AAA v. BBB (2018): Affair Abroad and RA 9262

AAA and BBB married in Quezon City in 2006 and had two children. In 2007, BBB started working in Singapore as a chef, and he later became a permanent resident there. In 2010, AAA and the children moved to her parents' house in Pasig City.

AAA said BBB gave little support and was having an affair with a woman in Singapore, with whom he was said to be living. She also described other abuse, but the prosecutor charged BBB only with causing her mental and emotional anguish through his affair, under Section 5(i) of RA 9262. The criminal case was filed in the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City.

A warrant of arrest was issued, but BBB avoided it and the case was archived. Later, his lawyer asked the court to quash the charge. The trial court agreed and dismissed the case. It said that the affair happened in Singapore, outside its territory, so it had no jurisdiction, even though it still believed there was probable cause. AAA brought the question of law directly to the Supreme Court.

May Philippine courts hear a case of psychological violence under RA 9262, committed through marital infidelity, when the affair took place or is taking place outside the Philippines?

The Supreme Court granted AAA's petition. It set aside the trial court's orders and reinstated the criminal charge.

• The crime is the violence, not the affair. The Court said RA 9262 does not punish the affair as such. It punishes psychological violence that causes the wife mental or emotional suffering. An affair is just one way that violence can be committed. The anguish is a separate and essential element, and it is proven mainly through the testimony of the victim.
• A continuing crime. In criminal cases, a court has jurisdiction if the offense, or any of its essential elements, happened within its territory. Section 7 of RA 9262 lets the complainant file the case in the Regional Trial Court where the crime or any of its elements was committed. The Court read this to mean that VAWC may be a transitory or continuing crime, with some elements in one place and some in another.
• Where the wife lives and suffers. When the abusive act is done outside the Philippines, the Court said the victim must be a resident of the place where the complaint is filed, because her anguish is a material element of the offense. AAA and the children had lived in Pasig since 2010, so the Pasig court could hear the case.
• What the ruling does not decide. The Court did not say BBB was guilty. The affair must still be shown by probable cause to charge him, and proven beyond reasonable doubt to convict him. The court must also still acquire jurisdiction over the husband himself.

The Court's conclusion was that an affair abroad that causes the wife anguish does not place the case absolutely "beyond the reach of Philippine courts".

Psychological violence under Section 5(i) of RA 9262 may be a continuing offense: when the act causing it is done abroad, the case may be filed in the Philippine court of the place where the offended woman resides and suffers the mental or emotional anguish, which is an essential element of the crime.

The Court noted that many Filipino families have a parent working overseas. In this case, the trial court had dismissed the charge because the affair happened in Singapore. The Supreme Court disagreed: for psychological violence, the wife's suffering where she lives in the Philippines counts.

Illustration (invented names): Liza lives in Cavite with her two children. Her husband, Dennis, works in Dubai and openly lives there with another partner, which causes Liza serious emotional suffering. Following AAA v. BBB, a complaint for psychological violence may be filed in Cavite, where Liza lives and suffers the anguish. Whether Dennis is convicted still depends on the evidence, and the case can move forward only once the court has jurisdiction over him.

The ruling does not make every affair a crime. The prosecution must still prove the psychological violence and the anguish it caused. For the support side of VAWC cases, see Acharon v. People. For the law's validity, see Garcia v. Drilon. For protection orders, see BPO vs TPO vs PPO.

For the steps to file, see how to file a VAWC case. For help with a real situation, see free legal help.