Today is Wednesday, April 05, 2023 

Constitution
Statutes
Executive Issuances
Judicial Issuances
Other Issuances
Jurisprudence
International Legal Resources
AUSL Exclusive

FIRST DIVISION

January 11, 2018

G.R. No. 212448

AAA, Petitioner 
vs.
BBB, Respondent

DECISION

TIJAM, J.:

May Philippine courts exercise jurisdiction over an

offense constituting psychological violence under
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9262,  otherwise known as the
1

Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of

2004, committed through marital infidelity, when the
alleged illicit relationship occurred or is occurring
outside the country?

The above question is addressed to this Court in the

present Petition  for the issuance of a writ
2

of certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, to

nullify the Resolutions dated February 24, 2014  and
3
May 2, 2014  of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
4

Pasig City, Branch 158, in Criminal Case No. 146468.

The assailed resolutions granted the motion to quash
the Information  which charged respondent BBB under
5

Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262, committed as follows:

On or about April 19, 2011, in Pasig City, and within

the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, [BBB], being
then legally married to [AAA], caused herein [AAA]
mental and emotional anguish by having an illicit
relationship with a certain Lisel Mok as confirmed by
his photograph with his purported paramour Lisel Mok
and her children and the e-mailed letter by his mother
mentioning about the said relationship, to the damage
and prejudice of [AAA], in violation of the aforecited
law.

Contrary to law.

We briefly recount the antecedents.

Petitioner AAA and BBB were married on August 1,

2006 in Quezon City. Their union produced two
children: CCC was born on March 4, 2007 and DDD on
October 1, 2009. 6

In May of 2007, BBB started working in Singapore as a

chef, where he acquired permanent resident status in
September of 2008. This petition nonetheless indicates
his address to be in Quezon City where his parents
reside and where AAA also resided from the time they
were married until March of 2010, when AAA and their
children moved back to her parents' house in Pasig
City.
7

AAA claimed, albeit not reflected in the Information,

that BBB sent little to no financial support, and only
sporadically. This allegedly compelled her to fly extra
hours and take on additional jobs to augment her
income as a flight attendant. There were also
allegations of virtual abandonment, mistreatment of her
and their son CCC, and physical and sexual violence.
To make matters worse, BBB supposedly started
having an affair with a Singaporean woman named
Lisel Mok with whom he allegedly has been living in
Singapore. Things came to a head on April 19, 2011
when AAA and BBB had a violent altercation at a hotel
room in Singapore during her visit with their kids.  As
8

can be gathered from the earlier cited Information,

despite the claims of varied forms of abuses, the
investigating prosecutor found sufficient basis to
charge BBB with causing AAA mental and emotional
anguish through his alleged marital infidelity. 9

The Information having been filed, a warrant of arrest

was issued against BBB. AAA was also able to secure
a Hold-Departure Order against BBB who continued to
evade the warrant of arrest. Consequently, the case
was archived. 10

On November 6, 2013, an Entry of Appearance as

Counsel for the Accused With Omnibus Motion to
Revive Case, Quash Information, Lift Hold Departure
Order and Warrant of Arrest  was filed on behalf of
11

BBB. Granting the motion to quash on the ground of

lack of jurisdiction and thereby dismissing the case, the
trial court reasoned:

Here, while the Court maintains its 28 October 2011

ruling that probable cause exists in this case and that
[BBB] is probably guilty of the crime charged,
considering, however, his subsequent clear showing
that the acts complained of him had occurred in
Singapore, dismissal of this case is proper since the
Court enjoys no jurisdiction over the offense charged, it
having transpired outside the territorial jurisdiction of
this Court.

xxxx

The Court is not convinced by .the prosecution's

argument that since [AAA] has been suffering from
mental and emotional anguish "wherever she goes'',
jurisdiction over the offense attaches to this Court
notwithstanding that the acts resulting in said suffering
had happened outside of the Philippines. To the mind
of the Court, with it noting that there is still as yet no
jurisprudence on this score considering that Republic
Act 9262 is relatively a new law, the act itself which
had caused a woman to suffer mental or emotional
anguish must have occurred within the territorial limits
of the Court for it to enjoy jurisdiction over the offense.
This amply explains the use of the emphatic word
"causing" in the provisions of Section 5(i),
above, which denotes the bringing about or into
existence of something. Hence, the mental or
emotional anguish suffered by a woman must have
been brought about or into existence by a criminal act
which must logically have occurred within the territorial
limits of the Court for jurisdiction over the offense to
attach to it. To rule otherwise would violate or render
nugatory one of the basic characteristics of our
criminal laws - territoriality.

