Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
This legal opinion seeks to answer your query as to whether or not you can file a case
against April, the paramour of your husband, for violation of R.A. No. 9262 otherwise known as
the Anti-Violence Against Women and Children Act of 2004 after discovering that she instructed
Nate to deprive of you financial support and to cause you psychological harm.
The Facts
You caught April with your husband, Nate, inside a lavish hotel by themselves appearing
to be making love with each other.
You also discovered, upon opening your joint viber account with Nate, messages
between April and Nate wherein April instructed Nate to deprive you of financial support and to
cause you psychological harm in order for you to part ways with Nate.
No, you cannot file a case against April for violation of the Anti-Violence Against Women
and Their Children Act of 2004, because it criminalizes acts of violence against women and their
children perpetrated by women's intimate partners, i.e., husband, former husband, or any
person who has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom the woman has a common
child, or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the family abode.1
Notably, it is required that the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship with the
offended woman, for RA 9262 to be applicable.
However, you can still invoke R.A. No. 9262 or Anti-Violence Against Women and Their
Children Act of 2004 against your husband, Nate.
The applicable law is Sec. 3 (a) in relation to Paragraph C of R.A. No. C 9262 which
provides that:
(a) "Violence against women and their children" refers to any act or a series of
acts committed by any person against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or
against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating
1
Sec. 3, R.A. No. 9262
relationship, or with whom he has a common child, or against her child whether
legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the family abode, which result in or is
likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or economic
abuse including threats of such acts, battery, assault, coercion, harassment or
arbitrary deprivation of liberty. It includes, but is not limited to, the following acts:
Based on the foregoing, it applies to cases where the intimate partner’s act or acts are
causing or likely to cause mental or emotional suffering of the victim through marital infidelity.
Your case, on the other hand, is one where your husband, Nate, has an alleged illicit
affair with April whom you found inside a lavish hotel by themselves appearing to be making
love with each other. April’s instructing Nate to deprive you of financial support and to cause you
psychological harm in order for you to part ways with Nate is causing or likely to cause you
mental or emotional suffering, constituting psychological violence through marital infidelity.
The Legislative Intent Behind Sec. 3 (a), Paragraph C of R.A. No. C 9262
What R.A. No. 9262 criminalizes is not the marital infidelity per se but the psychological
violence causing mental or 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 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.2
Recommendation
2
AAA v. BBB, G.R. No. 212448, [January 11, 2018]
To invoke Sec. 3 (a), Paragraph C of R.A. No. 9262, it is required that you should submit
competent evidence concerning the alleged illicit relationship between Nate and April. This is
based on the well settled rule that one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and that
mere allegation is not evidence.3
Furthermore, in the case of AAA v. BBB, G.R. No. 212448, (January 11, 2018), it was
held that the requisites to establish psychological violence as an element of the crime are:
1. proof of commission of any of the acts enumerated in Section 3(C) or similar such acts;
2. the testimony of the victim as such experiences are personal to this party;
Certainly, the act causing psychological violence which relates to Nate’s marital infidelity
must be proven by probable cause for the purpose of formally charging him, and to establish the
same beyond reasonable doubt for purposes of conviction.
However, for the purpose of filing a case against April, the paramour of your husband,
the applicable law is Paragraph 2, Article 26 of the Civil Code. It provides that:
Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his
neighbors and other persons. The following and similar acts, though they may not
constitute a criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for damages, prevention
and other relief:
(2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another;
The aforementioned provision directly governs your situation. It applies to cases where
the injured party seeks compensation for a third party’s malicious act of estranging a person
from his/her lawfully wedded spouse or family. This cause of action is commonly called
"alienation of affection."4
Your case is one where your husband’s paramour, April, committed acts which result in
or likely to result in psychological harm or suffering and economic abuse and indeed, she
instructed Nate to deprive you of financial support and to cause you psychological harm for you
to part ways with Nate.
3
Cortes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121772, [January 13, 2003]
4
Commentary, Atty. Reeza Singzon
The Supreme Court explained the rationale of the said provision in the case of Manaloto
vs. Veloso III (G.R. No. 171365, October 6, 2010):
The philosophy behind Art. 26 underscores the necessity for its inclusion in our civil law.
The Code Commission stressed in no uncertain terms that the human personality must
be exalted. The sacredness of human personality is a concomitant consideration of
every plan for human amelioration. The touchstone of every system of law, of the culture
and civilization of every country, is how far it dignifies man. If the statutes insufficiently
protect a person from being unjustly humiliated, in short, if human personality is not
exalted - then the laws are indeed defective. Thus, under this article, the rights of
persons are amply protected, and damages are provided for violations of a person's
dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind.5
The intent of the Code Commission is quite clear: Article 26 specifically applies to
intentional acts which fall short of being criminal offenses. Article 26 itself expressly
refers to tortious conduct which "may not constitute criminal offenses." The purpose is
precisely to fill a gap or lacuna in the law where a person who suffers injury because of a
wrongful act not constituting a crime is left without any redress. Under Article 26, the
person responsible for such act becomes liable for "damages, prevention and other
relief." In short, to preserve peace and harmony in the family and in the community,
Article 26 seeks to eliminate cases of damnum absque injuria in human relations.6
Thus, taking into consideration the legislative intent and applying the rule of reason,
Paragraph 2, Article 26 of the Civil Code would apply to your case because it should be
interpreted to include cases involving third parties to the marriage who, with their acts of
indiscretion and disruptive conduct, result in or likely to result in psychological harm or suffering
and economic abuse of the innocent spouse.
Hence, by inducing your husband, Nate to deprive you of financial support and cause
you psychological harm, April is evidently meddling with your family relations and estranging
you from your lawfully wedded spouse. April’s malicious acts are likely to result in psychological
harm or suffering and economic abuse in your part.
We are confident that said interpretation would prevail in court because to rule otherwise
would be to sanction absurdity and injustice. To preserve peace and harmony in the family and
5
Manaloto vs. Veloso III, G.R. No. 171365, [October 6, 2010]
6
MVRS Publications v. Islamic Da'wah Council of the Philippines, G.R. No. 135306, [January 28, 2003], 444 PHIL 230-308
in the community, Article 26 seeks to eliminate cases of damnum absque injuria in human
relations.7
Recommendation
7
Ibid.