SC: Psych evaluations not required in psychological violence cases
NQUIRER FILE PHOTO
MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that psychological evaluations are not required in establishing cases of psychological violence under Republic Act No. 9262 or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children (VAWC) Act.
The ruling, which clarifies that a victim’s testimony alone is sufficient to prove cases of psychological violence, was made in the decision penned by Associate Justice Henri Inting after affirming the conviction of an unnamed man for psychological violence against his wife and children.
According to the SC, the case stemmed from the accused’s extramarital affair, abandonment of his family, and failure to provide financial support to his family.
He was found guilty by lower courts after finding all elements of psychological violence under Section 5 (i) of the Anti-VAWC Act were present:
- the victim is a woman and/or her child;
- the victim is the wife or has a relationship with the offender;
- the offender causes the victim mental or emotional anguish; and
- the anguish is caused through public humiliation, verbal and emotional abuse, denial of financial support, or similar acts.
However, the accused challenged the ruling before the SC and argued that the prosecution must provide a psychological report to actually establish psychological violence — a supposed requirement the SC deemed unnecessary.
Article continues after this advertisement“The SC clarified that a psychological evaluation from an expert witness is not necessary to prove psychological violence; the victim’s testimony is sufficient to prove emotional or mental suffering,” the SC information office’s statement reads.
Article continues after this advertisementThe wife’s detailed testimony in court proved her mental and emotional anguish, recounting how the accused left their home to live with another woman next door whom he fathered a child with and even flaunted on social media.
The ruling sentenced the accused to up to eight years in prison, fined P200,000, and ordered to pay P75,000 in damages.
The High Court also directed the accused to undergo psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment.