In the listing provided in the law itself - "repeated

verbal and emotional abuse, and denial of financial
support or custody of minor children of (sic) access to
the woman's child/children" - it becomes clear that
there must be an act which causes the "mental or
emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation", and it
is such act which partakes of a criminal nature. Here,
such act was the alleged maintenance of "an illicit
relationship with a certain Liesel Mok" - which has
been conceded to have been committed in Singapore.

Granting, without conceding, that the law presents

ambiguities as written, quashal of the Information must
still be ordered following the underlying fundamental
principle that all doubts must be resolved in favor of
[BBB]. At best, the Court draws the attention of
Congress to the arguments on jurisdiction spawned by
the law.  (Emphasis in the original)
12

Aggrieved by the denial of the prosecution's motion for

reconsideration of the dismissal of the case, AAA
sought direct recourse to this Court via the instant
petition on a pure question of law. AAA posits that R.A.
No. 9262 is in danger of becoming transmogrified into
a weak, wobbly, and worthless law because with the
court a quo's ruling, it is as if husbands of Filipino
women have been given license to enter into extra-
marital affairs without fear of any consequence, as
long as they are carried out abroad. In the main, AAA
argues that mental and emotional anguish is an
essential element of the offense charged against BBB,
which is experienced by her wherever she goes, and
not only in Singapore where the extra-marital affair
takes place; thus, the RTC of Pasig City where she
resides can take cognizance of the case.

In support of her theory, AAA draws attention to

Section 7 of R.A. No. 9262, which provides:

Sec. 7. Venue - The Regional Trial Court designated

as a Family Court shall have original and exclusive
jurisdiction over cases of violence against women and
their children under this law. In the absence of such
court in the place where the offense was committed,
the case shall be filed in the Regional Trial Court
where the crime or any of its elements was committed
at the option of the complainant. (Emphasis ours)

As to the ambiguity in the law hypothetically referred to

in the assailed order, AAA directs us to:

Section 4. Construction.- This Act shall be liberally

construed to promote the protection and safety of
victims of violence against women and their children.

In his Comment  filed on January 20, 2015, BBB

13

contends that the grant of the motion to quash is in

effect an acquittal; that only the civil aspect of a
criminal case may be appealed by the private offended
party; and. that this petition should be dismissed
outright for having been brought before this Court by
AAA instead of the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG) as counsel for the People in appellate
proceedings. BBB furthermore avers that the petition
was belatedly filed.

We tackle first the threshold issue of whether or not

this Court should entertain the petition.

It must be stated beforehand that BBB is plainly

mistaken in asserting that the instant petition was
belatedly filed. The date erroneously perceived by BBB
as the date of AAA's Motion for Extension  was filed -
14

June 2, 2014 - refers to the date of receipt by the

Division Clerk of Court and not the date when the said
motion was lodged before this Comi. The motion was
in fact filed on May 27, 2014, well within the period that
AAA had under the Rules of Court to file the intended
petition. Thus, considering the timeliness of the motion,
this Comi in a Resolution  dated June 9, 2014, granted
15

AAA an additional period of thirty (30) days or until

June 26, 2014 to file a petition for review.

In AAA's motion for extension of time, it was

mentioned that she was awaiting the OSG's response
to her Letter dated May 26, 2014 requesting for
16

representation. Since, the OSG was unresponsive to

her plea for assistance in filing the intended petition,
AAA filed the present petition in her own name before
the lapse of the extension given her by this Court or on
June 25, 2014.

We find that under the circumstances, the ends of

substantial justice will be better served by entertaining
the petition if only to resolve the question of law lodged
before this Court. In Morillo v. People of the
Philippines, et al.,   where the Court entertained a Rule
17

45 petition which raised only a question of law filed by

the private offended party in the absence of the OSG's
participation, we recalled the instances when the Court
permitted an offended party to file an appeal without
the intervention of the OSG. One such instance is
when the interest of substantial justice so requires. 18

Morillo,   also differentiated between dismissal and

19

acquittal, thus:

