In XXX v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 252739, 19 August 2025, the Supreme Court of the Philippines (SC), thru an En Banc Resolution denying the motion for reconsideration filed by the Accused-Husband, re-affirmed its previous ruling that marital infidelity is a punishable form of violence under Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004. This is so even if there is no proof of specific intent to cause harm on the part of the Accused-Husband.
Through this case, the High Court has made it clear that a spouse's unfaithfulness, by itself, may constitute a criminal offense when it causes mental or emotional anguish to the aggrieved spouse of child. No separate specific intent to cause mental or emotional anguish needs to be proven.
The Case: Briefly
The Accused-Husband admitted to fathering a child with another woman while married (and keeping a mistress for 4 years). His wife testified that the discovery caused her emotional breakdown, inability to work for several months, and serious mental distress. He argued that the affair was only a one-night stand and that he did not intend to cause psychological harm. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals convicted him for violation of Section 5(i) of RA 9262, which penalizes acts causing mental or emotional suffering.
On review, the SC denied his motion for reconsideration with finality, thereby affirming his sentence for an indeterminate penality of 2 years, 4 months, and 1 day of prision correccional, as minimum, to 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor, as maximum, in addition to a fine of 100,000 plus mandatory psychological counseling.
The Important Rulings
The High Court made 3 critical doctrinal rulings in this case:
First, Marital Infidelity is expressly recognized as psychological violence. Addressing the Accused-Husband's argument that the law does not include marital infidelity as among the violations, the High Court ruled that RA 9262 explicity includes marital infidelity among the acts that cause mental or emotional suffering.
Second, no specific intent is required. The SC also ruled that intent to cause psychologicsal harm is presumed once infidelity is commited, as the law looks at the effect on the victim, not the motive of the offender. If the conduct results in emotional or mental anguish, liability attaches.
Third, Marital Infidelity is inherently wrongful. In this case, the SC described marital infidelity as inherently immoral and depraved under prevailing societal, cultural, and religious norms, making it unnecessary for the prosecution to prove a separate criminal design to cause harm.
Why the rulings matters
From a policy perspective, this ruling transforms the legal understanding of marriage in Philippine criminal law. Infidelity is no longer merely a moral issue or a ground for civil remedies (such as legal separation). It is now clearly a source of criminal liability when it produces psychological injury.
For practitioners, it appears that the doctrine established in this case somewhat lowers the evidentiary burden in VAWC cases. Specifically, proof of the affair plus proof of emotional or mental suffering equals criminal conviction, even without showing malicious intent.
This case also signals that RA 9262 is a victim-centered statute. As the SC emphasized, justice must be viewed from the eyes of the woman or child being protected - not from the perspective of the offender.
In real-world terms, any married male person who maintains an extramarital relationship risks imprisonment, fines, and mandatory psychological counseling if the betrayed spouse can prove emotional harm. The crime is not the affair per se, but the psychological injury it inevitably causes.
In short: Under Philippine law today, cheating is no longer just immoral - it can be criminal.
(Aaron Jarveen O. Ho is the Managing Partner of HG Law. For questions or concerns, Atty. Ho may be reached through his e-mail address at aoho@hglaw.ph)