G.R. No.

232678

ESTEBAN DONATO REYES, Petitioner

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent

DECISION

PERALTA, J.:

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioner Esteban Donato Reyes
(Reyes) seeking to reverse and set aside the June 23, 2017 Decision  of the Court of Appeals (CA)
1

in CA-G.R. CR No. 38609 which affirmed the March 3, 2016 Decision  of the Regional Trial Court,
2

Branch 89, Quezon City (RTC), in Criminal Case No. Q-06-143139, finding him guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 (R.A. No. 9262),
otherwise known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004
(VAWC), committed against AAA. 3

The antecedent facts are as follows:

An Information, dated June 5, 2006, was filed on September 26, 2006 before the RTC against Reyes
designating the crime as one for violation of Section 5(e), paragraph 2 of R.A. No. 9262. On March
12, 2007, a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) was issued by the RTC directing Reyes to resume
the delivery of monthly financial support to private complainant, AAA, in the amount of ₱20,000.00 to
be deducted from his net monthly salary of Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars (US$2,500.00),
reckoned from the time it was withheld in July 2005. Upon motion of AAA, with the conformity of the
public prosecutor, the RTC issued on August 30, 2007 a Hold Departure Order  (HDO) against
4

Reyes. In the October 28, 2008 Order  of the RTC, the TPO issued on March 12, 2007 was made
5

permanent.

On June 11, 2009, Reyes filed a Motion to Quash  the Information anchored on the ground that the
6

allegations set forth therein do not constitute the crime of violation of Section 5(e), par. 2 of R.A. No.
9262. He contended that "abandoning without financial support," which is different from deprivation
or denial of financial support, is not criminalized under R.A. No. 9262. Reyes posited that the June 5,
2006 Information should be quashed as it does not charge any offense, otherwise, his constitutional
right to due process and right to be informed of the nature and the cause of accusation against him,
would be infringed. By way of Comment/Opposition,  the prosecution maintained that the totality of
7

facts as alleged in the Information constitutes the crime of violation of Section 5(e), par. 2 of R.A. No.
9262.

In its Order  dated November 24, 2009, the RTC ruled that on the basis of the allegations in the
8

Information, Reyes is being charged with violation of Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262 and not with
violation of Section 5(e), par. 2. Consequently, the RTC directed the Office of the City Prosecutor to
amend the Information by designating the proper crime to which Reyes should be charged. The RTC
held that the amendment of the Information was proper, since Reyes has not been arraigned at that
time, and inclusion sought would not prejudice his rights being merely formal in nature. Reyes'
Motion to Quash was denied by the trial court.

Upon arraignment, Reyes pleaded not guilty to the crime of violation of Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262.
After pre-trial was terminated, trial on merits ensued.
Evidence for the prosecution tends to show that AAA and Reyes were married on May 15, 1969.
Four children were born out of this union, or whom only three are living, and who are all now of legal
ages. Reyes was seldom at home since he used to render military service as a Philippine Air Force
pilot, and later he worked as a commercial pilot for the Philippine Airlines. At the time the complaint
for violation of the VAWC was filed against him, Reyes was employed as a pilot based in Angola,
Africa tasked to deliver relief goods by air. Sometime in 2005, AAA learned that Reyes got married
to a certain Marilou Osias Ramboanga who had borne him four children and with whom he is living
with up to the present.

AAA claimed that Reyes used to give her and their children monthly financial support, ranging from
Ten Thousand Pesos (₱10,000.00) to Twenty Thousand Pesos (₱20,000.00), but he suddenly
ceased giving the same in July 2005. On top of this unpleasant situation, AAA got sick of various
illness such as hypertension, cardio-vascular disease, diabetes and osteoarthritis. Due to her
advancing age, AAA's health condition further deteriorated requiring her to take maintenance
medicines and to undergo regular consultation, monitoring and treatment to prevent organ damage,
stroke, renal failure and heart attack. According to AAA, what impelled her to file the complaint for
violation of R.A. No. 9262 against Reyes was due to the latter's failure to provide her with monthly
financial support.  9

The defense presented petitioner as its lone witness. Primarily, Reyes assailed the validity of his
marriage with AAA alleging that he never attended the marriage ceremony and that his supposed
signature appearing in the marriage certificate was forged. He also pointed out that his supposed
age of twenty-five years old as reflected in the marriage certificate was erroneous considering that
he was born on August 3, 1948. Petitioner alleged that he lived with AAA in a common-law
relationship, which produced three daughters and a son. He narrated that he met AAA when he went
for a vacation at her aunt's house in Bicol where AAA was a housemaid. He averred that he gave
AAA monthly financial support of ₱20,000.00. In addition, he also gave her Christmas bonuses,
shouldered the expenses for her cataract operation, her denture and vacation in Tagaytay, as well
as paid for the matriculation of her grandchildren and the materials of their second daughter. He
admitted that he no longer provides AAA with financial support since July 2006 because he was
disappointed with her for instituting a criminal case for Bigamy against him which he considered as
an act of ingratitude. In 2007, he stopped flying as a pilot after he was prevented from leaving the
Philippines by virtue of a Hold Departure Order issued against him at the instance of AAA.

The RTC Ruling

After trial, the RTC rendered its Decision dated March 3, 2016 finding accused-petitioner guilty as
charged. The RTC disposed the case as follows:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court finds accused Esteban Donato Reyes GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt [of] violating Section S(i) of Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise known as
the Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act, and is hereby sentenced to suffer an
indeterminate penalty of THREE (3) YEARS of prision correccional, as minimum, to EIGHT (8)
YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor, as maximum.

SO ORDERED. 10

The RTC found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses: AAA, her attending physician, Dr. Rey
Caesar R. Anunciacion and the victim's daughter, to be credible and sufficient. It ruled that the
evidence proffered by the prosecution has adequately established all the elements of violation of
Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262.
Not in conformity, Reyes appealed his conviction before the CA.