Acquittal is always based on the merits, that is, the

defendant is acquitted because the evidence does not
show that defendant's guilt is beyond a reasonable
doubt; but dismissal does not decide the case on the
merits or that the defendant is not guilty. Dismissal
terminates the proceeding, either because the court is
not a court of competent jurisdiction, or the evidence
does not show that the offense was committed within
the territorial jurisdiction of the court, or the complaint
or information is not valid or sufficient in form and
substance, etc. The only case in which the word
dismissal is commonly but not correctly used, instead
of the proper term acquittal, is when, after the
prosecution has presented all its evidence, the
defendant moves for the dismissal and the court
dismisses the case on the ground that the evidence
fails to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the
defendant is guilty; for in such case the dismissal is in
reality an acquittal because the case is decided on the
merits. If the prosecution fails to prove that the offense
was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the
court and the case is dismissed, the dismissal is not an
acquittal, inasmuch as if it were so the defendant could
not be again prosecuted before the court of competent
jurisdiction; and it is elemental that in such case, the
defendant may again be prosecuted for the same
offense before a court of competent
jurisdiction. (Citation omitted and emphasis in the
20

original)

The grant of BBB's motion to quash may not therefore

be viewed as an acquittal, which in limited instances
may only be repudiated by a petition
for certiorari under Rule 65 upon showing grave abuse
of discretion lest the accused would be twice placed in
jeopardy. 21

Indubitably, "the Rules do not prohibit any of the

parties from filing a Rule 45 Petition with this Court, in
case only questions of law are raised or
involved."  "There is a question of law when the issue
22

does not call for an examination of the probative value

of the evidence presented or of the truth or falsehood
of the facts being admitted, and the doubt concerns the
c01Tect application of law and jurisprudence on the
matter." 23

Further, the question of whether or not the RTC has

jurisdiction in view of the peculiar provisions of R.A.
No. 9262 is a question of law. Thus, in Morillo,  the
24

Court reiterated that:

[T]he jurisdiction of the court is determined by the

averments of the complaint or Information, in relation
to the law prevailing at the time of the filing of the
complaint or Information, and the penalty provided by
law for the crime charged at the time of its commission.
Thus, when a case involves a proper interpretation of
the rules and jurisprudence with respect to the
jurisdiction of courts to entertain complaints filed
therewith, it deals with a question of law that can be
properly brought to this Court under Rule
45.  (Citations omitted)
25

We are not called upon in this case to determine the

truth or falsity of the charge against BBB, much less
weigh the evidence, especially as the case had not
even proceeded to a full-blown trial on the merits. The
issue for resolution concerns the correct application of
law and jurisprudence on a given set of
circumstances, i.e., whether or not Philippine courts
are deprived of territorial jurisdiction over a criminal
charge of psychological abuse under R.A. No. 9262
when committed through marital infidelity and the
alleged illicit relationship took place outside the
Philippines.

The novelty of the issue was even recognized by the

RTC when it opined that there is still as yet no
jurisprudence on this score, prompting it to quash the
Information even as it maintained its earlier October
28, 2011 ruling that probable cause exists in the
case.  Calling the attention of Congress to the
26

arguments on jurisdiction spawned by the law,  the

27

RTC furnished copies of the assailed order to the

House of Representatives and the Philippine Senate
through the Committee on Youth, Women and Public
Relations, as well as the Committee on Justice and
Human Rights. 28

The issue acquires special significance when viewed

against the present economic reality that a great
number of Filipino families have at least one parent
working overseas. In. April to September 2016, the
number of overseas Filipino workers who worked
abroad was estimated at 2.2 million, 97.5 percent of
which were comprised of overseas contract workers or
those with existing work contract while 2.5 percent
worked overseas without contract.  It is thus necessary
29

to clarify how R.A. No. 9262 should be applied in a

question of territorial jurisdiction over a case of
psychological abuse brought against the husband
when such is allegedly caused by marital infidelity
carried on abroad.

Ruling of the Court

There is merit in the petition.

"Physical violence is only the most visible form of

abuse. Psychological abuse, particularly forced social
and economic isolation of women, is also
common."  In this regard, Section 3 of R.A. No. 9262
30

made it a point to encompass in a non-limiting manner

the various forms of violence that may be committed
against women and their children:

Sec. 3. Definition of Terms. - As used in this Act,

(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 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:

A. "Physical Violence" refers to acts that include bodily

or physical harm;

B. "Sexual violence" refers to an act which is sexual in

nature, committed against a woman or her child. It
includes, but is not limited to:

xxxx

C. "Psychological violence" refers to acts or omissions

causing or likely to cause mental or emotional suffering
of the victim such as but not limited to intimidation,
harassment, stalking, damage to property, public
ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal abuse and
marital infidelity. It includes causing or allowing the
victim to witness the physical, sexual or psychological
abuse of a member of the family to which the victim
belongs, or to witness pornography in any form or to
witness abusive injury to pets or to unlawful
or .unwanted deprivation of the right to custody and/or
visitation of common children.

