hat are ‘damages’ under Philippine

law?
‘Damages’ is a term defined by the Supreme Court in the case of MEA Builders, Inc. vs.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121484, 31 January 2005, as the sum of money which the law
awards or imposes as a pecuniary compensation, a recompense, or satisfaction for an
injury done or a wrong sustained as a consequence either of a breach of a contractual
obligation or a tortious act.

In Julita Robleza vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-80364, 28 June 1989, the Supreme
Court ratiocinated why damages may be recovered, to wit:

“The law on damages is merely intended to repair the damage done by putting the plaintiff
in the same position, as far as pecuniary compensation can do, that he would be had the
damage not been inflicted and the wrong not committed.”

What court has exclusive original

jurisdiction in an action for recovery of
damages?  
In an action for the recovery of damages, the court that has jurisdiction depends upon the
total amount of the damages claimed. Where the claim for damages is the main cause of
action or one of the causes of action, the amount of the claim shall be considered in
determining the jurisdiction of the court.

The Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTC) shall have exclusive jurisdiction over an action for the
recovery of damages where the total amount of the damages claimed does not exceed Four
hundred thousand pesos (P400, 000.00).

The Municipal Trial Court (MTC), Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Municipal Circuit
Trial Court (MCTC) shall have exclusive jurisdiction over payment of money where the
value of the claim does not exceed Three hundred thousand pesos (P300, 000.00).

If it exceeds the jurisdictional amount (Four hundred thousand pesos (P400, 000.00) in
MeTCs, and Three hundred thousand pesos (P300, 000.00) in MTCs, MTCCs, and
MCTCs), the Regional Trial Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction. However, a civil action
for damages due to libel can only be instituted either in Regional Trial Court of the place
where the public officer holds office or in the place where the alleged libelous article was
printed and first published; and if the offended parties are private individuals, the venue
shall be in the Regional Trial Court of the place where the libelous article was printed and
first published or where any of the offended parties actually resides at the time of the
commission of the offense.

An action for the recovery of damages is a civil action. A civil action is defined as one by
which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or
redress of a wrong

An action for the recovery of damages is a personal action. Such action shall be
commenced or tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs reside or any of the
defendants reside, or if a non-resident defendant, where he may be found at the election of
the plaintiff.

What are the Kinds of Damages

awarded by Philippine courts?
In Philippine laws, there are six kinds of damages. Under Article 2197 of the Civil Code of
the Philippines, damages may be one of the following:

1. Actual or compensatory;
2. Moral;
3. Nominal;
4. Temperate or moderate;
5. Liquidated; or
6. Exemplary or corrective.
Actual or Compensatory Damages

Article 2199 of the new Civil Code provides that, “except as provided by law or by
stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss
suffered by him as he has duly proved. Such compensation is referred to as actual or
compensatory damages. He who claims actual or compensatory damages must establish
and prove by competent evidence actual pecuniary loss.

Actual or compensatory damages are those awarded in satisfaction of, or in recompense

for, loss or injury sustained. They simply make good or replace the loss caused by the
wrong. (Mariano Mendoza vs. Leonora Gomez, G.R. No. 160110, June 18, 2014)

Moral Damages
Moral damages are awarded to enable the injured party to obtain means, diversions or
amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he has undergone, by reason of
the defendant’s culpable action. (Kierulf vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 99301, 13 March
1997)

The provisions of the new Civil Code on moral damages state:

“Art. 2217. Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious
anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shocks, social humiliation, and
similar injury. Though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be
recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant’s wrongful act or omission.

Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases:

(1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;

(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;

(3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts;

(4) Adultery or concubinage;

(5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest;

(6) Illegal search;

(7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation;

(8) Malicious prosecution;

(9) Acts mentioned in article 309;

(10) Acts and actions referred to in articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35.

The parents of the female seduced, abducted, raped, or abused, referred to in No. 3 of this
article, may also recover moral damages. The spouse, descendants, ascendants, and
brothers and sister may bring action mentioned in No. 9 of this article, in the order named.

