Supreme Court Considers Marital Infidelity as a Form of Violence Against Women
In a recent case, the Supreme Court upheld a decision against a man who co-inhabited with another woman. He got her pregnant while still married to his wife.
Men will have to be careful when it comes to committing marital infidelity, most especially if they have a child. The Philippine Supreme Court recently upheld a conviction for a violation of Republic Act No. 9262. This is also known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004 (Anti-VAWC Act).
In the decision dated March 1 by Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando of the Court’s First Division, it denied the petition for review on certiorari of a man identified only as XXX and affirmed the decision dated last January 31, 2019, and an October 18, 2019 resolution by the Court of Appeals.
Marital Infidelity is considered Violence Against Women
The CA ruling previously affirmed a decision against XXX by a Regional Trial Court (RTC) for violating the Anti-VAWC law. In this case, XXX committed a violation, where he committed a crime against his wife by “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.”
The case also emphasized that marital infidelity is considered as a form of psychological violence against women. And the CA and Supreme Court agreed. For it to be considered a form of violence, the following elements should be present:
- The offended party is a woman and/or her child or children;
- The woman is either the wife or former wife of the offender;
- The offender causes on the woman and/or child mental or emotional anguish; and
- 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 to such acts or omissions.
Why the SC upheld the CA ruling
The SC decided to uphold the decision of the CA ruling. They noted that there were several cases of abuse that XXX committed against his wife after he decided to get into a relationship with another woman and impregnate her while still married. The aggrieved party, AAA, sought to get her daughter from her mother-in-law through the help of the Department of Social and Welfare Development (DSWD).
The case also pointed out that contrary to what XXX said that it was his wife who abandoned their child, it was he who deprived his child of financial support and abandoned the mother when he decided to be with the other woman.
The SC pointed out that of the violations he committed, “the most visible form of which is physical violence. The others are sexual violence, psychological violence, and economic abuse.”
Moreover, the SC said that the child, identified as BBB, was traumatized when she testified at 9 years old on the case.
