Girl, 9, weeps in open court as she recalls father’s infidelity

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 sent 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 R100,000 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 R100,000 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.

It also said that while the prosecution was not able to establish that the father denied them (daughter and mother) financial support, “the prosecution was able to clearly show that petitioner (father) abandoned them, and such abandonment caused them mental or emotional anguish.”

When the CA denied the father’s motion for reconsideration, he elevated the case to the SC.

In its decision written by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando in a case docketed as GR No. 25019, the SC redacted the names of the father, the daughter, the wife, and mother, and the name of other persons involved in the case, including places where the crime was committed.

In denying the father’s petition, the SC emphasized that marital infidelity is one of the forms of psychological violence.

It said that in the appealed case, all the elements to establish violation of Section 5(i) were 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.

The SC ruled that there are several forms of abuse, the most visible form of which is physical violence. The others are sexual violence, psychological violence, and economic abuse, it said.

It stressed that the prosecution was able to establish satisfactorily the father’s marital infidelity – his cohabitation another woman who even bore him a child, and his abandonment of her wife and mother of his daughter.

“Wherefore, the petition is denied. The Jan. 31, 2019 decision and the Oct. 18, 2019 resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA GR CR No. 40971 are affirmed,” the SC ruled.