Art. 2220. Willful injury to property may be legal ground for awarding moral damages if the
court should find that, under the circumstances, such damages are justly due. The same
rule applies to breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith.
In the case of Oscar Ventanilla vs. Gregorio Centeno, G.R. No. L-14333, 28 January 1961,
the Supreme Court elucidated the recovery of moral damages, to wit:

“Moral damages are recoverable only when physical suffering, mental anguish, fright,
serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shocks, social humiliation,
and similar injury are the proximate result of a criminal offense resulting in physical injuries,
quasi-delicts causing physical injuries, seduction, abduction, rape or other lascivious acts,
adultery or concubinage, illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest, illegal search, libel, slander
or any other form of defamation, malicious prosecution, disrespect for the dead or wrongful
interference with funerals, violation of specific provisions of the Civil Code on human
relations, and willful injury to property. To this we may add that where a mishap occurs
resulting in the death of a passenger being transported by a common carrier, the spouse,
descendants and ascendants of the deceased passenger are entitled to demand moral
damages for mental anguish by reason of the passenger’s death.”

Temperate Damages

Under Article 2224 of the New Civil Code, temperate damages may be recovered when
pecuniary loss has been suffered but the amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be
proven with certainty. In such cases, the amount of the award is left to the discretion of the
courts, according to the circumstances of each case, but the same should be reasonable,
bearing in mind that temperate damages should be more than nominal but less than
compensatory. (Republic of the Philippines vs. Alberto Looyuko, G.R. No. 170966, 22 June
2016)

Exemplary or Corrective Damages

Article 2229 of the Civil Code provides that exemplary or corrective damages are imposed,
by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to moral, temperate,
liquidated or compensatory damages. Article 2231 of the same Code further states that
in quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may be granted if the defendant acted with gross
negligence. (Mariano Mendoza vs. Leonora Gomez, G.R. No. 160110, June 18, 2014)

Nominal Damages

Under Article 2221 of the Civil Code, nominal damages may be awarded in order that the
plaintiff’s right, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or
recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered. 
Nominal damages are recoverable where a legal right is technically violated and must be
vindicated against an invasion that has produced no actual present loss of any kind or
where there has been a breach of contract and no substantial injury or actual damages
whatsoever have been or can be shown. (Seven Brothers Shipping Corporation vs. DMC-
Construction Resources, Inc., G.R. No. 193914, 26 November 2014)

Article 2221 of the new Civil Code provides:

“Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been
violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the
purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him.” The assessment of
nominal damages is left to the discretion of the court, according to the circumstances of the
case.

Liquidated Damages

Under Article 2226 of the Civil Code, liquidated damages are those agreed upon by the
parties to a contract, to be paid in case of breach thereof. The parties to a contract are
allowed to stipulate on liquidated damages to be paid in case of breach. It is attached to an
obligation in order to ensure performance and has a double function: (1) to provide for
liquidated damages, and (2) to strengthen the coercive force of the obligation by the threat
of greater responsibility in the event of breach. The amount agreed upon answers for
damages suffered by the owner due to delays in the completion of the project. As a pre-
condition to such award, however, there must be proof of the fact of delay in the
performance of the obligation. (Atlantic Erectors, Inc., vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
170732, 11 October 2012)

The liability for liquidated damages is governed by Articles 2226-2228 of the Civil Code
which provide:

“Article 2226. Liquidated damages are those agreed upon by the parties to a contract, to be
paid in case of breach thereof.

Article 2227. Liquidated damages, whether intended as an indemnity or a penalty, shall be

equitably reduced if they are iniquitous or unconscionable.

Article 2228. When the breach of the contract committed by the defendant is not the one
contemplated by the parties in agreeing upon the liquidated damages, the law shall
determine the measure of damages, and not the stipulation.”

