Facts:
Ricky Dinamling, a policeman, was in a 5-year relationship with AAA. They had 2 common
children, aged 4 and 2. One night, he went to AAA’s boarding house with a friend after a
drinking session. As AAA was putting the children to bed, he started to evict her for the reason
that she was using the place as a “whore house” wherein she “brought her partners.” She did not
want to leave but he threw a baby’s feeding bottle outside. She went to BBB’s house and
requested to fetch her children. However, Dinamling already left the boarding house with the
older child and only the baby was left.
In the past, he would hit AAA’s head, pull her hair, and kick her When AAA went to the police,
she was merely told that it was a family problem that could be talked over.
6 days after the incident, AAA was at CCC’s house when Dinamling arrived. He shouted and
counted down for AAA to come out. When she came out, Dinamling punched her at the left ear,
which subsequently bled. When AAA asked him why he kept on following her when she already
had left him, Dinamling shouted her family name and told her she was “good-for-nothing.” AAA
left for the barangay captain's house, but Dinamling caught up with her and kicked her until she
fell to the ground. On the road, Dinamling pulled down AAA's pants and panty and shouted at
her while people looked on. Dinamling then threw the pants and panty back at AAA and shouted
her family name. Dinamling, then intoxicated, left on a motorcycle. AAA stayed at her friend's
home until she felt some back pain in the next morning. She found out she was bleeding and
about to miscarry so she was immediately brought to the hospital. There, she was told that she
was 19 weeks pregnant and had an incomplete abortion. She was hospitalized for four days.
Dinamling visited her but showed no remorse over his acts.
Dinamling was charged with (2) criminal Informations in the RTC for violation of Section 5(i),
in relation to Section 6(f) of RA No. 9262.
His defense was denial and alibi, claiming that he was on duty at the town’s police station at the
time that the offenses were committed.
RTC found Dinamling gulty of both charges. CA affirmed but modified the penalty by applying
ISLaw.
Issue:
Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of violation of RA No. 9262.
Ruling:
The elements of the crime are;
(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 the 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.
In this case, the elements have been proven and duly established. It is undisputed that thevictim
is a woman who has then in a five-year ongoing relationship with Dinamling and had two
common children. The woman is often in fear of petitioner due to latter’s physical and verbal
abuse.
Psychological violence is an element of violation of Section 5 (RA No. 9262) just like the mental
or emotional anguish caused on the victim. It is the means employed by the perpetrator, while
mental or emotional anguish is the effect caused to or the damage sustained by the offended
party. To establish psychological violence as the element of the crime, it is necessary to show
proof of commission of any of the acts enumerated in Section 5(i) or similar acts. And to
establish mental or emotional anguish, it is necessary to present a testimony of the victim as such
experiences are personal to this party.
In fact, neither the physical injuries suffered by the victim nor the actual physical violence done
by the perpetrator are necessary to prove the essential elements of the crime as defined in Section
5(i) of RA 9262. The only exception is, as in the case at bar, when the physical violence done,
petitioner Dinamling's acts of publicly punching, kicking and stripping her pants and underwear,
although obvious acts of physical violence, are also instances of psychological violence since it
was alleged and proven that they resulted in the victim’s public ridicule. Accused is alleged to
have caused the mental and emotional suffering; in which case, such acts of physical violence
must be proven. In this instance, the physical violence was a means of causing mental or
emotional suffering. As such, whether or not it led to actual bodily injury, the physical violence
translates to psychological violence since its main effect was on the victim's mental or emotional
well-being.