D. "Economic abuse" refers to acts that make or

attempt to make a woman financially dependent which
includes, but is not limited to the following:

xxxx

As jurisdiction of a court over the criminal case is

determined by the allegations in the complaint or
information, threshing out the essential elements of
psychological abuse under R.A. No. 9262 is crucial.
In Dinamling v. People,  this Court already had
31

occasion to enumerate the elements of psychological

violence under Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262, as
follows:

Section 5. Acts of Violence Against Women and Their

Children. - The crime of violence against women and
their children is committed through any of the following
acts:

xxxx

(i) 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 or access to the woman's child/children.

From the aforequoted Section 5(i), in relation to other

sections of R[.]A[.] No. 9262, the elements of the crime
are derived as follows:

(1) The offended paiiy is a

woma.J.1 and/or her child or
children;

(2) The woman is either the

wife or former wife of the
offender, or is a woman with
whom the offender has or had a
sexual or dating relationship, or
is a woman with whom such
offender has a common child.
 As for the woman's child or
children, they may be legitimate
or illegitimate, or living within or
without the family abode;

(3) The offender causes on the

woman and/or child mental or
emotional anguish; and

(4) The anguish is caused

through acts of public ridicule or
humiliation, repeated verbal
and emotional abuse, denial of
financial support or custody of
minor children or access to the
children or similar· such acts or
omissions.

xxxx

It bears emphasis that Section 5(i) penalizes some

forms of psychological violence that are inflicted on
victims who are women and children. Other forms of
psychological violence, as well as physical, sexual and
economic violence, are addressed and penalized in
other subparts of Section 5.

xxxx

Psychological violence is an. element of violation of

Section 5(i) just like the mental or emotional anguish
caused on the victim. Psychological violence is the
means employed by the perpetrator, while mental or
emotional anguish is the effect caused to or the
damage sustained by the offended party. To establish
psychological violence as an element of the crime, it is
necessary to show proof of commission of any of the
acts enumerated in Section 5(i) or similar such acts.
And to establish mental or emotional anguish, it is
necessary to present the testimony of the victim as
such experiences are personal to this party. x x
x.  (Citations omitted and emphasis ours)
32

Contrary to the interpretation of the RTC, 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.

In criminal cases, venue is jurisdictional. Thus,

in Trenas v. People,  the Court explained that:
33

The place where the crime was committed determines

not only the venue of the action but is an essential
element of jurisdiction.  It is a fundamental rule that for
1âwphi1

jurisdiction to be acquired by courts in criminal cases,

the offense should have been committed or any one of
its essential ingredients should have taken place within
the territorial jurisdiction of the court. Territorial
jurisdiction in criminal cases is the territory where the
court has jurisdiction to take cognizance or to try the
offense allegedly committed therein by the accused.
Thus, it cannot take jurisdiction over a person charged
with an offense allegedly committed outside of that
limited territory. Furthermore, the jurisdiction of a court
over the criminal case is determined by the allegations
in the complaint or information. And once it is so
shown, the court may validly take cognizance of the
case. However, if the evidence adduced during the trial
shows that the offense was committed somewhere
else, the court should dismiss the action for want of
jurisdiction.  (Emphasis in the original)
34

In Section 7 of R.A. No. 9262, venue undoubtedly

pertains to jurisdiction. As correctly pointed out by
AAA, Section 7 provides that the case may be filed
where the crime or any of its elements was committed
at the option of the complainant. Which the
psychological violence as the means employed by the
perpetrator is certainly an indispensable element of the
offense, equally essential also is the element of mental
or emotional anguish which is personal to the
complainant. The resulting mental or emotional
anguish is analogous to the indispensable element of
damage in a prosecution for estafa, viz:

The circumstance that the deceitful manipulations or

false pretenses employed by the accused, as shown in
the vouchers, might have been perpetrated in Quezon
City does not preclude the institution of the criminal
action in Mandaluyong where the damage was
consummated. Deceit and damage are the basic
elements of estafa. The estafa involved in this case
appears to be a transitory or continuing offense. It
could be filed either in Quezon City or in Rizal. The
theory is that a person charged with a transitory
offense may be tried in any jurisdiction where the
offense is in part committed. In transitory or continuing
offenses in which some acts material and essential to
the crime and requisite to its consummation occur in
one province and some in another, the court of either
province has jurisdiction to try the case, it being
understood that the first court taking cognizance of the
case will exclude the others x x x[.]35

