Abandoning one’s spouse is a crime, says high court

INQUIRER.net stock images

MANILA, Philippines — Abandoning one’s spouse is a form of psychological and emotional abuse, which is punishable under the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children (VAWC) Act of 2004 or Republic Act (RA) No. 9262, the Supreme Court said.

Voting 3-2, the high court’s Second Division convicted a husband for causing mental or emotional anguish to his wife after he left their home and abandoned her.

He was sentenced to up to eight years imprisonment and was ordered to pay a P100,000 fine, according to a 10-page decision promulgated in November 2023 but made public only on Monday.

READ: Why pass divorce bill when the state already allows legal separation?

The husband was also ordered to undergo mandatory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment.

In denying the husband’s petition for review on certiorari, the Supreme Court said that abandonment would “naturally cause mental and emotional suffering to the wife, a person whom the husband is obliged to cohabit with, love, respect, and give support to.”

“These obligations could not be fulfilled should the husband abandon the wife… Sudden abandonment without any explanation would certainly cause emotional anguish,” the high tribunal said in the ruling penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez.

Affair with helper

Citing the prosecution’s narration, the high court said that in 2007, the wife found her husband and their house helper kissing in their kitchen.

The wife confronted them and had an intense fight with her husband, prompting her to spend the night at her parents’ house.

With child

Upon returning home, she found their house empty, as the two had already left. The husband has not returned to their residence since 2013, and in 2013, the wife discovered through Facebook that the man had a child with the house helper.

The wife said she suffered emotionally from the distress caused by the abandonment and infidelity of her husband.

She disclosed that she was diagnosed with uterine abnormalities and myoma uteri, which resulted in prolonged vaginal bleeding. This condition contributed to her anemia and necessitated surgical intervention.

The husband, for his part, denied the affair but admitted that he and the house helper were living together with a daughter.

He argued that their separation was mutually agreed upon and was due to the instigation of the wife’s parents, who allegedly disapproved of him.

Testimony ‘credible’

Both the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and Court of Appeals (CA) found the man guilty of violating Section 5(i) of RA 9262.

The CA ruled that the wife’s testimony was “strong and credible” and that the abandonment and marital infidelity of the husband were forms of psychological violence, which were the “proximate cause of [the wife’s] emotional anguish and mental suffering.”

The Supreme Court also agreed, saying that the wife’s testimony showed that she suffered emotional stress that affected her physical health.

“It is settled in jurisprudence that the positive testimony of the victim prevails over the bare denial of the accused,” the high court said.

Although it ruled that the RTC and the CA did not err in finding the accused guilty of violating the VAWC law, the Supreme Court noted that the two courts “harped primarily on his marital infidelity.”

Based on the evidence, however, the high tribunal said it was the abandonment, and not the marital infidelity, that caused the emotional suffering of the wife.

‘Not enough for conviction’

But in his dissenting opinion, Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen said that “hurt feelings are not enough for conviction.”

“Apart from the act of abandonment, there must be proof of the accused’s intent to inflict mental or emotional anguish on the abandoned spouse,” he said.

Leonen added that, similar to marital infidelity, abandonment was a “violation primarily of the essential marital obligations of spouses to each other.”

“Considering that it is, fundamentally, a violation of civil and matrimonial law, the liability for it should likewise be civil in nature. To criminalize civil law violations can have dire constitutional consequences, including infringing on the right to life and liberty, [autonomy] and human dignity,” he said.