The Supreme Court (SC) has reminded that a victim’s psychological evaluation by an expert witness is not required to prove the psychological violence committed against women and their children.
In a decision made public last Wednesday, Jan. 22, the SC reiterated that the victim’s testimony in court is sufficient to prove emotional or mental suffering.
Citing its previous rulings, the SC denied the petition of a husband who challenged the Court of Appeals’ (CA) Feb.8, 2023 decision which affirmed the trial court’s verdict that convicted him of violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262, the Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children (VAWC) Act.
The husband (whose name and those of other persons involved in the case were redacted by the SC) was sentenced to a jail term ranging from six months and one day as minimum to eight years and one day as maximum.
Aside from the fine of P200,000, the husband was also ordered to pay his wife moral damages of P75,000. He was ordered to undergo mandatory psychological counselling or psychiatric treatment.
The SC decision was written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting.
Section 5(i) of RA 9262 states that violence against women and children is committed by “causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to the woman or her child, including, but not limited to, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, and denial of financial support or custody of minor children of access to the woman's child/children.”
In affirming the CA’s decision, the SC said the prosecution “sufficiently adduced proof, through the testimony of (the wife), that she suffered mental and emotional anguish due to the actions of (the husband).”
“To reiterate, as the CA aptly summarized ‘the husband had an extramarital relationship, left his wife and their children for (the other woman), cohabited with (the other woman) in full view of their children, sired an illegitimate child, and flaunted such affair on social media,” the SC said.
In his appeal for acquittal, the husband told the SC that the charge of psychological violence was not proven because the prosecution neither presented before the trial court a psychological report nor a psychologist as an expert witness.
But the SC said: “Here, the testimony of the wife detailing her emotional ordeal suffices to prove the element of emotional anguish. The husband’s insistence that a psychological report is indispensable to the prosecution of the violation of Section 5(i) of RA 9262 has no basis in law and jurisprudence. As such, it cannot serve to acquit him.”
The SC also said:
“It is settled that the positive and categorical testimony of the victim prevails over the bare denial of the accused.
“Thus, the husband’s flimsy and incredible defenses do not merit consideration from the Court. Denial, being a self-serving negative defense, cannot be given greater weight than the declaration of credible witness who testify on affirmative matters.
“All told, the husband is guilty of psychological violence under Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262. In fine, the trial court and the CA did not err in finding petitioner (the husband) guilty of violating Section 5(i) of RA 9262.”