Psychological illness is not an element for emotional abuse

Dear PAO,

My relationship with my husband turned topsy-turvy when I found out about his extramarital affairs with different women. The first time I caught him was just two months after our marriage. He ended his affair with that woman, but after several months, he was again involved with another one. This cycle kept on repeating, and I think that I am already emotionally abused and depressed. I cannot sleep and have no appetite to eat. I complained against him before our barangay. During our meeting, he denied that his affairs were the cause of my emotional anguish, and he also claimed that I should have been psychologically ill in order for him to be liable for emotional abuse. Is he correct?

Terine

Dear Terine,

Psychological violence is one of the abuses punishable under Republic Act 9262 or the “Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004.” The same has been defined under Section 3 (c) of the law as follows:

“‘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 mental 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.

“Relative thereto, Section 5 (i) of the same law specifically provides that:

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

“xxx

“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.”

The afore-stated punishable act has elements, and these were enumerated in the case of People vs. Dinamling (GR 199522, June 22, 2015) penned by Chief Justice Diosdado Peralta, to wit:

“(1) The offended party is a woman 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.” (Underscoring provided)

From the foregoing, it can be deduced that the victim need not be psychologically ill in order for the culprit to be liable for emotional abuse. In fact, in the case of Araza vs. People of the Philippines (GR 247429, Sept. 8, 2020), the Supreme Court, speaking through Chief Justice Diosdado M. Peralta, stated that:

“Psychological violence is an indispensable element of violation of Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262. Equally essential is the element of emotional anguish and mental suffering, which are personal to the complainant. Psychological violence is the means employed by the perpetrator, while emotional anguish or mental suffering are the effects caused to or the damage sustained by the offended party. The law does not require proof that the victim became psychologically ill due to the psychological violence done by her abuser. Rather, the law only requires emotional anguish and mental suffering to be proven. To establish emotional anguish or mental suffering, jurisprudence only requires that the testimony of the victim to be presented in court, as such experiences are personal to this party.” (Underscoring provided)

Applying the afore-cited decision in your situation, psychological violence is the means employed by the abuser, while emotional anguish is the effect. The emotional anguish of the victim is the one required to be proven; thus, the claim of your husband that you need to prove that you are psychologically ill is incorrect.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. Please be reminded that this advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our application of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated on.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]