The CA Ruling

On June 23, 2017, the CA rendered its assailed Decision upholding the conviction of Reyes for
Violation of Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262, the fallo of which states:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF MERIT. The
Decision dated March 3, 2016 issued by the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 89 in
Criminal Case No. Q- 06-143139 is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED. 11

The CA echoed the conclusion reached by the R TC that Reyes committed psychological violence
against his wife AAA when he suddenly stopped giving her financial support and by reason of which,
she suffered emotional and mental anguish. According to the CA, Reyes has an obligation to
financially support his wife AAA and their marriage is valid until annulled by the court. It held that
Reyes could not escape liability by the mere expedient of claiming that his marriage with AAA is void
because violation of Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262 can be committed even against a woman with
whom the accused had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a common child. The
CA opined that Reyes can also be convicted for violation of Section 5(e), assuming that he is
indicted for the said crime, because said provision criminalizes the mere act of depriving a woman of
financial support legally due her.

Maintaining his innocence of the crime charged, Reyes filed the present petition and posited the
following issues, to wit:

I. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT

AFFIRMED THE RULING OF THE HONORABLE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT DIRECTING HEREIN
PETITITONER TO RESUME GIVING REGULAR MONTHLY FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO AAA IN
THE AMOUNT OF P20,000.00 TO BE DEDUCTED DIRECTLY FROM HIS NET MONTHLY
SALARY RECKONED FROM THE TIME IT WAS WITHHELD IN JULY 2005.

II. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT

AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE HONORABLE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, FINDING THE
PETITIONER GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF VIOLA TING SECTION 5(i) OF
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9262 OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
AND THEIR CHILDREN ACT AND SENTENCING HIM TO SUFFER AN INDETERMINATE
PENALTY OF THREE (3) YEARS OF PRISION CORRECCIONAL, AS MINIMUM, TO EIGHT (8)
YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY OF PRISION MAYOR, AS MAXIMUM. 12

Petitioner insists that the Information, dated June 5, 2006, failed to allege any of the acts punishable
under either Section 5(e), par. 2 or Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262. He contends that the defective
criminal Information should have been quashed at the first instance by the RTC because it
effectively deprived him of his right to due process.

The OSG counters that it is apparent from a perusal of the Information that Reyes is charged under
Section 5(e), par. 2 for having committed economic abuse against AAA when he abandoned her and
failed to give her financial support. The OSG submits that the CA is correct in not only affirming the
conviction of Reyes under Section 5(i), but in finding that he can be also held criminally liable under
Section 5(e), par. 2 because his purpose in depriving AAA with support is to cow her from further
filing cases against him or to withdraw those already filed. The OSG asserts that petitioner's guilt for
violation of the provisions of Sections 5(e), par. 2 and 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262 has been established by
the prosecution beyond cavil of a doubt.

The petition is devoid of merit.

Reyes stands charged with violation of Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262. By alleging that the Information
should have been quashed by the R TC for lack of the essential elements of the crime of violation of
Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262, Reyes is essentially averring that the recital of facts therein do not
constitute the offense charged.

Under Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, the complaint or information is sufficient if it states
the names of the accused; the designation of the offense given by the statute; the acts or omissions
complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate date of
the commission of the offense; and the place where the offense was committed. It is imperative that
an indictment fully states the elements of the specific offense alleged to have been committed.  13

The sufficiency of the allegations of facts and circumstances constituting the elements of the crime
charged is crucial in every criminal prosecution because of the ever-present obligation of the State to
duly inform the accused of the nature and cause of the accusation.   Every element constituting the
14

offense must be alleged in the Information   since the prosecution has the duty to prove each and
15

every element of the crime charged in the information to warrant a finding of guilt for the crime
charged. Thus, the Information must correctly reflect the charge against the accused before any
conviction may be made.

The fundamental test in determining the sufficiency of the averments in a complaint or information is
whether the facts alleged therein, if hypothetically admitted, constitute the elements of the
offense.   To meet the test of sufficiency, therefore, it is necessary to refer to the law defining the
16

offense charged which, in this case, is Section 3(c) of R.A. No. 9262, in relation to Section 5(i),
which provides as follows:

Section 3. Definition of Terms. -As used in this Act:

xxxx

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 mental infidelity. It
includes 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 to pets or to unlawful or unwanted deprivation of the right to custody and/or
visitation of common children.

xxxx

Section 5(i) of R.A No. 9262 penalizes some forms of psychological violence that are inflicted on
victims who are women and children through the following acts:

xxxx
(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.  17

In Dinamling v. People,   the Court had the occasion to enumerate the elements of violation of
18

Section S(i) of R.A. No. 9262, to wit:

(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 acts or omissions.  19

Were the elements of violation of Section 5(i) sufficiently alleged in the June 5, 2006 Information? To
answer this query and for easy reference, the accusatory portion of the Information is hereto
reproduced, as follows:

That on or about the month of July, 2005 and continuously up to the present, in Quezon City,
Philippines, the said accused, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit
economic abuse upon his wife, AAA, by then and there abandoning her without any financial support
thereby depriving her of her basic needs and inflicting upon her psychological and emotional
suffering and/or injuries, to the damage and prejudice of the said offended party.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 20

In the context of Section 6, Rule 110, the Court finds that the afore-quoted Information contains the
recital of facts necessary to constitute the crime charged. The June 5, 2006 Information stated in no
uncertain terms that: (1) the offended party, AAA, is the wife of the offender Reyes; (2) AAA
sustained mental and emotional anguish; and (3) such anguish is inflicted by offender Reyes when
he deliberately and unlawfully denied AAA with financial support.

