AAA VS. BBB GR NO.

212448, January 11, 2018

FACTS:

AAA and BBB were married and had 2 children. In May of 2007, BBB started working in Singapore as a
chef, where he acquired permanent residency. AAA claimed that BBB sent little to no financial support
and only sporadically but these was not alleged in the Information. To augment her income, AAA was
forced to fly extra hours and take on additional jobs as a flight attendant. Worse came, BBB allegedly
started having an affair with a Singaporean woman named Lisel Mok with whom he allegedly has been
living in Singapore, thus, caused AAA mental and emotional anguish. An Information had been filed
against BBB, but BBB filed a motion to quash on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and was granted by
the court thereby dismissing the case.

Aggrieved by the denial of the prosecution's motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of the case, AAA
sought direct recourse to this Court via the instant petition on a pure question of law.   AAA argues that
mental and emotional anguish is an essential element of the offense charged against BBB, which is
experienced by her wherever she goes, and not only in Singapore where the extra-marital affair takes
place; thus, the RTC of Pasig City where she resides can take cognizance of the case.

ISSUE:

Whether Philippine Courts can exercise jurisdiction over an offense constituting psychological violence
under RA. No. 9262 otherwise known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of
2004, committed through marital infidelity, when the alleged illicit relationship occurred or is occurring
outside the country.

RULING:

Yes, Philippine Courts can exercise jurisdiction over this offense despite having the alleged illicit
relationship occurred outside the country. Mental and emotional anguish is an essential element of the
offense charged against BBB, which is experienced by AAA wherever she goes, and not only in
Singapore where the extra-marital affair takes place; thus, the RTC of Pasig City where AAA resides can
take cognizance of the case.

In support of this theory, AAA draws attention to Section 7 of R.A. No. 9262, which provides:

Sec. 7. Venue - The Regional Trial Court designated as a Family Court shall have original and exclusive
jurisdiction over cases of violence against women and their children under this law. In the absence of
such court in the place where the offense was committed, the case shall be filed in the Regional Trial
Court where the crime or any of its elements was committed at the option of the complainant.