XXX260547 v. People
CLARIFICATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner XXX260547 and private complainant AAA260547 are married with two children of legal age. An Information was filed against XXX260547 for violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9262, alleging that starting August 2014, he committed acts likely to cause psychological abuse by leaving his wife to live with another woman, Melinda Lopez, and by neglecting to provide support to their children, to the damage and prejudice of AAA260547. The prosecution's evidence showed that XXX260547 had a child with Lopez, which caused AAA260547 pain and suicidal thoughts. The defense countered that XXX260547, a seaman, left the conjugal home due to quarrels over finances and that he stopped sending money because he no longer trusted his wife. He admitted to having a child with Lopez but denied living with her. Procedural History: After trial, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) found XXX260547 guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5(i) of R.A. 9262. The RTC ruled that the prosecution proved all elements of the crime through marital infidelity and failure to provide financial support. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction, reasoning that the prosecution established XXX260547's extra-marital affair which caused AAA260547 to suffer mental and emotional anguish. However, the CA found that the elements of psychological abuse through deprivation of financial support were not established. XXX260547's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: XXX260547 filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court. For the first time in the proceedings, he argued that the Information was fatally defective because it failed to charge an offense. He contended that the Information did not allege the essential element that AAA260547 suffered 'mental or emotional anguish.' He asserted that the allegation of causing 'psychological abuse' was a mere conclusion of law and not a sufficient allegation of fact constituting the crime.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court can rule on the sufficiency of the Information even if the issue was raised for the first time on appeal. Whether the facts charged in the Information constitute the offense of violation of Section 5(i) of R.A. 9262.
Ruling
The Petition is GRANTED. The May 25, 2021 Decision and April 28, 2022 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 44485 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. XXX260547 is ACQUITTED of violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: Yes, the Court can rule on the sufficiency of the Information. The Court held that an objection that the facts charged do not constitute an offense is a non-waivable defect under Section 9, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court. Citing Spouses Tayamen v. People, the Court reiterated that such a defense can be raised by an accused at any stage of the proceeding, even for the first time on appeal. An appeal in a criminal case throws the entire case open for review, and the appellate court is mandated to rule on any error, whether assigned or not. Therefore, the petitioner's failure to question the Information's validity before his arraignment or during trial does not prevent the Supreme Court from considering its sufficiency. On Issue 2: No, the facts charged in the Information do not constitute an offense. The Court, applying Dinamling v. People, drew a crucial distinction between the elements of 'psychological violence' and 'mental or emotional anguish' under Section 5(i) of R.A. 9262. 'Psychological violence' refers to the means employed by the perpetrator (e.g., marital infidelity, denial of support), while 'mental or emotional anguish' is the effect or damage sustained by the victim. The Information against the petitioner merely alleged that his acts were 'likely to cause... psychological abuse,' thereby conflating the means with the effect. It failed to explicitly allege the essential element that the complainant actually suffered 'mental or emotional anguish.' The phrase 'to the damage and prejudice' was deemed too general to satisfy the specificity required by law. Because an essential element of the crime was not alleged, the Information was insufficient and could not be the basis for a valid conviction, thus warranting the petitioner's acquittal.
Main Doctrine
For an Information charging a violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 to be sufficient, it must explicitly allege that the victim suffered 'mental or emotional anguish.' An allegation that the accused's acts were 'likely to cause... psychological abuse' is insufficient because psychological violence is the means employed, while mental or emotional anguish is the distinct effect or damage sustained. The failure to allege the element of mental or emotional anguish means the Information does not constitute an offense, a non-waivable defect that can be raised at any time and warrants the acquittal of the accused.