Psychological evaluation not mandatory under anti-VAWC law — Supreme Court

MANILA, Philippines — Proving psychological violence does need psychological evaluation under the Violence Against Women and Children (VAWC) law, the Supreme Court said. 

In a 14-page decision promulgated Aug. 12, 2024, the high court affirmed the conviction of an individual for psychological violence against his wife and children. 

By upholding the lower courts’ decision, the Supreme Court sentenced the accused to eight years in prison and was ordered to pay a fine of P200,000 and P75,000 in damages. 

The SC also directed him to undergo psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment.

The case

The case stemmed from the extramarital affair of a man, his abandonment of his family and his failure to provide financial support. 

The lower courts found that these actions constituted psychological violence, causing significant emotional distress to his wife and children.

The Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals found that all elements of psychological violence under Section 5 (i) of the anti-VAWC law were present.

The elements of psychological violence, according to the anti-VAWC law, are the following:

• (1) the victim is a woman and/or her child
• (2) the victim is the wife or has a relationship with the offender
• (3) the offender causes the victim mental or emotional anguish
• (4) the anguish is caused through public humiliation, verbal and emotional abuse, denial of financial support, or similar acts.

However, the accused argued that the prosecution failed to present a psychological evaluation to prove the existence of psychological violence, which prompted him to file a petition before the Supreme Court. 

Ruling

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision upholding the conviction of the accused, stating that the elements of psychological abuse under the anti-VAWC law are present.

It also emphasized that the emotional and psychological impact of the accused’s actions, including his abandonment and public flaunting of his affair, was deemed sufficient to prove the element of psychological violence.

“In this case, the evidence presented by the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that (the accused) intended to cause mental or emotional anguish and public ridicule or humiliation upon AAA,” the court’s decision read. 

“He did so, not by engaging in marital infidelity per se, but by flaunting the very same extramarital relationship in full view of AAA, his legitimate children, and the public,” it added.

According to the court, the wife’s comprehensive testimony highlighted her mental and emotional suffering, describing how the accused abandoned their home to live with another woman nearby, with whom he had a child and openly showcased their relationship on social media.