Psychological violence is certainly an indispensable element of violation of Section 5(i) of R.A. No.
9262. Equally essential is the element of the mental or emotional anguish which is personal to the
complainant. Psychological violence is the means employed by the perpetrator, while mental or
emotional suffering is the effect caused to or the damage sustained by the offended party.  To
21

establish psychological violence, it is necessary to adduce proof of the commission of any of the acts
enumerated in Section 5(i) or similar of such acts. We concur with the similar findings of the courts a
quo that the prosecution had duly proved, through the clear and convincing testimonies of AAA and
her daughter, that Reyes committed psychological violence against AAA when he deprived her of
financial support beginning July 2005 and onwards which caused her to experience mental and
emotional suffering to the point that even her health condition was adversely affected.
Reyes argues that he cannot be held liable for violation of R.A No. 9262 because he has no
obligation to financially support AAA since he never contracted marriage with her. Petitioner is
mistaken.

We find that the National Statistics Office certified copy of a marriage certificate presented by the
prosecution serves as positive evidence of the existence of the marriage between Reyes and AAA.
The certified copy of the marriage contract, issued by a public officer in custody thereof, is
admissible as the best evidence of its contents. The marriage contract plainly indicates that a
marriage was celebrated between Reyes and AAA on May 15, 1969, and it should be accorded the
full faith and credence given to public documents.  As correctly pointed out by the CA, their marriage
22

is deemed valid until declared otherwise in a judicial proceeding. Hence, Reyes is obliged to support
his wife, AAA, the amount of which shall be in proportion to the resources or means of the said
petitioner and to the needs of the latter.23

Reyes will not be exonerated even assuming that his marriage is declared void ab initio by the court.
R.A. No. 9262 defines and criminalizes violence against women and their children perpetrated by the
woman's husband, former husband or any person against whom the woman has or had a sexual or
dating relationship with, or with whom the woman has a common child, or against her child whether
legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the family abode, which result in or likely to result in, inter
alia, economic abuse or psychological harm or suffering. Thus, the offender need not be related or
connected to the victim by marriage or former marriage, as he could be someone who has or had a
sexual or dating relationship only or has a common child with the victim. In the case at bench, it is
undisputed that AAA had borne Reyes four children out of their relationship.

The Court agrees with the observation of the CA that if properly indicted, Reyes can also be
convicted of violation of Section 5(e), par. 2 for having committed economic abuse against AAA.
Section 5(e), par. 2 identifies the act or acts that constitute the violence of economic abuse, the
pertinent portions of which states:

(e) Attempting to compel or compelling the woman or her child to engage in conduct which the
woman or her child has the right to desist from or desist from conduct which the woman or her child
has the right to engage in, or attempting to restrict or restricting the woman's or her child's freedom
of movement or conduct by force or threat of force, physically or other harm or threat of physical or
other harm, or intimidation directed against the woman or child. This shall include, but not limited to,
the following acts committed with the purpose or effect of controlling or restricting the woman's or her
child's movement or conduct:

xxxx

(2) Depriving or threatening to deprive the woman or her children of financial support legally due her
or her family,

x x x;

(3) Depriving or threatening to deprive the woman or her child of a legal right;

xxxx

Indeed, criminal liability for violation of Section 5(e) of R.A. No. 9262 attaches when the accused
deprives the woman of financial support which she is legally entitled to. Deprivation or denial of
support, by itself, is already specifically penalized therein.24
Here, we note that Reyes, although gainfully employed after June 2005, deliberately refused to
provide financial support to AAA. According to Reyes, he stopped giving monetary support to AAA
because she filed a Bigamy case against him. The Court finds his excuse unacceptable and will not
at all exculpate him from criminal liability under the VA WC. It is noteworthy that AAA charged Reyes
with Bigamy not merely to torment or harass him but to enforce her right and protect her interest as
petitioner's legal wife considering that he contracted a second marriage with one Marilou Osias
Ramboanga during the subsistence of his marriage with AAA. Evidently, the denial of financial
support is designed to subjugate AAA's will and control her conduct, either to pressure her to
withdraw said criminal case for Bigamy or dissuade her from pursuing it, or at least, to discourage
her from filing additional cases against him.

There is nothing in the definition nor in the enumeration of the acts constituting psychological
violence and economic abuse that is vague and ambiguous that will confuse Reyes as what
conducts are penalized under the VAWC. They are worded with sufficient definiteness and clarity
that persons of ordinary intelligence can understand what act is prohibited, and need not guess as to
its meaning nor differ in its application. The express language of R.A. No. 9262 reflects the intent of
the legislature for liberal construction as will best ensure the attainment of the object of the law
according to its true intent, meaning and spirit - to promote the protection and safety of victims of
violence against women and children.  25

Lastly, the Court finds that Reyes should be compelled to comply with the directive under the TPO
pertaining to the resumption of providing monthly financial support to AAA. It bears stressing that not
an iota of evidence was adduced by him to show that he is no longer employed and/or he failed to
obtain another gainful employment and/or that he has no resources or means to provide the same.

Having ascertain the guilt of Reyes for violation of Section 5(i), We shall now proceed to determine
the appropriate penalty.1âшphi1

Section 6 of R.A. No. 9262 provides:

Section. 6. Penalties. - The crime of violence against women and their children, under Section 5
hereof shall be punished according to the following rules:

xxxx

(f) Acts falling under Section 5(h) and Section 5(i) shall be punished by prision mayor.

If the acts are committed while the woman or child is pregnant or committed in the presence of her
child, the penalty to be applied shall be the maximum period of penalty prescribed in this section. In
addition to imprisonment, the perpetrator shall (a) pay a fine in the amount of not less than One
hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) but not more than Three hundred thousand pesos
(P300,000.00); (b) undergo mandatory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment and shall
report compliance to the court.

Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum term of the indeterminate penalty shall be
taken from the penalty next lower in degree, i.e., prision correccional, or anywhere from six (6)
months and one (1) day to six (6) years, while the maximum term shall be that which could be
properly imposed under the law, which is eight (8) years and one (1) day to ten (10) years of prision
mayor, there being no aggravating or mitigating circumstances attending the commission of the
crime. 26 This Court deems it proper to impose on petitioner Reyes the indeterminate penalty of four
(4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day
of prision mayor, as maximum.
Also, petitioner Reyes is DIRECTED to PAY a fine in the sum of ₱200,000.00. He is also required to
submit himself to a mandatory psychological counselling or psychiatric treatment, and to report his
compliance therewith to the court of origin.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated June 23, 2017 in
CA-G.R. CR No. 38609 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS.

(1) Petitioner Esteban Donato Reyes is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of
Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 and is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four (4)
years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day
of prision mayor, as maximum.

(2) Petitioner is ORDERED to PAY a fine equivalent to Two Hundred Thousand Pesos

(₱200,000.00); and

(3) Further, petitioner is DIRECTED to UNDERGO a mandatory psychological counselling or

psychiatric treatment, and to report his compliance therewith to the court of origin within fifteen (15)
days after the completion of such counselling or treatment.

SO ORDERED.

Leonen, A. Reyes, Jr., Hernando, and Inting, JJ., concur.

[ G.R. No. 247429, September 08, 2020 ]

JAIME ARAZA Y JARUPAY, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

DECISION

PERALTA, C.J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioner Jaime Araza y Jarupay (Araza), praying for
the reversal of the December 17, 2018 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No.
40718 and its May 10, 2019 Resolution,2 which affirmed the October 30, 2017 Decision3 of the
Regional Trial Court of Las Pinas City, Branch 199 (RTC), in Criminal Case No. 15-1287, finding
petitioner guilty of violating Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9262, or the Anti-Violence Against Women and
Their Children Act of 2004.

Antecedents

The Information filed against Araza reads:

That on or about the month of September 2007, prior and subsequent thereto, in the City of Las
Pinas, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused
with intent to humiliate and degrade his lawful wife AAA,4 did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously commit acts of psychological abuse upon his wife by then and there committing acts of
marital infidelity by having an affair with his paramour Tessie Luy Fabillar and begetting three
illegitimate children with his paramour thus causing [his] wife emotional anguish and mental
suffering.

CONTRARY TO LAW.5
When arraigned, Araza pleaded not guilty to the charge.

Evidence for the Prosecution

The prosecution presented three (3) witnesses: 1) private complainant AAA; 2) Armando Que (Que);
and 3) Dr. Kristina Ruth Lindain (Dr. Lindain).

As culled from the records of the RTC, the prosecution elicited the following:

[AAA] testified that she and [Araza] were married on October 5, 1989 at Malate Catholic Church.
Initially and at the onset of their marriage[,] her husband [Araza] was hardworking, loving and
faithful. She had no marital issues with [Araza] until x x x [he] went to Zamboanga City in February
2007[,] for their networking business. [Araza] was formerly working as an Overseas Filipino Worker
but decided to stop in 1993 to join [AAA] in her business.

It was at this point that she began to notice [Araza's] change in behavior. Allegedly, he would act x x
x depressed and would cry. He always appeared absent[-]minded. She was concerned and would
ask [him about it] but [he] would just stay quiet, [and] x x x stare at her[,] full of anxiety.

One day, she received a text message from a certain Edna and Mary Ann who told her that her
husband x x x is having an affair with their best friend. At first, she did not believe them. However,
that information brought [AAA] to Zamboanga to see for her herself whether [it] is true. Indeed[,] on
September 3, 2007[,] she was able to confirm that her husband was living with another woman[,] a
certain Tessie Luy Fabillar [Fabillar].

She instituted a complaint against [her husband Araza] x x x and his alleged mistress, [for
Concubinage,] at the Philippine National Police. The case was subsequently amicably settled after
the parties executed an Agreement whereby [Araza] and [Fabillar] committed themselves never to
see each other again.

After the case was settled x x x, [Araza again] lived with [AAA] x x x. However, [it] x x x was only for
a short time. Without saying a word, [Araza] left [AAA] on November 22, 2007. She was looking for
[Araza] and out of desperation[,] she sought the help of the NBI to search for [him]. To her surprise,
[Araza] had returned to live with his mistress again.

In the days to come, she would receive text messages from her husband's supposed mistress using
various numbers. The messages would tell her that [Araza] is sick and needed money for medicines.
There was also another text message threatening her that she will kill [AAA's] husband. Because of
this, sometime in 2013, she sought a law firm who issued a letter addressed to [Fabillar,] demanding
for the release of [Araza].

[AAA] was emotionally depressed and anxious of her husband's condition. She believed that
[Araza's] liberty was being restrained by [Fabillar]. She was determined to bring her husband home.
Thus, [i]n May 2014[,] she went to Zamboanga to search for [Araza]. She looked for him from one
[b]arangay to another; she would ask help from [p]olice [stations giving out pictures of her husband.
She would promise a reward to those who are able to locate [Araza]. She was desperate looking for
[him] and she fell ill and [was] confined in a hospital.

Thereupon, thinking that [Fabillar] was restraining the liberty of [Araza], she filed a Petition for
Habeas Corpus before the [CA,] Manila[,] on June 20, 2014. The [CA] deputized a [National Bureau
of Investigation] NBI agent to conduct a thorough investigation on [Araza] and [Fabillar].
[Based on the investigation, Araza] left their conjugal abode on his own volition and he has been
living with his mistress[,] as husband and wife. As a matter of fact, three children were born out of
their cohabitation. Hence, the petition for habeas corpus was dismissed.

The truth cause[d] AAA emotional and psychological suffering. She was suffering from insomnia and
asthma. Allegedly, she is still hurting and crying[.] [S]he could not believe x x x what had happened
in their marriage as they were living harmoniously as husband and wife.

At present[,] she is [taking] x x x anti-depressant and sleeping pills to cope with her severe emotional
and psychological turmoil brought about by [Araza's] marital infidelity and having children with his
mistress.