About Nicolas and De Vega Law Offices

If you need assistance in civil or other criminal law-related issues,  we can help you. Nicolas
and de Vega Law Offices is a full-service law firm in the Philippines.  You may visit us at the
16th Flr., Suite 1607 AIC Burgundy Empire Tower, ADB Ave., Ortigas Center, 1605 Pasig
City, Metro Manila, Philippines.  You may also call us at +632 84706126, +632 84706130,
+632 84016392 or e-mail us at info@ndvlaw.com. Visit our website www.ndvlaw.com.

SEARCH
 Search
Search for:
LATEST POST

 KNOW THIS! HOW LAWS ARE PASSED IN THE PHILIPPINES

 WHEN CAN A COMPANY REFUSE TO GIVE CHRISTMAS BONUS?


Who is a Nuisance Candidate?


 New Corporate Income, Reduced Taxes, and New Tax Incentives in the Philippines under RA
11534 (CREATE Act)


CTUAL/ COMPENSATORY DAMAGES

Purpose
Actual or compensatory damages simply make good or
replace the loss caused by the wrong.
 
Manner of Determination
Claimant must produce competent proof or the best evidence
obtainable such as receipts to justify an award therefore.
Actual or compensatory damages cannot be presumed but
must be proved with reasonable certainty. (People v. Ereno,
Feb. 22, 2000)
 
Special/Ordinary
Ordinary
NOTE: Ordinary Damages are those generally inherent in a
breach of a typical contract
 
MORAL DAMAGES
Purpose
Awarded only to enable the injured party to obtain means,
diversion or amusement that will alleviate the moral
suffering he has undergone, by reason of defendants culpable
action. (Robleza v. CA, 174 SCRA 354)
 
Manner of Determination
No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary. The assessment is
left to the discretion of the court according to the
circumstances of each case. However, there must be proof
that the defendant caused physical suffering etc. (Compania
Maritima v. Allied Free Worker’s Union, G.R. No. L-31379,
Aug. 29, 1988). GR: Factual basis must be alleged. Aside
from the need for the claimant to satisfactorily prove the
existence of the factual basis of the damages, it is also
necessary to prove its causal relation to the defendant’s act
(Raagas v. Trava, G.R. No. L-20081, Feb. 27,1968; People v.
Manero, G.R. Nos. 86883-85, Jan. 29, 1993).
 
Exception: Criminal cases. Moral damages may be awarded
to the victim in criminal proceedings in such amount as the
court deems just without need for pleading or proof of the
basis thereof (People v. Paredes, July 30, 1998).
 
Special/Ordinary
Special
NOTE: Special Damages are those which exist because of
special circumstances and for which a debtor in good faith
can be held liable if he had been previously informed of
such. circumstances.
 
There is a possible legal loophole that favors a wife’s testimony against her husband in
cases of marital infidelity of the latter.
This was seen in a case of a man who was convicted for cheating on his wife, raising
concerns that existing laws covering illicit affairs may not treat men and women the same
way in complex emotional cases.

Last October 27, the Supreme Court’s First Division affirmed a man’s sentence of
between six and eight years of imprisonment for violation of the Anti-Violence against
Women and Their Children Act of 2004 after it upheld that he committed the crime of
psychological violence through infidelity.

In a 20-page decision from Supreme Court Justice Diosdado Peralta, the man was found
guilty beyond reasonable doubt for inflicting psychological violence on his ex-wife due
to his illicit affair with another woman since 2007.

“Psychological violence is an indispensable element of violation of Section 5 of RA

9262. Equally essential is the element of emotional anguish and mental suffering, which
are personal to the complainant. 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,” the decision read.

The high court also noted that the victim’s testimony presented before the court was
already enough to establish that she suffered from psychological violence.

“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,” the SC said.

While this development mostly drew praises online, some Filipinos perceived it unfair
that in other similar cases wherein a woman would also be at fault, only the man would
held accountable.
 Screenshot by
Interaksyon
Others also expressed views that the country’s laws on cases of marital adultery or
infidelity are only favorable to female victims.

Screenshot by
Interaksyon
Some comments, meanwhile, claimed that even politicians from the local to the national
level are unfaithful to their spouses.
 Screen
shot by Interaksyon

Laws against affairs

In a televised interview on October 28, lawyer Gaby Concepcion said that the case is the
first time that the VAWC law was invoked to put an unfaithful husband in jail.

There were attempts before to do so, however, those cases were returned from the high
court to the Regional Trial Court due to lack of evidence.

Concepcion explained that under the VAWC, it was the emotional anguish caused by
illicit affair by the husband, and not exactly the act of infidelity, that was the subject of
guilt.

“Dito, ang pinaparusahan ang psychological violence inflicted on the wife. So ang
importante dito ay hindi ‘yung fact na may kabit si mister. Ang pinarurusahan ay dahil ito
nag cause ng mental anguish, nagkaron ng emotional  effect ito dun sa babaeng asawa,”
she said.

There is no new law, Concepcion said, that is against extra-marital affairs, citing the
standing articles of the Revised Penal Code.

In Article 333 of the RPC, adultery happens when: “any married woman who shall have
sexual intercourse with a man not her husband and by the man who has carnal knowledge
of her knowing her to be married, even if the marriage be subsequently declared void.”
In Article 334 of the RPC, concubinage is committed when a husband keeps “a mistress
in the conjugal dwelling, or shall have sexual intercourse, under scandalous
circumstances, with a woman who is not his wife, or shall cohabit with her in any other
place.”

Therefore, if proven guilty, either a man or a man who committed either acts shall be
punished by “prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods.”

The VAWC, meanwhile, was passed to provide specific definitions of violent acts against
women and children and the corresponding punishment for them.

In the case mentioned, part of section 5 described psychological violence as:

“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 of access to the woman’s child/children.”

NOMINAL DAMAGES
Purpose
Vindicating or recognizing the injured party’s right to a
property that has been violated or invaded. (Tan v. Bantegui,
473 SCRA 663)
 
Manner of Determination
No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary. Proof that a legal
right has been violated is what is only required. Usually
awarded in the absence of proof of actual damages.
 
Special/Ordinary
Special
NOTE: Special Damages are those which exist because of
special circumstances and for which a debtor in good faith
can be held liable if he had been previously informed of
such. circumstances.
 
TEMPERATE DAMAGES
Purpose
When the court is convinced that there has been such a loss,
the judge is empowered to calculate moderate damages
rather than let the complainant suffer without redress. (GSIS
v. Labung-Deang, 365 SCRA 341)
 
Manner of Determination
May be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary
loss has been suffered but its amount cannot, from the nature
of the case, be proved with certainty. No proof of pecuniary
loss is necessary.
 
Special/Ordinary
Special
NOTE: Special Damages are those which exist because of
special circumstances and for which a debtor in good faith
can be held liable if he had been previously informed of
such. circumstances.
 
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
Purpose
Liquidated damages are frequently agreed upon by the
parties, either by way of penalty or in order to avoid
controversy on the amount of damages.
 
Manner of Determination
If intended as a penalty in obligations with a penal cause,
proof of actual damages suffered by the creditor is not
necessary in order that the penalty may be demanded (Art.
1228, NCC). No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary.
 
Special/Ordinary
Special
NOTE: Special Damages are those which exist because of
special circumstances and for which a debtor in good faith
can be held liable if he had been previously informed of
such. circumstances.
 
EXEMPLARY/CORRECTIVE DAMAGES
Purpose
Exemplary or corrective damages are intended to serve as a
deterrent to serious wrongdoings. (People v. Orilla, 422
SCRA 620)
 
Manner of Determination
1. That the claimant is entitled to moral, temperate or
compensatory damages; and

2. That the crime was committed with 1 or more aggravating

circumstances, or the quasi-‐delict was committed with gross
negligence, or in contracts and quasi-contracts the act must
be accompanied by bad faith or done in wanton, fraudulent,
oppressive or malevolent manner. No proof of pecuniary loss
is necessary.
 
Special/Ordinary
Special
NOTE: Special Damages are those which exist because of
special circumstances and for which a debtor in good faith
can be held liable if he had been previously informed of
such. circumstances.

The utility of psychological testing in assessing emotional

damages in personal injury litigation
Stuart A Greenberg 1, Randy K Otto, Anna C Long
Affiliations expand
 PMID: 14682487
 
 DOI: 10.1177/1073191103259532
Abstract

Psychological testing and assessment instruments

frequently play a small but important role when
psychologists assist the courts as emotional damage
experts in personal injury matters. However, examiners
frequently, if sometimes inadvertently, mislead the
court with test interpretations that are based on clinical
rather than forensic populations and that fail to
appreciate the lack of robustness of clinical measures in
this forensic context. Whereas published computerized
interpretations repeatedly remind experts that
personality test results should only be used as a
method to generate hypotheses about the examinee
that are to be subjected to further investigation and
consideration, experts all too often inform the courts of
test interpretations as if the test results were measures
of clinical constructs rather than plaintiffs' self-reports
of symptoms.
Similar articles

 Legal principles in the psychiatric assessment of

personal injury litigants.

Hoffman BF, Spiegel H.Am J Psychiatry. 1989

Mar;146(3):304-10. doi:
10.1176/ajp.146.3.304.PMID: 2919687

 MMPI-2 base rates for 492 personal injury

plaintiffs: implications and challenges for forensic
assessment.

Lees-Haley PR.J Clin Psychol. 1997 Nov;53(7):745-

55. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-
4679(199711)53:7<745::aid-jclp13>3.0.co;2-l.PMID: 
9356905

 Ethical issues in personality assessment in forensic

psychology.

Knapp S, VandeCreek L.J Pers Assess. 2001

Oct;77(2):242-54. doi:
10.1207/S15327752JPA7702_07.PMID: 11693856 Re
view.

 [Assessment of psychological consequences of

trauma].
 Foerster K, Widder B.Nervenarzt. 2011
Dec;82(12):1557-65. doi: 10.1007/s00115-011-
3290-y.PMID: 22038383 German.

 [Differences in psychiatric expertise of

responsibility: Assessment and initial hypotheses
through a review of literature].
Guivarch J, Piercecchi-Marti MD, Glezer D,
Chabannes JM.Encephale. 2015 Jun;41(3):244-50.
doi: 10.1016/j.encep.2015.03.002. Epub 2015 Apr
8.PMID: 25864036 Review. French.
See all similar articles

Cited by 1 article

 Civil Forensic Evaluation in Psychological Injury and

Law: Legal, Professional, and Ethical Considerations.
Foote WE, Goodman-Delahunty J, Young G.Psychol
Inj Law. 2020 Nov 24:1-27. doi: 10.1007/s12207-
020-09398-3. Online ahead of
print.PMID: 33250954 Free PMC article. Review.
MeSH terms

 Expert Testimony*
o
o
 o
 Forensic Psychiatry / legislation & jurisprudence
o
o
o
 Forensic Psychiatry / methods*
o
o
o
 Humans
o
o
o
 Interview, Psychological
o
o
o
 Jurisprudence
o
o
o
 Personality Assessment
o
o
 o
 Psychological Tests*
o
o
o
 Psychometrics
o
o
o
 Stress, Psychological / diagnosis*
o
o
o
 Wounds and Injuries / psychology*

STEBAN DONATO REYES, PETITIONER, V.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

D E C I S I O N
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[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA)
in CA-G.R. CR No. 38609 which affirmed
the March 3, 2016 Decision[2] of the
Regional Trial Court, 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 P20,000.00 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[4] (HDO)
against Reyes. In the October 28, 2008
Order[5] of the RTC, the TPO issued on
March 12, 2007 was made permanent.
On June 11, 2009, Reyes filed a Motion to
Quash[6] the Information anchored on the
ground that the 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,
[7]
 the prosecution maintained that the
totality of 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[8] dated November 24, 2009,
the RTC ruled that on the basis of the
allegations in the 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, of 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
(P10,000.00) to Twenty Thousand Pesos
(P20,000.00), 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 P20,000.00. 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 5(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 RTC 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 PETITIONER 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 VIOLATING
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 RTC 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.[14] Every
element constituting the offense must be
alleged in the Information[15] since the
prosecution has the duty to prove each
and 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.[16] To meet the test of
sufficiency, therefore, it is necessary
to refer to the law defining the 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:
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
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.
x x x x
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:
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.[17]
In Dinamling v. People,[18] the Court had
the occasion to enumerate the elements of
violation of Section 5(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.[21] To
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.[22] As
correctly pointed out by the CA, their
marriage 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:
x x x x
(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;
x x x x
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 VAWC. 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.
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:
x x x x
(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
P200,000.00. 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
(P200,000.00); 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.

July 22, 2019

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs / Mesdames:
Please take notice that on July 3, 2019 a
Decision, copy attached hereto, was
rendered by the Supreme Court in the
above-entitled case, the original of
which was received by this Office on July
22, 2019 at 10:35 a.m.
Very truly
yours,
(SGD.)
WILFREDO V.
 
LAPITAN
Division
Clerk of
Court
 Penned by Associate Justice Ramon A.
[1]

Cruz, with Associate Justices Marlene

Gonzales-Sison and Jhosep Y. Lopez,
concurring; rollo, pp. 26-37.
[2]
 Penned by Judge Cecilyn E. Burgos-
Villavert; id. at 38-44.
[3]
 The real names of persons (other than
the accused) and places or any other
information tending to reveal the
identity of the private complainant and
those of her immediate family or
household members are withheld in
accordance with Republic Act No. 9262, or
the Anti-Violence Against Women and
their Children Act of 2004 (Sec. 44);
Republic Act No. 7610, or the Special
Protection of Children Against Abuse,
Exploitation and Discrimination Act (Sec.
29); A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, known as
"Rule on Violence Against Women and
Their Children," effective November 15,
2004, (Sec. 40); the case of People v.
Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703, 705-709
(2006); and and per this Court's
Resolution dated September 19, 2006 in
A.M. No. 04-11-09-SC.
[4]
 Rollo, pp. 59-60
[5]
 Id. at 75-76.
[6]
 Id. at 77-83.
[7]
 Id. at 84-86.
[8]
 Id. at 90-91.
[9]
 Id. at 161-162. (Citations omitted)
[10]
 Id. at 44.
[11]
 Id. at 140.
[12]
 Id. at 15.
[13]
 People v. Cutamora, 396 Phil. 405,
414 (2000).
[14]
 People v. PO2 Valdez, et al., 679
Phil. 279, 283 (2012).
[15]
 Andaya v. People, 526 Phil. 480, 497
(2006).
[16] 
People v. Balao, et al., 655 Phil.
563, 571-572 (2011).
[17]
 Emphasis ours.
[18]
 761 Phil. 356, 373 (2015).
[19]
 Emphasis ours.
[20]
 Records, p. 1.
[21]
 AAA v. BBB, G.R. No. 212448, January
11, 2018.
[22]
 Tenebro v. Court of Appeals, 467
Phil. 723, 740 (2004).
[23]
 Lim-Lua v. Lua, 710 Phil. 211, 221
(2013).
[24]
 Melgar v. People, G.R. No. 223477,
February 14, 2018.
[25]
 Go-Tan v. Spouses Tan, 588 Phil. 532,
541 (2008).
[26]
 Art. 64. Rules for the application of
penalties which contain three periods. —
In cases in which the penalties
prescribed by law contain three periods,
x x x, the courts shall observe for the
application of the penalty the following
rules, according to whether there are or
are no mitigating or aggravating
circumstances:
1. When there are neither aggravating nor
mitigating circumstances, they shall
impose the penalty prescribed by law in
its medium period.
x x x x