G.R. No. 232190 - XXX,*, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND AAA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, for failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the accused, XXX, is hereby ACQUITTED. SO ORDERED . [21] (Emphasis in the original) It noted that both prosecution witnesses, AAA and Dr. Lambuson, admitted that the criminal complaint was belatedly filed four years after the incident. This, together with AAA's admissions that XXX consistently communicated with her and their son and provided support after their separation, and the fact that Dr. Lambuson was engaged only five years after the incident and the filing of the criminal case incites reasonable doubt on XXX's guilt. [22] The trial court explained that the separation de facto of the parties is part of human experience and a natural consequence of their irreconcilable differences. In all, it found that the evidence of the prosecution failed to prove to a moral certainty the elements of psychological violence. [23] Consequently, the People, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with the Court of Appeals, ascribing grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction against the Regional Trial Court for acquitting XXX. The OSG emphasized that marital infidelity is considered psychological violence under Republic Act No. 9262. [24] Ruling of the Court of Appeals By Decision [25] dated March 30, 2017, the Court of Appeals reversed: WHEREFORE, the trial court's Decision dated September 30, 2016 in Criminal Case No. 13-028 is nullified and set aside. Private respondent XXX is hereby held guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5(i), R.A. No. 9262 and sentenced to suffer imprisonment of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correccional maximum, as the minimum period, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor medium, as the maximum period. He is also ordered to pay a fine of three hundred thousand pesos ([PHP] 300,000.00) and to undergo psychological counseling and report his compliance therewith to the trial court. SO ORDERED . [26] (Emphasis in the original) The Court of Appeals found that the evidence of the prosecution proved the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt. First , the records are replete of evidence showing that XXX had another woman, PPP. They would flaunt their illicit relationship by posting their pictures and those of their children on Twitter. Meanwhile, the certificates of live birth of MMM and NNN proved that XXX is their father. All these pieces of evidence are indicative of XXX's sheer insensitivity and total disregard of the feelings, dignity, and self-worth of AAA. Second , per the psychological evaluation of Dr. Lambuson, AAA suffered from depression and "her life shattered right before her eyes when her husband left her." [27] The Court of Appeals noted that the trial court disregarded the express provisions of Republic Act No. 9262 when it ruled that XXX's