She claimed she had spent a large amount of money to search for her husband[,] [which] includes
the filing of several cases.

Armando Que, a friend of AAA and x x x [Araza], x x x testified that he is a member of Boardwalk, a
direct selling and networking business. Allegedly, he met AAA and [Araza] for the first time in 2001 in
this Boardwalk business. He alleged that while he was recruiting and selling items of Boardwalk in
Zamboanga, he frequently saw [Araza] and [Fabillar] togetherf,] [and] holding hands.

Allegedly, he kept that information to himself because he knew once AAA would know about it[,]
there would be trouble in their relationship.

After the reception of prosecution evidence, they formally offered their exhibits, which were all
admitted by the court[,] but only as part of the

testimonies of witnesses who testified thereon.6

xxx

On rebuttal, the prosecution presented Dr. Lindain as expert witness, who testified:

[S]he met xxx AAA for the first time on September 9, 2016 when she was referred to her by the
Women's Desk of the PGH[,] in relation to her filing of a VAWC complaint against her husband[,]
[Araza].

Allegedly, she saw AAA on September 9, x x x 22, and xxx 29, 2016[,] on an hour per session.
Based on her assessment and expert opinion, the symptoms AAA was having was like the
depressed mood; her occasional difficulty in sleeping are secondary to the relational distress with
[Araza]. It was [her] wanting to be with [her] husband that was causing those symptoms. However,
[Dr. Lindain] clarified that the manifestations exhibited by [AAA] are not sufficient to be considered as
a psychiatric disorder. She advised AAA to undergo consel[l]ing or psychotherapy[,] in order to help
her accept [her] situation x x x.7

Evidence for the Defense

The defense presented Araza as it sole witness. According to Araza:

[H]e and AAA were married in 1989. He averred that he was a former taxi driver and an [Overseas
Filipino Worker] OFW for [two] years. When he stopped being an OFW, he went back to being a taxi
driver. [O]n the other hand[,] [AAA] was into buy and sell of Boardwalk. In order to extend help to his
wife AAA, he helped in the recruitment of Boardwalk dealers to the extent of even going to various
provinces.

He recalls that initially, their marriage was going smoothly[,] but when AAA started earning money,
her behavior changed. He revealed that he did not earn anything from recruiting agents who worked
under AAA. All the commissions went to AAA['s] account.

Fie disclosed that when he was in Cagayan de Oro to recruit agents for their business, AAA had told
him that his sister had a stroke. He was allegedly dismayed when his wife did not even offer any
help as she claimed she has nothing to spare. He felt hurt about it and sadly, his sister died.

He testified that since 2007[,] his relationship with his wife has gone sour. Oftentimes, she would
believe rumors and accuse him of being a womanizer.

He denied having an affair with x x x Fabillar[,] who was acting as his guide in his recruiting activities
in Zamboanga.  He revealed that when AAA went to Zamboanga, she filed a complaint against him
Ꮮαwρhi ৷

at the Women's Desk. He was arrested as a consequence and was forced to sign an agreement. He
returned to Manila with his wife hoping that she would change her ways towards him[,] but she [did
not].

About a month, he sought a friend ['s] help [for him to secure] a plane ticket [bound] to Zamboanga.
He left his wife because he could no longer stand [her] attitude towards him. He also denied
fathering children with xxx Fabillar.9

Ruling of the RTC

In its Decision dated October 30, 2017, the RTC found that all the elements of the crime of violence
against women under Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262 were satisfied. Araza and AAA were married, as
required by the first element. The prosecution was able to establish through testimonial and
documentary evidence that Araza was the perpetrator of the mental and emotional anguish suffered
by AAA.10 Araza left their conjugal abode and chose to live with his mistress; and he reneged his
promise to stop seeing his mistress, contrary to the written agreement between him and his
mistress. AAA's psychological and emotional sufferings due to the said ordeals can also be gleaned
from Dr. Lindain's testimony, who was presented as an expert witness.11

With regard to AAA's testimony, the RTC is convinced by her sincerity and candor.12 Her testimony
was able to show that due to Araza's acts of infidelity, she suffered emotional and psychological
harm.13 Since there are no facts and/or circumstances from which it could be reasonably inferred
that AAA falsely testified or was actuated by improper motives, her testimony is worthy of full faith
and credit.14

On the other hand, Araza only offered the defense of denial, which cannot be given greater weight
than that of the declaration of a credible witness who testifies on affirmative matters. The dispositive
portion of the Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this court finds accused JAIME ARAZA y
JARUPAY GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for Violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act 9262 and
hereby imposes an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment for SIX (6) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of
PRISION CORRECIONAL as its minimum, to EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of PRISION
MAYOR as its maximum.
In addition to imprisonment[,] accused shall pay a FINE in the amount of ONE HUNDRED
THOUSAND PESOS [P100,000.00 and to indemnify the private complainant moral damages in the
amount of TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND PESOS [P25,000.00.

The period during which accused has remained under detention shall be credited to him in full[,]
provided that[,] he complies with the terms and conditions of the City Jail.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the prosecution, the private complainant, the accused[,] as
well as his counsel for their information and guidance.

SO ORDERED.15

Aggrieved, Araza appealed to the CA.

Ruling of the CA

The CA denied Araza's appeal, and motion for reconsideration, in toto. The appellate court echoed
the RTC's factual findings and conclusions. The CA found that the prosecution sufficiently
established the elements of the crime as defined in Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262, and as alleged in
the Information filed against Araza. Psychological violence as an element of the crime, and the
mental and emotional anguish she suffered, were proven through the testimonies of AAA and Dr.
Lindain. The defense of denial of Araza, which were not supported by clear and convincing
evidence, cannot prevail over the positive declarations of the victim.16

The CA concluded that R.A. No. 9262 does not criminalize acts such as the marital infidelity per
se, but the psychological violence causing mental or emotional suffering on the wife.17

Araza filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the CA in its May 10, 2019 Resolution.

