mental and emotional anguish is the effect caused upon or damage sustained by the offended party. To establish this as an element, it is necessary to show proof commission of any of the acts enumerated in Section 5(i0. To establish mental or emotional anguish, the testimony of the victim must be presented, as these experiences are personal to the party.
XXXX
The trial court observed that private complainant was “so hurt and humiliated.” Augmenting the pain brought about by the situation was that petitioner “abandoned her and their children.” The CA, for its part, remarked that petitioner admitted to pushing private complainant. CCC also testified that the incident was not isolated, as similar arguments and even physical abuse had already happened between them. Evidently, the above portions of private complainant’s testimony, as well as the other statements made by private complainant mentioned in the CA and RTC decisions, all prove petitioner had caused mental and emotional anguish upon private complainant.
Finally, private complainant’s anguish was clearly caused by acts of petitioner parallel to those provided by the law. Private complainant’s suffering was due to petitioner’s denying the use of the appliances and furniture commonly owned by the family. Anguish causes distress to someone, or makes someone suffer intense pain or sorrow. It is doubtless that private complainant, by her own recount of the situation, was thoroughly distressed by petitioner’s acts, contrary to petitioner’s averments.
“XXXX. The Court highlights that he not only gathered the appliances that were used as collateral for the loan, i.e. the television set and refrigerator, but also took away the divided and even the “sleeprite” bed the family slept on. His very act of depriving the entire family of such sleeping fixture does not justify his reasons. Morevoer, his defense of lack of intent to commit the crime is contradicted by what transpired. Private complainant tried to prevent petitioner from removing the appliances and furniture from their house, but petitioner did it against her will and even hurt her. He could not deny causing her harm, mental and emotional anguish, and humiliation when he also “mauled” her in front of their children.
The CA erred in appreciating the mitigating circumstance of passion and obsfuscation, and in not imposing the penalty of fine and requiring the accused to undergo psychological counselling.
“The Court agrees with the RTC and the CA in finding the petitioner guilty of violating Sec. 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262. However, the Court disagrees with the penalty imposed by the CA, most especially the application of the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation. It must be stressed that in criminal cases, an appeal throws the entire case wide open for review and allows the reviewing tribunal to correct errors, though unassigned, in the appealed judgment. The appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and renders such court competent to examine records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law. This principle has been applied by the Court even in petitions for review on certiorari.
A number of cases state that an offense is defined and is ostensibly punished under a special law, when the penalty therefor is actually taken from the Revised Penal Code in its technical nomenclature; necessarily, its duration, correlation, and legal effects under the system of penalties native to said Code also apply. Modifying circumstances may be appreciated to determine the periods of the corresponding penalties, or even to reduce the penalty by degrees. However, in this case, the circumstance of passion and obfuscation should not mitigate the penalty imposed on petitioner.
In order to be entitled to the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation, the following elements should occur: (1) there should be an act both unlawful and sufficient to produce such condition of mind; and (2) said act which produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time, during which the perpetrator might recover his moral equanimity. This circumstance is considered mitigating because by reason of causes naturally producing powerful excitement in a person, he loses his reason and self-control, thereby diminishing the exercise of his will power.
The elements for the consideration of the mitigating circumstance are missing. Private complainant did not commit any unlawful act against petitioner that would cause such a reaction from him. Private complainant's acts also cannot be considered as providing a legitimate stimulus justifying petitioner's reaction – where he lost reason and self-control.
Further, the Court notes that both the RTC and the CA failed to include the imposition of a fine on petitioner and to require him to undergo psychological counseling or treatment. These are additional penalties that are set by Sec. 6 of R.A. No. 9262 in addition to imprisonment, thus:
SECTION 6. Penalties. – The crime of violence against women and their children, under Section 5 hereof shall be punished according to the following rules:
x x x x
(f) Acts falling under Section 5(h) and Section 5(i) shall be punished by prision mayor.
x x x x
In addition to imprisonment, the perpetrator shall (a) pay a fine in the amount of not less than One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) but not more than Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00); (b) undergo mandatory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment and shall report compliance to the court. (Underscoring supplied)”
(G.R. No. 229762, November 28, 2018, AAA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.)
No comments:
Post a Comment