Marital infidelity per se (by itself) is not an act of violence criminalized under Republic Act No. 9262, the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004, the Supreme Court (SC) ruled.

The SC said that under Section 5(i) of RA 9262, acts of violence against women and their children are committed by causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation like repeated verbal and emotional abuse, and denial of financial support or custody of minor children.

It said the elements for the commission of the offense -- actions or omissions that constitute psychological violence used as a means by the perpetrator, and mental or emotional anguish caused to the victim – should be evaluated whether they were done with the intention of "causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to the woman or her child."

“It is when these acts are done with the intent to tilt the scales of power within the relationship against the woman, causing her to lose her autonomy does the State have a legitimate interest in punishing such acts” the SC pointed out.

It stressed that the effect on the victim alone, which is the second element of the crime, “is not enough to sustain a conviction.”

The SC said that RA 9262 protects women in the context of intimate relationships which can be physical, sexual, and psychological violence or economic abuse.

It also said: “The law’s protection extends to women because of the patriarchal culture that dominates our society. It is important to highlight this context where the law seeks to negate patriarchal dominance, not to privilege a certain class of individuals, but to correct a historical and social phenomenon that disadvantages women simply for their gender.”

The core of RA 9262 is the affirmation of the woman’s inherent dignity which is unjustly diminished in a patriarchal society, the SC said.

The law empowers the woman to assert her dignity against acts of oppression, it also said.

But the SC stressed that “the law should not be treated as an unbridled license for the State to intrude into personal affairs… especially true because RA 9262 necessarily touches upon matters that are characteristically private.”

Thus, it said “the State, therefore, should be cautious in its actions so as not to make unwarranted intrusions into issues that belong in the intimate sphere of personal relations.”

The SC’s ruling was contained in a decision written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen.

The decision reversed the Court of Appeals’ (CA) ruling which affirmed the conviction of a husband for violation of Section 5(i) of RA 9262 for inflicting psychological or emotional harm on his wife due to his marital infidelity.

The husband was sentenced by the trial court to a prison term ranging from two years, four months and one day as minimum to eight years and one day as maximum.

He was also fined P100,000 and ordered to pay moral damages of P20,000 with six percent interest until fully paid. At the same time, he was required to undergo mandatory psychological counseling every month and submit compliance to the court.

The CA denied the husband’s appeal. However, in his motion for reconsideration, he attached the affidavit of recantation executed by his wife.

The husband also reminded the court that his wife had forgiven him and she asked him to file an annulment of marriage because she, herself, had found a boyfriend whom she wanted to marry.

In her recantation, the wife testified that she “was not hurt nor devastated" when she learned about her husband’s infidelity and that they both "had an understanding about new relationships outside of their marriage and she knew it would happen to him or to her in due time."

She also retracted her testimony about fainting and seeing a clinical psychologist because of her husband’s illicit affairs. Instead, she said that she went to see a clinical psychologist only after the filing of the criminal case against her husband because she needed medical evidence in that case.

At the same time, she confessed that the case against her husband was filed after the first criminal case for concubinage was dismissed.

“The truth of the matter is that my husband and I had already been living separately long before his illicit affair, and we were open to the possibility of creating new relationships outside of our marriage,” she also said in her affidavit of recantation.

The husband pleaded the CA to consider the affidavit of recantation. He also told the appellate court that he and his wife were already at the verge of reconciliation.

Despite the recantation of the wife, the CA still affirmed the judgment of conviction handed down by the trial court against the husband.

The CA ruled that the wife’s affidavit failed to overturn the husband’s conviction. It said that recantations are generally not viewed favorably… and “that in any case, the elements of the offense were also proven during trial from the testimonies of other witnesses.”

The husband elevated the case to the SC which granted the appeal, reversed the CA’s ruling, and acquitted him of the criminal charge.

The SC said that in offenses under RA 9262, especially as the law closely touches on private matters to protect the woman’s dignity and autonomy, the word of the wife should be given great importance.

It said “the Affidavit of Recantation creates reasonable doubt as to whether petitioner's (husband) conviction should be upheld, as it directly affects an essential element of the offense….”

“Indeed, to affirm petitioner's conviction will highlight the irony where the private offended party herself had declared that she did not suffer emotional anguish and mental suffering, but the State insists that she did,” it also said.

It added: “This situation reveals exactly the reason why the State should refrain from needlessly intruding into intimate relations. Human relationships are complex; they cannot be judged as black and white. A simplistic approach will inevitably fail to capture all the intricacies and obscurities of these relationships, the moments of joy and suffering shared between partners, as well as each person's capacity for self-reflection, healing, and even openness to reconciliation.”

But the SC said the husband’s acquittal was neither meant to condone marital infidelity nor to justify unfaithfulness to one's commitments.

“This is not to discredit the very real pain and suffering felt by persons whose trust was broken. However, these experiences are as important as they are intimate and private. In a sense, these experiences are what make us human, and the State has neither an interest nor a role in unnecessarily interfering with them,” the SC stressed.

The dispositive portion of the SC decision:

“Accordingly, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is granted. The Court of Appeals Jan. 28, 2021 Decision and Dec. 21, 2022 Resolution in CA-G.R. CR No. 43253 are reversed and set aside. Petitioner is acquitted of violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262. Let the entry of judgment be issued immediately.”