Hence, this petition.

Issues

1. Whether the CA erred in affirming Araza's conviction for violation of Section 5(i) of R.A.
No. 9262 although his conviction was based on facts not alleged in the Information.

2. Whether the CA gravely erred in affirming Araza's conviction for violation of Section 5(i) of
R.A. No. 9262 on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt
the acts allegedly committed by Araza.

3. Whether the CA gravely erred in affirming Araza's conviction for violation of Section 5(i) of
R.A. No. 9262, considering that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that
AAA suffered mental and emotional anguish and Araza's act was the proximate cause
thereof.

Our Ruling

The Petition is denied for lack of merit.

The elements of violation of
Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262 were
sufficiently alleged in the
Information.

Araza argued that nothing in the Information mentioned his alleged abandonment of the conjugal
home, and his pretenses that he was forcefully detained, specifically caused AAA's emotional
anguish and mental suffering. For this reason, he cannot be convicted based on these acts, which
were not part of the charge against him.18

In Dela Chica v. Sandiganbayan,19 an Information is sufficient if it accurately and clearly alleges all
the elements of the crime charged, to wit:

The issue on how the acts or omissions constituting the offense should be made in order to meet the
standard of sufficiency has long been settled. It is fundamental that every element of which the
offense is composed must be alleged in the information. No information for a crime will be sufficient
if it does not accurately and clearly allege the elements of the crime charged.

Section 6, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court requires, inter alia, that the information must state
the acts or omissions so complained of as constitutive of the offense. Recently, this Court
emphasized that the test in determining whether the information validly charges an offense is
whether the material facts alleged in the complaint or information will establish the essential
elements of the offense charged as defined in the law. In this examination, matters aliunde are not
considered. The law essentially requires this to enable the accused suitably to prepare his defense,
as he is presumed to have no independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense.

This is in consonance with the fundamental right of an accused to be informed of the "nature and
cause of accusation."21

In order to determine the sufficiency of the averments in a complaint or information, Section 5(i) of
R.A. No. 9262 must be referred to, being the law defining the offense charged in this case.

Section 3(c) of R.A. No. 9262, in relation to Section 5(i), provides:

Section 3. Definition of Terms. — As used in this Act:

xxx

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 mental infidelity. It
includes 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 to pets or to unlawful or unwanted deprivation of the right to custody and/or
visitation of common children.

On the other hand, Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262 penalizes some forms of psychological violence
that are inflicted on victims who are women and children through the following acts:

(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. (Emphasis supplied)
In Dimamling v. People22 the elements of violation of Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262 are enumerated:

(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 acts or omissions.

To determine whether the elements of violation of Section 5(i) were sufficiently alleged, the
accusatory portion of the Information is reproduced below:

That on or about the month of September 2007, prior and subsequent thereto, in the City of Las
Pihas, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused
with intent to humiliate and degrade his lawful wife AAA, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously commit acts of psychological abuse upon his wife by then and there committing acts of
marital infidelity by having an affair with his paramour Tessie Luy Fabillar and begetting three
illegitimate children with his paramour thus causing [his] wife emotional anguish and mental
suffering.

CONTRARY TO LAW.23

Araza is correct that he cannot be convicted based on acts of abandonment of the conjugal home,
and pretenses that he was forcefully detained. These were not alleged in the Information. However,
there were other acts alleged in the Information that caused emotional anguish and mental suffering
on AAA.

In this case, the Court finds that the Information contains the recital of facts necessary to constitute
the crime charged. It clearly stated that: (1) The offended party AAA, is the wife of offender Araza;
(2) AAA sustained emotional anguish and mental suffering; and (3) such anguish and suffering is
inflicted by Araza when he had an extramarital affair with Fabillar and had three illegitimate children
with her.

The CA was correct in ruling that

Araza committed psychological
violence upon his wife AAA by
committing marital infidelity,
which caused AAA to suffer
emotional anguish and mental
suffering.

Psychological violence is an indispensable element of violation of Section 5(i) of R.A. No.

9262.24 Equally essential is the element of emotional anguish and mental suffering, which are
personal to the complainant.25 Psychological violence is the means employed by the perpetrator,
while emotional anguish or mental suffering are the effects caused to or the damage sustained by
the offended party.26 The law does not require proof that the victim became psychologically ill due
to the psychological violence done by her abuser. Rather, the law only requires emotional anguish
and mental suffering to be proven. To establish emotional anguish or mental suffering, jurisprudence
only requires that the testimony of the victim to be presented in court, as such experiences are
personal to this party.27

In order to establish psychological violence, proof of the commission of any of the acts enumerated
in Section 5(i) or similar of such acts, is necessary.

The prosecution has established Araza's guilt beyond reasonable doubt by proving that he
committed psychological violence upon his wife by committing marital infidelity. AAA's testimony was
strong and credible. She was able to confirm that Araza was living with another woman:

Q: You also mentioned in your complaint affidavit that in September 2007 there was some sort of an
agreement entered into by you[,] the complainant and your complainant's alleged mistress, do you
confirm that?

A: Yes, sir.

xxx

COURT

Q: What was the agreement all about?

WITNESS

A: I went to Zamboanga when I learned that my husband has a live[-]in relationship with one Tessie
Fabillar. I went to the police station to ask for assistance. I had them arrested and I had them sign a
document saying that they will stay apart from each other.

xxx

FISCAL MACASAET

Q: What happened to that agreement Madam Witness?

WITNESS

A: He stayed in my house for a short period only and then after November 22, 2007 he fled without
asking for my permission.

Q: Do you know where he went?

A: I'm aware that he went to his mistress.

Q: How did you know that he went to his mistress?

A: Because my colleagues in the office told me.

Q: Were you able to confirm that he went to his mistress?

A: Yes[,] sir, because I went to Zamboanga[,] I secured NBI assistance to investigate on my

husband and we discovered that he had a mistress.

