What R.A. 9262 penalizes is not the marital infidelity itself, but the psychological violence causing mental or emotional suffering to the wife. – “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 mat be committed. Moreover, depending on the circumstances of the spouses and for a myriad of reasons, the illicit relationships 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 element in the commission of the crime.”[1]
RA 9262 is not an unbridled licenses for the State to intrude into personal affairs. – “Therefore, at the core of this legislation is the affirmation of the women’s inherent dignity which is unjustly diminished in a patriarchal society. Republic Act No. 9262 empowers the woman, through her own agency , to assert her dignity against acts of oppression.
The law should not be treated as an unbridled license for the State to intrude into personal affairs. This is especially true because Republic Act No. 9262 necessarily touches upon matters that are characteristically private. The state, therefore, should be cautious in its actions so as not to make unwarranted intrusions into issues that belong in the intimate sphere of personal relations.”[2]
Affidavit of Recantation executed by private complainant. – “XX. In offenses covered by Republic Act No. 9262, especially as the law closely touches on private matters to protect the women’s dignity and authonomy, her word should be given great importance. The Affidavit of Recantation creates reasonable doubt as to whether petitioner’s conviction should be upheld, as it directly affects an essential element of the offense, particularly the second element. Indeed, to affirm petitioner’s conviction will highlight the irony where the private offended party herself had declared that she did not suffer emotional and mental suffering, but the State insists that she did.
The situation reveals exactly the reason why the State should refrain from needlessly intruding into intimate relations. Human relationships are complex; they cannot be judged as black and white. A simplistic approach will inevitably fail to capture al the intricacies and obscurities of these relationships, the moments of joy and suffering shared between partners, as well as each person’s capacity for self-reflection, healing, and even openness to reconciliation.”[3]
Not all scenarios involving extramarital relationships rise to the level of criminality punishable under Sec. 5(i) of RA 9262. – “As the name suggests, marital infidelity presupposes that there is a bond or commitment to which one owes fidelity, but the Court takes notice of non-traditional family setups and more modern relationship arrangements in which extramarital entanglements are not equivalent to unfaithfulness. For example, it may be argued, such as in cases of estranged relations and consciously consenting spouses, that not all instances of extramarital relationships inflict mental or emotional suffering to the other spouse. In such situations, it is the Court’s view that there is no crime committed as there is a crime only when the acts or omissions cause or are likely to cause mental or emotional suffering upon the wife or her child. In Our view, this interpretation is more in sync with Republic Act No. 9262’s main thrust, which is the protection of women and their children. Thus, it is rational to say that it is more concerned with defending them as victims, rather than penalizing offenders, which is merely a consequence of its defensive and protective stance. In other words, Republic Act No. 9262 looks at the effects of a certain act or omission against a woman or their child, rather than the motive of the offender.[4]
[1] AAA v. BBB, G.R. No, 212448, January 11, 2018
[2] XXX264870, G.R. No. 264870, April 21, 2025
[3] XXX264870, G.R. No. 264870, April 21, 2025
[4] XXX v. People, G.R. No. 252739, April 16, 2024