FACTS:

The petitioner in this case was accused of inflicting psychological violence upon his wife by maintaining an extramarital affair and bringing his mistress to their conjugal home. He was charged and convicted with the crime of violation of Section 5(i) of the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act. The prosecution presented the testimony of the wife and one of their daughters, who confirmed the allegations. The petitioner denied the accusations and argued that they were baseless. The trial court and the Court of Appeals found the petitioner guilty, stating that all the elements of the offense were duly established. The petitioner appealed to the CA, but his appeal was denied and the ruling of the RTC was affirmed.

The offense in question involves acts that cause mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule, or humiliation to a woman or her child under Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262. The elements of the offense include the offended party being a woman and/or her child, the relationship between the offender and the woman, the mental or emotional anguish caused, and the acts of public ridicule or humiliation that caused the anguish. In this case, the offended party was the wife of the petitioner, and the petitioner was accused of causing psychological violence through his extramarital affair and public ridicule or humiliation. The trial court gave more weight to the testimony of the wife and their daughter, leading to the petitioner's conviction.

The petitioner argued that the existence of psychological violence was not proven beyond reasonable doubt and that the evidence relied on was hearsay. However, the court stated that the doctrine of independent relevant statement applies in this case, and hearsay does not apply to independently relevant statements. The court found that the testimony of the wife and daughter fell under the exception to the hearsay rule as independent relevant statements. Hence, their testimony was admissible and sufficient to establish the offense of psychological violence.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the presence of psychological violence has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

2. Whether the testimonies of YYY and AAA constitute hearsay evidence.

3. • Whether the hearsay rule is applicable in this case
4. • Whether the defense of denial is credible
5. • Whether mental or emotional anguish was sufficiently proven
6. • Whether the Affidavits of Desistance have any persuasive value

7. Whether the petitioner committed psychological violence, through marital infidelity, in violation of Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262.

8. What is the proper penalty to be imposed upon the petitioner for the said offense.

9. Whether the additional penalties of a fine and mandatory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment should be imposed on the petitioner.

RULING:

1. The court held that the presence of psychological violence has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court gave more weight to the testimonies of YYY and AAA, which were categorical and positive, over the defenses of denial and alibi of the petitioner. The court also considered the independently relevant statements made by YYY and AAA as evidence of the marital infidelity and public ridicule or humiliation committed by the petitioner.

2. The court ruled that the testimonies of YYY and AAA do not constitute hearsay evidence. YYY's statements about the marital infidelity of the petitioner may be considered independently relevant statements, an exception to the hearsay rule. The purpose of these statements is to establish that the statements were made, regardless of their truth or falsity. The court also noted that AAA's testimony corroborated YYY's statements, further strengthening the evidence against the petitioner.

3. • The hearsay rule is not applicable in this case. The statements made by the witness are admissible as independently relevant statements.
4. • The defense of denial is inherently weak and cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimony of the prosecution witnesses.
5. • Mental anguish and emotional suffering were sufficiently proven by the testimony of the victim.
6. • Affidavits of Desistance, especially when made after the conviction of the accused, deserve scant consideration and have no persuasive value.

7. The prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner committed psychological violence, through marital infidelity, which caused mental anguish and emotional suffering to his wife in violation of Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262.

8. The proper penalty to be imposed upon the petitioner is an indeterminate penalty of six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum, in accordance with Section 6(f) of R.A. No. 9262.

9. In addition to the imprisonment, the petitioner is directed to pay a fine in the amount of P100,000.00 and to undergo mandatory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment, as provided for in Section 6 of R.A. No. 9262.

PRINCIPLES:

• The doctrine of independently relevant statements allows for the admissibility of statements made by a third person as proof of the fact that the statements were made, regardless of their truth or falsity.

• Hearsay is considered inadmissible evidence, except for independently relevant statements that are circumstantially relevant to the existence of a fact.

• The determination of whether mental anguish and suffering was duly proven is a question of fact that is beyond the jurisdiction of a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

• The credibility of witnesses is best assessed by the trial court, and the appellate court is bound by the trial court's assessment of credibility.

• Affidavits of Desistance, especially when executed as a mere afterthought, have no persuasive value.

• The crime of psychological violence, through marital infidelity, causing mental anguish and emotional suffering is a violation of Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262.

• In applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum term of the indeterminate penalty shall be taken from the penalty next lower in degree, while the maximum term shall be determined by the maximum penalty prescribed by law.

• Imposition of a fine and mandatory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment are additional penalties that may be imposed for the crime of violence against women and their children under Section 6 of R.A. No. 9262.