Q: Who was that mistress as discovered by the National Bureau of Investigation?

A: Tessie Luy Fabillar, sir.28

xxx

Q: When did you discover that indeed your husband is living with another woman?

A: When I went back to Zamboanga last December and the police caught Jaime Araza and Tessie
Luy Fabillar living in one house.

Q: Were you able to see them living in that house?

A: Yes, Your Honor.

Q: You were also saying that there was a policeman, what did the policeman do?

A: They just brought Tessie Luy Fabillar and Jaime Araza to the police and sign an agreement that
they be separated and no more relationship will be made.

Q: Were you able to confirm the relationship of your husband from himself?

A: Yes, Your Honor.29

On the part of Araza, he admitted that he deserted AAA in order to live with Fabillar:

Q: Was there a time that you lived with Tessie Fabillar?

A: Yes[,] sir.

xxx

Q: Nagsama kayo sa iisang bubong ni [Fabillar]?

A: Yes, I stayed in her place.

Q: In the house of [Fabillar]?

A: Yes[,] sir.

Q: You are in one room?

A: In one house, your [H]onor.

xxx

Q: For how long did you stay with [Fabillar] and in her house?

A: Now, I'm staying with her, your [H]onor.

COURT

Continue.

FISCAL MACASAET

Q: When did you start living in the same house with [Fabillar]?

xxx

WITNESS

A: For 1 year only.

Q: Are you sure Mr. Witness for one year only?

A: Yes[,] sir.

FISCAL MACASAET

I have to warn you Mr. Witness if you are lying you can be...

COURT

Naiintindihan po ba ninyo ang sabi ni Fiscal kung ikaw ay nagsisinungaling mananagot ka sa batas.

Q: I'm giving you a chance, how long have you been living with [Fabillar] under one roof. A: Since
2008, sir.30

Marital infidelity, which is a form of psychological violence, is the proximate cause of AAA's
emotional anguish and mental suffering, to the point that even her health condition was adversely
affected.

The RTC ruled:

Logic and experience dictate that any woman who goes through that kind of ordeal would suffer
psychologically and emotionally as a consequence. The prosecution was able to prove this in the
case of AAA as can be gleaned from the testimony of Dr. Kristina Ruth B. Lindain who was
presented as an expert witness.31

On the other hand, the CA held:

In addition to [Araza's] marital infidelity[,] [i]t was the thought that her husband was being detained,
sick and ailing, and in the danger of being killed if she will not send money that caused [AAA's]
emotional and psychological turmoil that drove her to the brink of despair. [AAA] became so
depressed that she had to be hospitalized.32

In the RTC Decision, and as affirmed by the CA, these acts were in accord with the Information to
have caused emotional and mental anguish on AAA:

No doubt that the prosecution has successfully established that [Araza] left his wife AAA and
decided to stay in Zamboanga City where he maintained an illicit affair with x x x Fabillar during the
subsistence of their marriage. The record is brimming with evidence that [Araza] intentionally left
AAA groping in the dark. Without any explanation or mature conversation with his wife, x x x [Araza]
simply left his wife causing the latter emotional and psychological distress.33

First, the prosecution was able to prove the case of AAA, as can be gleaned from the testimony of
Dr. Lindain, who was presented as an expert witness:

A: Well, separation po, even that they have been together from 1989 to 2007[,] it's been a marriage
wherein there's a commitment, the fact that he was not there ncrwala siya counted as a loss so, the
actual loss can actually perpetrate symptoms of depression, anxiety so na-test yung reaction it's a
contegration but the actual loss of him not being there anymore can trigger the symptom.34

xxx

Q: Just the sole act of leaving a spouse, can you already qualify that as psychological or emotional
abuse?

A: In my opinion, yes.

Q: Why so?

A: During the separation there was no understanding of what had actually happened and from her
story that per 2007 until 2013[,] she was making an effort to actually find the husband and she was
worried what was happening to the husband, it is enough to be the cause of emotional and
psychological abuse.35

Second, AAA narrated how she received several information about Araza's affair with Fabillar; how
she was able to confirm the affair herself which led to the filing of the complaint for concubinage; and
despite the complaint being settled and that both Araza and Fabillar agreed to stop living together,
Araza repeated his affair with Fabillar.36

AAA's testimony that she suffered mental and emotional anguish due to Araza's acts, was
categorical and straightforward, to wit:

Q: In this letter Madam Witness, [Fabillar] was asked to release your husband from her custody and
to send your husband to you, what was the result of this letter, if you know?

A: The case was not given due course because the truth is, my husband was living with xxx Fabillar.

Q: Was your husband returned to you by x x x Fabillar?

A: No, sir.
xxx

Q: What was the effect of your husband's unfaithfulness to you?

A: I became so depressed until now, I was always hospitalized.

Q: What was your proof that you were hospitalized?

A: I have a medical certificate from Perpetual Help.

xxx

Q: And if you see those medical records, will you be able to identify them?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: I'm showing you [these] documents marked as Exhibits "E" up to "E-6", will you please look at
them and tell us if those are the medical records that you are referring to?

A: Yes, sir.

FISCAL MACASAET

Your Honor, just for the record the witness identified Exhibits "E" up to "E-6".

Q: Now in filing this complaint against your husband, what do you wish to attain?

WITNESS

A: He must be put in jail so that he knows that he is really, he had done something wrong to me
because I love him so much but then he has different attitudes and he has a different answer against
me. I want to put him in jail that's all.

FISCAL MACASAET

We want to make it on record Your Honor, that the witness is crying.

Q: What if he...

A: The main purpose of mine today is to put him in jail.

Q: That's all?

A: After the case I will also present the case against Tessie Luy Fabillar so that both of them will be
put in jail.37

xxx

Q: And you said that your husband came back and live with you again as husband and wife?
A: Only for two (2) months.

Q: And then after two (2) months?

