Girl, 9, details father’s infidelity in open court

In 2015, a nine-year-old girl testified and wept in open court as she narrated that she “was deeply hurt because her father had another family and loved another woman other than her mother.”

The trauma of the young girl was highlighted in the decision of the Supreme Court (SC) which affirmed the conviction of a father for violation of the Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act under Republic Act No. 9262.

Court records showed that the father and the mother were married in 2006 and begot a daughter.

In 2009, the mother went to Singapore to work. In 2015, the mother discovered that her husband was in a relationship with another woman who was impregnated by her husband.

The mother later discovered that the father brought the other woman to their hometown. The mother returned to the Philippines and sought the assistance of the Department of Social Welfare and Development in getting her daughter from her mother-in-law.

The father was charged before the trial court.

In its 2017 decision, the trial court convicted the father and sentenced him to a prison term ranging from two years, four months, and one day to six years and one day. He was also ordered to pay a fine of ₱100,000 and to undergo psychological counseling in any government institution.

In 2019, the Court of Appeals (CA) denied the appeal of the father and modified the prison term to two years, fourth months, and one day to eight years a one day. It affirmed the ₱100,000 fine.

The CA found the father guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5(i) of the Anti-VAWC Act which states that the crime of violence against women and their children is committed 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.”

It held that the father was charged not only with deprivation of financial support to the child, but also the act of abandoning his family, which may be considered as having been subsumed in the phrase “similar acts or omissions” mentioned under Sec. 5(i) of RA 9262.