G.R. No. 247429: September 08 2020

Offense Involved: Anti-Violence Against Women and Children

FACTS: On October 5, 1989, AAA married Araza. Initially and at the onset of their marriage, her husband Araza was hardworking, loving and faithful. She had no marital issues with Araza until he went to Zamboanga City in February 2007, for their networking business. It was at this point that she began to notice Araza’s change in behavior. One day, she received a text telling that her husband is having an affair with their best friend. She went to see it for herself and was able to confirm that her husband was living with another woman, a certain Tessie Luy Fabillar. She instituted a complaint against her husband Araza and his alleged mistress, for Concubinage. 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, Araza again lived with AAA. However, it was only for a short time. Without saying a word, Araza left AAA on November 22, 2007. 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, she sought legal services believing that Araza’s liberty was being restrained by 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. The truth caused AAA emotional and psychological suffering. An information for crime of violence against women under Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262 was filed in RTC Las Pinas City. RTC ruled in favor of AAA. This was affirmed by the CA. Aggrieved, Aaraza filed this present case.


  1. Whether or not 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?


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



G.R. No. 237982: October 14 2020

Offense Involved: Qualified Theft (Article 310, RPC)

FACTS: Yolanda P. Santos, accused-appellant, was the Officer In Charge (OlC)-Property Accountant of Dasman Realty for its Dasman Residences project. Prompted by a report alleging that accused-appellant failed to account for and remit various payments received by her from clients to Dasman Realty, the latter issued a Memorandum dated July 11, 2013 authorizing Bañares to conduct a recording and bookkeeping review of the sale transactions and payment receipts due to the corporation under the accountability of accused-appellant. Upon evaluation of the original receipts and acknowledgment receipts as well as records of transactions, Bañares discovered that within the period of August 2011 to July 2013, fourteen (14) receipts, the aggregate value of which amounted to PI,029,893.33 under the accountability of the accused-appellant were unremitted to Dasman Realty. On July 11, 2014, fourteen (14) Informations for qualified theft under Article 310 of the RPC were filed against accused-appellant in RTC Pasay City. The RTC found the accused-appellant guilty of qualified theft. Aggrieved, the accused-appellant appealed, but the CA affirmed the RTC decision. Hence, this case.


  1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in convicting accused-appellant of the crime of qualified theft despite failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt?


  1. No. The Court of Appeals did not err in convicting accused-appellant of the crime of qualified theft. The prosecution was able to establish the presence of all the elements of qualified theft under Article 310 in relation to Article 308 of the RPC. Accused-appellant, as part of her duty as OIC-Property Accountant of Dasman Realty, admitted that she received the payments from Dasman Realty’s clients for the period September 2011 to May 2013 in the total amount of P1,029,893.33, thus, she had actual possession of the monies, yet failed to remit the same to Dasman Realty. As an employee tasked to merely collect payments from Dasman Realty’s clients, she did not have a right over the thing as she was merely entrusted to collect the cash collections in behalf of Dasman Realty.