A: He went back to x x x Fabillar.

xxx

Q: And this time when your husband left you to live with her mistress once more, how did you feel
about this?

A: Until now I am depressed, I can't forget my husband.

Q: So, you want to impress upon this court that you still love your husband? A: Yes of course, but
then a punishment should be made.

Q: Flave you forgiven your husband about this? A: I'm still hurt.38

xxx

Q: You said in your affidavit in no. 28 of that document Madam Witness, Jaime is engaging in
conduct that causes substantial emotional or psychological distress to you, can you please tell us
what do you mean by that?

A: First of all[,] when my husband left me[,] I didn't eat, I didn't sleep until 2013 when I found out that
he's still alive[,] then that's the time I changed my mind so I tried my health to be better so that I can
move to another case.

Q: Isn't it that the matter that you told us is just an effect of love being unreturned and not because of
what Jaime intentionally did to you?

A: No, it's not, ma'am.

Q: You considered those things as the effect of actions of Jaime, not loving you back?

A: Yes, ma'am.

Q: And what you wanted now to do is that you filed this case so that he will love you back?

A: I think no more because until now I know he doesn't love me anymore because he wants to stay
with another woman so, I want him to be punished so that he will know how it feels to be hurt, both
of them.39

Third, while Araza denied that he committed marital infidelity against AAA, he w© would later on
admit that that he left his wife AAA to live with Fabillar, and that he was fully aware that AAA suffered
emotionally and psychologically because of his decision:

[ATTY. SOMERA]

Q: After a month more or less[,] where did you go?

A: When I couldn't take her behavior anymore, I called my friend who's in Zamboanga, ma'am.

Q: And what did you ask this friend[,] if there be any?

A: I asked the help of my friend for him to secure a plane ticket for me because I was intending to go
back and work in Zamboanga.40

xxx

Q: You decided to finally leave your wife in 2007 because you cannot stand her character anymore,
is that correct?

A: Yes[,] sir.

Q: And you know very well that your separation from her is affecting her emotionally and
psychologically, is that correct? You know that?

COURT

Please answer the question.

A: Yes[,] sir.

Q: And despite knowing that your wife is suffering emotionally and psychologically because of your
decision to leave [her] you still choose to stay [away] from her, is that correct?

A: Yes, sir.

xxx

Q: Was there a time that you lived with Tessie Fabillar?

A: Yes[,] sir.

xxx

COURT

Q: I'm giving you a chance, how long have you been living with [Fabillar] under one roof.

A: Since 2008, sir.41

xxx

Q: And it is correct to say based on this document that you and [Fabillar] agreed not to live [together]
anymore, is that correct?

COURT

Please don't nod.

Q: What's the answer?

A: Yes, sir[.]

Q: And yet after signing that agreement you and [Fabillar] lived together under one roof, is that
correct?

A: Yes[,] sir[.]42

The RTC was convinced by the sincerity and truthfulness of AAA's testimony. AAA, who only
intended to bring justice to what happened to her, was able to testify and to show through her
testimony that due to Araza's act of infidelity and failure to stay true to his promise, she suffered
emotional and psychological harm.

This Court will not disturb the findings of the RTC and as affirmed by the CA, as regards AAA's
credibility as a witness. The RTC is in a better position to observe her candor and behavior on the
witness stand. Its assessment is respected unless certain facts of substance and value were
overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case.43

Araza can only offer the defense of denial. The defense of denial is inherently weak and cannot
prevail over the positive and credible testimonies of the prosecution witnesses that the accused
committed the crime.44 Denial, being a self-serving negative defense, cannot be given greater
weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.45

The prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that Araza committed the crime of
psychological violence, through his acts of marital infidelity, which caused mental or emotional
suffering on the part of AAA.

Having ascertained the guilt of Araza for violation of Section 5(i), We shall now proceed to determine
the appropriate penalty.

Section 6 of R.A. No. 9262 provides:

SECTION 6. Penalties- The crime of violence against women and their children, under Section 5
hereof shall be punished according to the following rules:

(f) Acts falling under Section 5(h) and Section 5(i) shall be punished by prision mayor.

If the acts are committed while the woman or child is pregnant or committed in the presence of her
child, the penalty to be applied shall be the maximum period of penalty prescribed in the section.

In addition to imprisonment, the perpetrator shall (a) pay a fine in the amount of not less than One
hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) but not more than three hundred thousand pesos
(300,000.00); (b) undergo mandatory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment and shall
report compliance to the court.

Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum term of the indeterminate penalty shall be
taken from the penalty next lower in degree, which is prision correcional, in any of its period which is
from six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years, while the maximum term shall be which could
be properly imposed under the law, which is eight (8) years and one (1) day to ten (10) years
of prision mayor, there being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance attending the commission of
the crime.46 This Court deems it proper to impose on petitioner Araza, the indeterminate penalty of
six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correcional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day
of prision mayor, as maximum.

Also, petitioner Araza is DIRECTED TO PAY a fine in the amount of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND
PESOS (P100,000.00), and moral damages in the amount of TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND PESOS
(P25,000.00).

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED for failure of the petitioner to show any
reversible error in the assailed CA Decision. The assailed Decision dated December 17, 2018 and
the Resolution dated May 10, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 40718 are
hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION:

1. Petitioner Jaime Araza y Jarupay is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Violation

of Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 and is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty
of six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correcional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and
one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum;

2. Petitioner is ORDERED to PAY a fine equivalent to One Hundred Thousand Pesos (PI

00,000.00), and moral damages in the amount of Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos
(P25,000.00); and

3. Further, petitioner is DIRECTED to UNDERGO a mandatory psychological counselling or

psychiatric treatment, and to REPORT his compliance therewith to the court of origin within
fifteen (15) days after the completion of such counselling or treatment.

SO ORDERED.

Caguioa, Reyes, Jr., Lazaro-Javier, and Lopez, JJ., concur.