09/01/2026
INTENT TO CAUSE MENTAL ANGUISH PRESUMED IN CASES OF PSYCHOLOGICAL VIOLENCE ARISING FROM INFIDELITY— SUPREME COURT
The Supreme Court (SC) clarified that in cases of psychological violence under Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262, or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children (VAWC) Act, the intent to cause mental and emotional anguish, which is an essential element of the offense, is presumed when the source of such anguish is marital infidelity.
In a 10-page decision penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando, the SC En Banc denied the motion for reconsideration filed by a husband who questioned the SC's earlier ruling convicting him of psychological violence under the Anti-VAWC Act.
The conviction stemmed from his act of maintaining a mistress and fathering a child with her, which the court found to have caused mental and emotional anguish to his wife.
The aggrieved wife discovered that her husband has been keeping a paramour for four years, with whom he begot a child. Upon confrontation before the barangay, the husband admitted that he was truly the father of the child.
The wife claimed that she was so greatly devastated when she knew about her husband's infidelity that she was unable to work for three to four months and could not sleep. This prompted her to file a complaint for psychological violence against her husband.
For his part, the accused admitted having a child with another woman. However, he denied maintaining any intimate relationship with his supposed mistress and asserted that the child was only the result of a one-night stand.
He added that he did not live with the said woman and their child, as he only visited once in a while. He noted that he could not have caused the complainant emotional and mental anguish.
Both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals convicted the accused. This prompted him to elevate the case before the Supreme Court, arguing that the prosecution failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the mental and emotional anguish suffered by his wife was caused by his unfaithfulness.
Initially, the high court sustained his criminal conviction, emphasizing that the elements of the psychological violence under the Anti-VAWC Act were successfully proven by the prosecution. It gave credence to the observation of the RTC and CA that the mental and emotional anguish suffered by the wife was the result of the accused's philandering, as evidenced by her emotional breakdown while narrating.
Thereafter, the accused filed a motion for reconsideration before the Supreme Court en banc, reiterating the same arguments.
In dismissing his motion for reconsideration, the high court reiterated that psychological violence under Section 5 (i) of Republic Act No. 9262 punishes any form of harassment or violence that causes mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule, or humiliation to the woman or her child, which technically includes marital infidelity.
It also cited Section 3(a)(C) of Republic Act No. 9262, which specified marital infidelity as constitutive of psychological violence that evidently falls under the phrase "any form of harassment or violence" under Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262.
The SC also clarified that the requirement of specific criminal intent to cause mental and emotional suffering is already satisfied the moment the perpetrator commits the act of marital infidelity.
It underscored that the same is supported by the language of Section 5(i) of RA 9262, which merely looks at the consequences or effects of marital infidelity upon the aggrieved spouse or child. In contrast, Sections 5(e), 5(f), and 5(h) of the same law specifically require intent on the part of the violator in order to support a conviction.
It explained that this is because marital infidelity is inherently immoral and depraved under prevailing societal, cultural, and religious norms, mentioning the court's decision in Regir vs. Regir, which said that it is morally reprehensible for a married man or woman to maintain intimate relations with a person other than their spouse."
"Verily, the absence of any such term requiring intent on the part of the defendant supports the conclusion that intent is not required in Section 5(i) of RA 9262," the Supreme Court said.
"When the cause of mental or emotional distress is marital infidelity, which is inherently wrongful, specific intent is not necessary, as the spouse's intent to cause mental or emotional anguish upon the spouse or their child is already presumed upon the spouse's mere commission of the act of marital infidelity." it added.