What may be gleaned from Section 7 of R.A. No. 9262

is that the law contemplates that acts of violence
against women and their children may manifest as
transitory or continuing crimes; meaning that some
acts material and essential thereto and requisite in
their consummation occur in one municipality or
territory, while some occur in another. In such cases,
the court wherein any of the crime's essential and
material acts have been committed maintains
jurisdiction to try the case; it being understood that the
first court taking cognizance of the same excludes the
other. Thus, a person charged with a continuing or
transitory crime may be validly tried in any municipality
or territory where the offense was in part committed. 36

It is necessary, for Philippine courts to have jurisdiction

when the abusive conduct or act of violence under
Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262 in relation to Section 3(a),
Paragraph (C) was committed outside Philippine
territory, that the victim be a resident of the place
where the complaint is filed in view of the anguish
suffered being a material element of the offense. In the
present scenario, the offended wife and children of
respondent husband are residents of Pasig City since
March of 2010. Hence, the RTC of Pasig City may
exercise jurisdiction over the case.

Certainly, the act causing psychological violence which

under the information relates to BBB's marital infidelity
must be proven by probable cause for the purpose of
formally charging the husband, and to establish the
same beyond reasonable doubt for purposes of
conviction. It likewise remains imperative to acquire
jurisdiction over the husband. What this case concerns
itself is simply whether or not a complaint for
psychological abuse under R.A. No. 9262 may even be
filed within the Philippines if the illicit relationship is
conducted abroad. We say that even if the alleged
extra-marital affair causing the offended wife mental
and emotional anguish is committed abroad, the same
does not place a prosecution under R.A. No. 9262
absolutely beyond the reach of Philippine courts.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition

is GRANTED. The Resolutions dated February 24,
2014 and May 2, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court of
Pasig City, Branch 158, in Criminal Case No. 146468
are SET [Link], the Information filed in
Criminal Case No. 146468 is ordered REINSTATED.

SO ORDERED.

NOEL GIMENEZ TIJAM

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

Associate Justice
Chairperson

TERESITA J.
MARIANO C. DEL
LEONARDO-DE
CASTILLO
CASTRO
Associate Justice
Associate Justice

FRANCIS H. JARDELEZA
Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to the Section 13, Article VIII of the

Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

Chief Justice

Footnotes

 Section 44 of Republic Act No. 9262

*

(Anti-Violence Against Women and

Their Children Act of 2004) requires the
confidentiality of all records pertaining
to cases of violence against women
and their children. Per said section, all
public officers and employees are
prohibited from publishing or causing to
be published in any format the name
and other identifying information of a
victim or an immediate family member.
The penalty of one (I) year
imprisonment and a fine of not more
than Five Hundred Thousand pesos
(₱500,000.00) shall be imposed upon
those who violate the provision.
Pursuant thereto, in the courts'
promulgation of decisions, final
resolutions and/or final orders, the
names of women and children victims
shall be replaced by fictitious initials,
and their personal circumstances or
any information, which tend to identify
them, shall likewise not be disclosed.

 AN ACT DEFINING VIOLENCE

1

AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR

CHILDREN, PROVIDING FOR
PROTECTIVE MEASURES FOR
VICTIMS, PRESCRIBING PENAL TIES
THEREFORE, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES. Approved on March 8,
2004.

2
 Rollo, pp. 19-45.

 Rendered by Presiding Judge Maria

3

Rowena Modesto-San Pedro; id. at 49-

52.

4
 Id. at 53.

5
 Id. at 4 and 26.

6
 Id. at 57.

7
 Id. at 57-58.

8
 Id. at 58-59.

9
 Id. at 26.

10
 Id. at 27.
  Id. at 49.
11

 Id. at 50-51.
12

 Id. at 154-160.
13

 Id. at 3-6.
14

 Id. at 17-A.
15

 Id. at 15-17.
16

 775 Phil. 192 (2015).

17

 ld. at 215-216.
18

 Morillo v. People, et al., supra.

19

 Id. at 212, citing People v. Salico, 84

20

Phi I. 722, 732-733 (1949).

 Id. at 211.
21

 Del Socorro v. Van Wilsem, 749 Phil.

22

823, 832 (2014), citing Rep. of the

Phils., et al. v. Sunvar Realty
Development Corp., 688 Phil. 616,
630(2012).

 Id. at 832.
23

 Morillo v. People, et al., supra.

24

Id. at 214.
25

 761 Phil. 356 (2015).

31

 Id. at 372-376.
32

 680 Phil. 368 (2012).

33

 id. at 380, citing Isip v. People,

34

552 Phil. 786, 801-802 (2007).

 Tuzon v. Judge Cruz, 160 Phil. 925,

35

929 (1975).

 Morillo v. People, supra note 17, at

36
 206.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation