8/25/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 851

 
 
 

G.R. No. 212448. January 11, 2018.*

 
AAA,** petitioner, vs. BBB,** respondent.

Criminal Law; Anti-Violence Against Women and their

Children Act of 2004 (RA No. 9262); Psychological Violence;
Jurisdiction; As jurisdiction of a court over the criminal case is
determined by the allegations in the complaint or information,
threshing out the essential elements of psychological abuse under
Republic Act (RA) No. 9262 is crucial.—As jurisdiction of a court
over the criminal case is determined by the allegations in the
complaint or information, threshing out the essential elements of
psychological abuse under R.A. No. 9262 is crucial. In Dinamling
v. People, 760 SCRA 27 (2015), this Court already had occasion to
enumerate the elements of psychological violence under Section
5(i) of R.A. No. 9262, as follows: Section 5. Acts of Violence Against
Women and Their Children.—The crime of violence against
women and their children is committed through any of the
following acts: x  x  x  x (i) 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. From the aforequoted
Section 5(i), in relation to other sections of R[.]A[.] No. 9262,

_______________

*  FIRST DIVISION.
* * Section 44 of Republic Act No. 9262 (ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
AND THEIR CHILDREN ACT OF 2004) requires the confidentiality of all records
pertaining to cases of violence against women and their children. Per said
section, all public officers and employees are prohibited from publishing or
causing to be published in any format the name and other identifying
information of a victim or an immediate family member. The penalty of
one (1) year imprisonment and a fine of not more than Five Hundred
Thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon those who violate
the provision. Pursuant thereto, in the courts’ promulgation of decisions,
final resolutions and/or final orders, the names of women and children
victims shall be replaced by fictitious initials, and their personal
circumstances or any information, which tend to identify them, shall
likewise not be disclosed.

 
 
34

34 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

AAA vs. BBB

the elements of the crime are derived as follows: (1) The

offended party is a woman and/or her child or children; (2) The
woman is either the wife or former wife of the offender, or is a
woman with whom the offender has or had a sexual or dating
relationship, or is a woman with whom such offender has a
common child. As for the woman’s child or children, they may be
legitimate or illegitimate, or living within or without the family
abode; (3) The offender causes on the woman and/or child
mental or emotional anguish; and (4) 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 such acts or
omissions.
Same; Same; Same; What Republic Act (RA) No. 9262
criminalizes is not the marital infidelity per se but the
psychological violence causing mental or emotional suffering on
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

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017426021e3f0936a185003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/13
8/25/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 851
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 may be committed. Moreover, depending on
the circumstances of the spouses and for a myriad of reasons, the
illicit relationship 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 and distinct element in the
commission of the offense.
Criminal Procedure; Venue; In criminal cases, venue is
jurisdictional.—In criminal cases, venue is jurisdictional. Thus, in
Treñas v. People, 664 SCRA 355 (2012), the Court explained that:
The place where the crime was committed determines not
only the venue of the action but is an essential element of
jurisdiction. It is a fundamental rule that for jurisdiction to be
acquired by courts in criminal cases, the offense should have been
committed or any one of its essential ingredients should have
taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
Territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases is the territory where the
court has jurisdiction to take cognizance or to try the offense
allegedly committed therein by the accused. Thus, it cannot take
jurisdiction over a person charged with an offense allegedly
committed outside of that limited territory.

 
 
35

VOL. 851, JANUARY 11, 2018 35

AAA vs. BBB

Furthermore, the jurisdiction of a court over the

criminal case is determined by the allegations in the
complaint or information. And once it is so shown, the court
may validly take cognizance of the case. However, if the
evidence adduced during the trial shows that the offense
was committed somewhere else, the court should dismiss
the action for want of jurisdiction.
Criminal Law; Anti-Violence Against Women and their
Children Act of 2004 (RA No. 9262); Psychological Violence;
Mental or Emotional Anguish; While the psychological violence as
the means employed by the perpetrator is certainly an
indispensable element of the offense, equally essential also is the
element of mental or emotional anguish which is personal to the
complainant.—In Section 7 of R.A. No. 9262, venue undoubtedly
pertains to jurisdiction. As correctly pointed out by AAA, Section
7 provides that the case may be filed where the crime or any of its
elements was committed at the option of the complainant. While
the psychological violence as the means employed by the
perpetrator is certainly an indispensable element of the offense,
equally essential also is the element of mental or emotional
anguish which is personal to the complainant. The resulting
mental or emotional anguish is analogous to the indispensable
element of damage in a prosecution for estafa, viz.: The
circumstance that the deceitful manipulations or false pretenses
employed by the accused, as shown in the vouchers, might have
been perpetrated in Quezon City does not preclude the institution
of the criminal action in Mandaluyong where the damage was
consummated. Deceit and damage are the basic elements of
estafa. The estafa involved in this case appears to be a transitory
or continuing offense. It could be filed either in Quezon City or in
Rizal. The theory is that a person charged with a transitory
offense may be tried in any jurisdiction where the offense is in
part committed. In transitory or continuing offenses in which
some acts material and essential to the crime and requisite to its
consummation occur in one province and some in another, the
court of either province has jurisdiction to try the case, it being
understood that the first court taking cognizance of the case will
exclude the others x x x[.]
Same; Same; Same; Transitory or Continuing Crimes; What
may be gleaned from Section 7 of Republic Act (RA) No. 9262 is
that the law contemplates that acts of violence against women and
their children may manifest as transitory or continuing crimes;
meaning

 
 

36

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017426021e3f0936a185003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/13
8/25/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 851
36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
AAA vs. BBB

that some acts material and essential thereto and requisite in

their consummation occur in one municipality or territory, while
some occur in another.—What may be gleaned from Section 7 of
R.A. No. 9262 is that the law contemplates that acts of violence
against women and their children may manifest as transitory or
continuing crimes; meaning that some acts material and essential
thereto and requisite in their consummation occur in one
municipality or territory, while some occur in another. In such
cases, the court wherein any of the crime’s essential and material
acts have been committed maintains jurisdiction to try the case; it
being understood that the first court taking cognizance of the
same excludes the other. Thus, a person charged with a
continuing or transitory crime may be validly tried in any
municipality or territory where the offense was in part
committed.
Same; Same; Jurisdiction; For Philippine courts to have
jurisdiction when the abusive conduct or act of violence under
Section 5(i) of Republic Act (RA) No. 9262 in relation to Section
3(a), paragraph (C) was committed outside Philippine territory,
that the victim be a resident of the place where the complaint is
filed in view of the anguish suffered being a material element of
the offense.—It is necessary, for Philippine courts to have
jurisdiction when the abusive conduct or act of violence under
Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262 in relation to Section 3(a), paragraph
(C) was committed outside Philippine territory, that the victim be
a resident of the place where the complaint is filed in view of the
anguish suffered being a material element of the offense. In the
present scenario, the offended wife and children of respondent
husband are residents of Pasig City since March of 2010. Hence,
the RTC of Pasig City may exercise jurisdiction over the case.
Same; Same; Same; Even if the alleged extramarital affair
causing the offended wife mental and emotional anguish is
committed abroad, the same does not place a prosecution under
Republic Act (RA) No. 9262 absolutely beyond the reach of
Philippine courts.—Certainly, the act causing psychological
violence which under the information relates to BBB’s marital
infidelity must be proven by probable cause for the purpose of
formally charging the husband, and to establish the same beyond
reasonable doubt for purposes of conviction. It likewise remains
imperative to acquire jurisdiction over the husband. What this
case concerns itself is simply whether

 
 
37

VOL. 851, JANUARY 11, 2018 37

AAA vs. BBB

or not a complaint for psychological abuse under R.A. No.

9262 may even be filed within the Philippines if the illicit
relationship is conducted abroad. We say that even if the alleged
extramarital affair causing the offended wife mental and
emotional anguish is committed abroad, the same does not place a
prosecution under R.A. No. 9262 absolutely beyond the reach of
Philippine courts.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the resolutions of the

Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Br. 158.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
    Sobreviñas, Hayudini, Navarro & San Juan for
petitioner.
   Victor H. Volfango for respondent.

TIJAM, J.:
 
May Philippine courts exercise jurisdiction over an
offense constituting psychological violence under Republic
Act (R.A.) No. 9262,1 otherwise known as the Anti-Violence
Against Women and their Children Act of 2004, committed
through marital infidelity, when the alleged illicit
relationship occurred or is occurring outside the country?
The above question is addressed to this Court in the
present Petition2 for the issuance of a writ of certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, to nullify the

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017426021e3f0936a185003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/13
8/25/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 851
Resolutions dated February 24, 2014 and May 2, 20144 of
3

the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 158,

in Criminal Case No. 146468. The assailed resolutions
granted the motion to quash

_______________

1  AN ACT DEFINING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN,

PROVIDING FOR PROTECTIVE MEASURES FOR VICTIMS, PRESCRIBING PENALTIES
THEREFORE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. Approved on March 8, 2004.
2  Rollo, pp. 19-45.
3  Rendered by Presiding Judge Maria Rowena Modesto-San Pedro; id.,
at pp. 49-52.
4  Id., at p. 53.

 
 

38

38 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

AAA vs. BBB

the Information5 which charged respondent BBB under

Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262, committed as follows:

On or about April 19, 2011, in Pasig City, and within the

jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, [BBB], being then
legally married to [AAA], caused herein [AAA] mental and
emotional anguish by having an illicit relationship with a
certain Lisel Mok as confirmed by his photograph with his
purported paramour Lisel Mok and her children and the e-
mailed letter by his mother mentioning about the said
relationship, to the damage and prejudice of [AAA], in
violation of the aforecited law.
Contrary to law.

 
We briefly recount the antecedents.
Petitioner AAA and BBB were married on August 1,
2006 in Quezon City. Their union produced two children:
CCC was born on March 4, 2007 and DDD on October 1,
2009.6
In May of 2007, BBB started working in Singapore as a
chef, where he acquired permanent resident status in
September of 2008. This petition nonetheless indicates his
address to be in Quezon City where his parents reside and
where AAA also resided from the time they were married
until March of 2010, when AAA and their children moved
back to her parents’ house in Pasig City.7
AAA claimed, albeit not reflected in the Information,
that BBB sent little to no financial support, and only
sporadically. This allegedly compelled her to fly extra hours
and take on additional jobs to augment her income as a
flight attendant. There were also allegations of virtual
abandonment, mistreatment of her and their son CCC, and
physical and sexual violence. To make matters worse, BBB
supposedly started having an affair with a Singaporean
woman named Lisel Mok

_______________

5  Id., at pp. 4 and 26.

6  Id., at p. 57.
7  Id., at pp. 57-58.

 
 

39

VOL. 851, JANUARY 11, 2018 39

AAA vs. BBB

with whom he allegedly has been living in Singapore.

Things came to a head on April 19, 2011 when AAA and
BBB had a violent altercation at a hotel room in Singapore
during her visit with their kids.8 As can be gathered from
the earlier cited Information, despite the claims of varied
forms of abuses, the investigating prosecutor found
sufficient basis to charge BBB with causing AAA mental

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017426021e3f0936a185003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/13
8/25/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 851
and emotional anguish through his alleged marital
infidelity.9
The Information having been filed, a warrant of arrest
was issued against BBB. AAA was also able to secure a
Hold-Departure Order against BBB who continued to
evade the warrant of arrest. Consequently, the case was
archived.10
On November 6, 2013, an Entry of Appearance as
Counsel for the Accused With Omnibus Motion to Revive
Case, Quash Information, Lift Hold Departure Order and
Warrant of Arrest11 was filed on behalf of BBB. Granting
the motion to quash on the ground of lack of jurisdiction
and thereby dismissing the case, the trial court reasoned:

Here, while the Court maintains its 28 October 2011

ruling that probable cause exists in this case and that
[BBB] is probably guilty of the crime charged, considering,
however, his subsequent clear showing that the acts
complained of him had occurred in Singapore, dismissal of
this case is proper since the Court enjoys no jurisdiction
over the offense charged, it having transpired outside the
territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
x x x x
The Court is not convinced by the prosecution’s
argument that since [AAA] has been suffering from mental
and emotional anguish “wherever she goes,” jurisdiction
over the offense attaches to this Court notwithstanding

_______________

 
8   Id., at pp. 58-59.
9   Id., at p. 26.
10  Id., at p. 27.
11  Id., at p. 49.

 
 
40

40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

AAA vs. BBB

that the acts resulting in said suffering had happened

outside of the Philippines. To the mind of the Court, with it
noting that there is still as yet no jurisprudence on this
score considering that Republic Act 9262 is relatively a
new law, the act itself which had caused a woman to suffer
mental or emotional anguish must have occurred within the
territorial limits of the Court for it to enjoy jurisdiction over
the offense. This amply explains the use of the emphatic
word “causing” in the provisions of Section 5(i), above,
which denotes the bringing about or into existence of
something. Hence, the mental or emotional anguish
suffered by a woman must have been brought about or into
existence by a criminal act which must logically have
occurred within the territorial limits of the Court for
jurisdiction over the offense to attach to it. To rule
otherwise would violate or render nugatory one of the basic
characteristics of our criminal laws — territoriality.
In the listing provided in the law itself — “repeated
verbal and emotional abuse, and denial of financial support
or custody of minor children of (sic) access to the woman’s
child/children” — it becomes clear that there must be an act
which causes the “mental or emotional anguish, public
ridicule or humiliation,” and it is such act which partakes of
a criminal nature. Here, such act was the alleged
maintenance of “an illicit relationship with a certain Liesel
Mok” — which has been conceded to have been committed
in Singapore.
Granting, without conceding, that the law presents
ambiguities as written, quashal of the Information must
still be ordered following the underlying fundamental
principle that all doubts must be resolved in favor of [BBB].
At best, the Court draws the attention of Congress to the
arguments on jurisdiction spawned by the law.12 (Emphasis
in the original)

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017426021e3f0936a185003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/13
8/25/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 851
Aggrieved by the denial of the prosecution’s motion for
reconsideration of the dismissal of the case, AAA sought
direct

_______________

12  Id., at pp. 50-51.

 
 

41

VOL. 851, JANUARY 11, 2018 41

AAA vs. BBB

recourse to this Court via the instant petition on a pure

question of law. AAA posits that R.A. No. 9262 is in danger
of becoming transmogrified into a weak, wobbly, and
worthless law because with the court a quo’s ruling, it is as
if husbands of Filipino women have been given license to
enter into extramarital affairs without fear of any
consequence, as long as they are carried out abroad. In the
main, AAA argues that mental and emotional anguish is an
essential element of the offense charged against BBB,
which is experienced by her wherever she goes, and not
only in Singapore where the extramarital affair takes
place; thus, the RTC of Pasig City where she resides can
take cognizance of the case.
In support of her theory, AAA draws attention to Section
7 of R.A. No. 9262, which provides:

Sec. 7. Venue.—The Regional Trial Court designated as

a Family Court shall have original and exclusive
jurisdiction over cases of violence against women and their
children under this law. In the absence of such court in the
place where the offense was committed, the case shall be
filed in the Regional Trial Court where the crime or any of
its elements was committed at the option of the
complainant. (Emphasis ours)

 
As to the ambiguity in the law hypothetically referred to
in the assailed order, AAA directs us to:

Section 4. Construction.—This Act shall be liberally

construed to promote the protection and safety of victims of
violence against women and their children.

 
In his Comment13 filed on January 20, 2015, BBB
contends that the grant of the motion to quash is in effect
an acquittal; that only the civil aspect of a criminal case
may be appealed by the private offended party; and that
this petition should be dismissed outright for having been
brought before this Court

_______________

13  Id., at pp. 154-160.

 
 
42

42 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

AAA vs. BBB

by AAA instead of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)

as counsel for the People in appellate proceedings. BBB
furthermore avers that the petition was belatedly filed.
We tackle first the threshold issue of whether or not this
Court should entertain the petition.
It must be stated beforehand that BBB is plainly
mistaken in asserting that the instant petition was
belatedly filed. The date erroneously perceived by BBB as
the date of AAA’s Motion for Extension14 was filed — June
2, 2014 — refers to the date of receipt by the Division Clerk
of Court and not the date when the said motion was lodged
before this Court. The motion was in fact filed on May 27,
2014, well within the period that AAA had under the Rules
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017426021e3f0936a185003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/13
8/25/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 851
of Court to file the intended petition. Thus, considering the
timeliness of the motion, this Court in a Resolution15 dated
June 9, 2014, granted AAA an additional period of thirty
(30) days or until June 26, 2014 to file a petition for review.
In AAA’s motion for extension of time, it was mentioned
that she was awaiting the OSG’s response to her Letter16
dated May 26, 2014 requesting for representation. Since,
the OSG was unresponsive to her plea for assistance in
filing the intended petition, AAA filed the present petition
in her own name before the lapse of the extension given her
by this Court or on June 25, 2014.
We find that under the circumstances, the ends of
substantial justice will be better served by entertaining the
petition if only to resolve the question of law lodged before
this Court. In Morillo v. People of the Philippines, et al.,17
where the Court entertained a Rule 45 petition which
raised only a question of law filed by the private offended
party in the absence of the OSG’s participation, we recalled
the instances when the Court

_______________

 
14  Id., at pp. 3-6.
15  Id., at p. 17A.
16  Id., at pp. 15-17.
17  775 Phil. 192; 777 SCRA 207 (2015).

 
 

43

VOL. 851, JANUARY 11, 2018 43

AAA vs. BBB

permitted an offended party to file an appeal without the

intervention of the OSG. One such instance is when the
interest of substantial justice so requires.18
Morillo,19 also differentiated between dismissal and
acquittal, thus:

Acquittal is always based on the merits, that is, the

defendant is acquitted because the evidence does not
show that defendant’s guilt is beyond a reasonable
doubt; but dismissal does not decide the case on the
merits or that the defendant is not guilty. Dismissal
terminates the proceeding, either because the court
is not a court of competent jurisdiction, or the
evidence does not show that the offense was
committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the
court, or the complaint or information is not valid or
sufficient in form and substance, etc. The only case in
which the word dismissal is commonly but not correctly
used, instead of the proper term acquittal, is when, after the
prosecution has presented all its evidence, the defendant
moves for the dismissal and the court dismisses the case on
the ground that the evidence fails to show beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty; for in such
case the dismissal is in reality an acquittal because the case
is decided on the merits. If the prosecution fails to
prove that the offense was committed within the
territorial jurisdiction of the court and the case is
dismissed, the dismissal is not an acquittal, inasmuch
as if it were so the defendant could not be again
prosecuted before the court of competent
jurisdiction; and it is elemental that in such case, the
defendant may again be prosecuted for the same
offense before a court of competent jurisdiction.20
(Citation omitted and emphasis in the original)

_______________

18  Id., at pp. 215-216; p. 228.

19  Id.
20  Id., at p. 212; pp. 229-230, citing People v. Salico, 84 Phil. 722, 732-
733 (1949).

 
 

44

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017426021e3f0936a185003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/13
8/25/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 851

44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

AAA vs. BBB

The grant of BBB’s motion to quash may not therefore

be viewed as an acquittal, which in limited instances may
only be repudiated by a petition for certiorari under Rule
65 upon showing grave abuse of discretion lest the accused
would be twice placed in jeopardy.21
Indubitably, “the Rules do not prohibit any of the parties
from filing a Rule 45 Petition with this Court, in case only
questions of law are raised or involved.”22 “There is a
question of law when the issue does not call for an
examination of the probative value of the evidence
presented or of the truth or falsehood of the facts being
admitted, and the doubt concerns the correct application of
law and jurisprudence on the matter.”23
Further, the question of whether or not the RTC has
jurisdiction in view of the peculiar provisions of R.A. No.
9262 is a question of law. Thus, in Morillo,24 the Court
reiterated that:

[T]he jurisdiction of the court is determined by the

averments of the complaint or Information, in relation to
the law prevailing at the time of the filing of the complaint
or Information, and the penalty provided by law for the
crime charged at the time of its commission. Thus, when a
case involves a proper interpretation of the rules and
jurisprudence with respect to the jurisdiction of courts to
entertain complaints filed therewith, it deals with a
question of law that can be properly brought to this Court
under Rule 45.25 (Citations omitted)

 
We are not called upon in this case to determine the
truth or falsity of the charge against BBB, much less weigh
the evidence, especially as the case had not even proceeded
to a

_______________

21  Id., at p. 211; pp. 228-229.

22  Del Socorro v. Van Wilsem, 749 Phil. 823, 832; 744 SCRA 516, 524
(2014), citing Republic v. Sunvar Realty Development Corporation, 688
Phil. 616, 630; 674 SCRA 320, 332 (2012).
23  Del Socorro v. Van Wilsem, id.
24  Morillo v. People, supra note 17.
25  Id., at p. 214; pp. 231-232.

 
 

45

VOL. 851, JANUARY 11, 2018 45

AAA vs. BBB

full-blown trial on the merits. The issue for resolution

concerns the correct application of law and jurisprudence
on a given set of circumstances, i.e., whether or not
Philippine courts are deprived of territorial jurisdiction
over a criminal charge of psychological abuse under R.A.
No. 9262 when committed through marital infidelity and
the alleged illicit relationship took place outside the
Philippines.
The novelty of the issue was even recognized by the RTC
when it opined that there is still as yet no jurisprudence on
this score, prompting it to quash the Information even as it
maintained its earlier October 28, 2011 ruling that
probable cause exists in the case.26 Calling the attention of
Congress to the arguments on jurisdiction spawned by the
law,27 the RTC furnished copies of the assailed order to the
House of Representatives and the Philippine Senate
through the Committee on Youth, Women and Public
Relations, as well as the Committee on Justice and Human
Rights.28
The issue acquires special significance when viewed
against the present economic reality that a great number of
Filipino families have at least one parent working overseas.
In April to September 2016, the number of overseas

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017426021e3f0936a185003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/13
8/25/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 851
Filipino workers who worked abroad was estimated at 2.2
million, 97.5 percent of which were comprised of overseas
contract workers or those with existing work contract,
while 2.5 percent worked overseas without contract.29 It is
thus necessary to clarify how R.A. No. 9262 should be
applied in a question of territorial jurisdiction over a case
of psychological abuse brought against the husband when
such is allegedly caused by marital infidelity carried on
abroad.

_______________

 
26  Rollo, p. 50.
27  Id., at p. 51.
28  Id., at p. 52.
29<https://psa.gov.ph/content/total-number-ofws-estimated-22-million-
results-2016-surveyoverseas-filipinos> (visited October 30, 2017).

 
 

46

46 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

AAA vs. BBB

Ruling of the Court

 
There is merit in the petition.
“Physical violence is only the most visible form of abuse.
Psychological abuse, particularly forced social and
economic isolation of women, is also common.”30 In this
regard, Section 3 of R.A. No. 9262 made it a point to
encompass in a non-limiting manner the various forms of
violence that may be committed against women and their
children:

Sec. 3. Definition of Terms.—As used in this Act,

(a) “Violence against women and their children” refers to
any act or a series of acts committed by any person
against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or against a
woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating
relationship, or with whom he has a common child, or
against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within
or without the family abode, which result in or is likely
to result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or
suffering, or economic abuse including threats of such acts,
battery, assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary
deprivation of liberty. It includes, but is not limited to, the
following acts:
A. “Physical Violence” refers to acts that include
bodily or physical harm;
B. “Sexual violence” refers to an act which is sexual
in nature, committed against a woman or her child. It
includes, but is not limited to:
x x x x
C. “Psychological violence” refers to acts or
omissions causing or likely to cause mental or
emotional suffering of the victim such as but not
limited to intimidation, harassment, stalking, damage
to property, public ridicule or humiliation, repeated
verbal abuse and marital infidelity. It includes

_______________

30  Garcia v. Drilon, 712 Phil. 44, 94; 699 SCRA 352, 415 (2013).

 
 

47

VOL. 851, JANUARY 11, 2018 47

AAA vs. BBB

causing or allowing the victim to witness the physical,

sexual or psychological abuse of a member of the
family to which the victim belongs, or to witness
pornography in any form or to witness abusive injury

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017426021e3f0936a185003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/13
8/25/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 851
to pets or to unlawful or unwanted deprivation of the
right to custody and/or visitation of common children.
D. “Economic abuse” refers to acts that make or
attempt to make a woman financially dependent
which includes, but is not limited to the following:
x x x x

 
As jurisdiction of a court over the criminal case is
determined by the allegations in the complaint or
information, threshing out the essential elements of
psychological abuse under R.A. No. 9262 is crucial. In
Dinamling v. People,31 this Court already had occasion to
enumerate the elements of psychological violence under
Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262, as follows:
 
Section 5. Acts of Violence Against Women and
Their Children.—The crime of violence against
women and their children is committed through any
of the following acts:
   x x x x
(i)    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.
 
From the aforequoted Section 5(i), in relation to
other sections of R[.]A[.] No. 9262, the elements of the
crime are derived as follows:

_______________

31  761 Phil. 356; 760 SCRA 27 (2015).

 
 
48

48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

AAA vs. BBB

(1)  The offended party is a woman and/or her child

or children;
(2)  The woman is either the wife or former wife of
the offender, or is a woman with whom the
offender has or had a sexual or dating
relationship, or is a woman with whom such
offender has a common child. As for the woman’s
child or children, they may be legitimate or
illegitimate, or living within or without the
family abode;
(3) The offender causes on the woman and/or
child mental or emotional anguish; and
(4)  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 such acts or omissions.
x x x x

It bears emphasis that Section 5(i) penalizes some

forms of psychological violence that are inflicted on
victims who are women and children. Other forms of
psychological violence, as well as physical, sexual and
economic violence, are addressed and penalized in other
sub-parts of Section 5.
x x x x
Psychological violence is an element of violation of
Section 5(i) just like the mental or emotional anguish
caused on the victim. Psychological violence is the
means employed by the perpetrator, while mental or
emotional anguish is the effect caused to or the
damage sustained by the offended party. To establish
psychological violence as an element of the crime, it is
necessary to show proof of commission of any of the acts
enumerated in Section 5(i) or similar such acts. And to
establish mental or emotional anguish, it is necessary to
present the testimony of the victim as

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017426021e3f0936a185003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/13
8/25/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 851
 
 
49

VOL. 851, JANUARY 11, 2018 49

AAA vs. BBB

such experiences are personal to this party. x  x  x32

(Citations omitted and emphasis ours)

 
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 may be
committed. Moreover, depending on the circumstances of
the spouses and for a myriad of reasons, the illicit
relationship 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 and
distinct element in the commission of the offense.
In criminal cases, venue is jurisdictional. Thus, in
Treñas v. People,33 the Court explained that:

The place where the crime was committed

determines not only the venue of the action but is an
essential element of jurisdiction. It is a fundamental
rule that for jurisdiction to be acquired by courts in criminal
cases, the offense should have been committed or any one of
its essential ingredients should have taken place within the
territorial jurisdiction of the court. Territorial jurisdiction
in criminal cases is the territory where the court has
jurisdiction to take cognizance or to try the offense allegedly
committed therein by the accused. Thus, it cannot take
jurisdiction over a person charged with an offense allegedly
committed outside of that limited territory. Furthermore,
the jurisdiction of a court over the criminal case is
determined by the allegations in the complaint or
information. And once it is so shown, the court may
validly take cognizance of the case. However, if the
evidence adduced dur-

_______________

32  Id., at pp. 372-376; pp. 45-49.

33  680 Phil. 368; 664 SCRA 355 (2012).

 
 
50

50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

AAA vs. BBB

ing the trial shows that the offense was committed

somewhere else, the court should dismiss the action
for want of jurisdiction.34 (Emphasis in the original)

 
In Section 7 of R.A. No. 9262, venue undoubtedly
pertains to jurisdiction. As correctly pointed out by AAA,
Section 7 provides that the case may be filed where the
crime or any of its elements was committed at the option of
the complainant. While the psychological violence as the
means employed by the perpetrator is certainly an
indispensable element of the offense, equally essential also
is the element of mental or emotional anguish which is
personal to the complainant. The resulting mental or
emotional anguish is analogous to the indispensable
element of damage in a prosecution for estafa, viz.:

The circumstance that the deceitful manipulations or

false pretenses employed by the accused, as shown in the
vouchers, might have been perpetrated in Quezon City does
not preclude the institution of the criminal action in

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017426021e3f0936a185003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/13
8/25/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 851
Mandaluyong where the damage was consummated. Deceit
and damage are the basic elements of estafa.
The estafa involved in this case appears to be a
transitory or continuing offense. It could be filed either in
Quezon City or in Rizal. The theory is that a person charged
with a transitory offense may be tried in any jurisdiction
where the offense is in part committed. In transitory or
continuing offenses in which some acts material and
essential to the crime and requisite to its consummation
occur in one province and some in another, the court of
either province has jurisdiction to try the case, it being
understood that the first court taking cognizance of the case
will exclude the others x x x[.]35

34  Id., at p. 380; p. 366, citing Isip v. People, 552 Phil. 786, 801-802;
525 SCRA 735, 751-752 (2007).
35  Tuzon v. Cruz, 160 Phil. 925, 929; 66 SCRA 235, 239 (1975).

 
 

51

VOL. 851, JANUARY 11, 2018 51

AAA vs. BBB

What may be gleaned from Section 7 of R.A. No. 9262 is

that the law contemplates that acts of violence against
women and their children may manifest as transitory or
continuing crimes; meaning that some acts material and
essential thereto and requisite in their consummation
occur in one municipality or territory, while some occur in
another. In such cases, the court wherein any of the crime’s
essential and material acts have been committed maintains
jurisdiction to try the case; it being understood that the
first court taking cognizance of the same excludes the
other. Thus, a person charged with a continuing or
transitory crime may be validly tried in any municipality or
territory where the offense was in part committed.36
It is necessary, for Philippine courts to have jurisdiction
when the abusive conduct or act of violence under Section
5(i) of R.A. No. 9262 in relation to Section 3(a), Paragraph
(C) was committed outside Philippine territory, that the
victim be a resident of the place where the complaint is
filed in view of the anguish suffered being a material
element of the offense. In the present scenario, the offended
wife and children of respondent husband are residents of
Pasig City since March of 2010. Hence, the RTC of Pasig
City may exercise jurisdiction over the case.
Certainly, the act causing psychological violence which
under the information relates to BBB’s marital infidelity
must be proven by probable cause for the purpose of
formally charging the husband, and to establish the same
beyond reasonable doubt for purposes of conviction. It
likewise remains imperative to acquire jurisdiction over the
husband. What this case concerns itself is simply whether
or not a complaint for psychological abuse under R.A. No.
9262 may even be filed within the Philippines if the illicit
relationship is conducted abroad. We say that even if the
alleged extramarital affair causing the offended wife
mental and emotional anguish is

_______________

36  Morillo v. People, supra note 17 at p. 206; p. 222.

 
 

52

52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

AAA vs. BBB

committed abroad, the same does not place a prosecution

under R.A. No. 9262 absolutely beyond the reach of
Philippine courts.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is
GRANTED. The Resolutions dated February 24, 2014 and
May 2, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City,

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017426021e3f0936a185003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/13
8/25/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 851
Branch 158, in Criminal Case No. 146468 are SET ASIDE.
Accordingly, the Information filed in Criminal Case No.
146468 is ordered REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.

Sereno (CJ., Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Del

Castillo and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.

Petition granted, resolutions set aside.

Notes.—It is well-settled that violations of Batas

Pambansa (BP) Blg. 22 cases are categorized as transitory
or continuing crimes, meaning that some acts material and
essential thereto and requisite in their consummation
occur in one municipality or territory, while some occur in
another. (Morillo vs. People, 777 SCRA 207 [2015])
The court of the place where the check was deposited or
presented for encashment can be vested with jurisdiction to
try cases involving violations of Batas Pambansa (BP) Blg.
22. (Id.)

 
——o0o——

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017426021e3f0936a185003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/13