Tribunal says anti-violence law not for romantic disputes
By Erika Mae P. Sinaking, Reporter
THE Supreme Court said the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act could not be used to settle private romantic disputes, setting a higher bar for proving psychological violence under the law.
In a 21-page decision dated Dec. 3, 2025, the Third Division reversed a lower court ruling that found a man guilty of psychological violence, citing insufficient proof of intent and actual harm.
Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, who wrote the ruling, said only acts carried out with specific criminal intent to cause substantial emotional or psychological distress could result in a conviction under Republic Act No. 9262.
“Only that which is done with specific criminal intent to cause substantial emotional or psychological distress to the woman, may give rise to a conviction,” the tribunal said.
The case stems from a four-year relationship that ended acrimoniously, after which the petitioner sent a series of aggressive text messages to the complainant, including threats and demands for money and sexual favors.
Lower courts had ruled that the messages were enough to establish psychological violence under the law. The Supreme Court disagreed, saying the evidence failed to show actual psychological harm.
The tribunal cited the complainant’s behavior, noting that she boarded the petitioner’s motorcycle shortly after receiving the alleged threats. Her social media activity also included posts that appeared to mock the accused during his detention.
The court said these actions undermined claims of substantial emotional distress.
The ruling distinguished between criminal conduct and emotional outbursts common in failed relationships, saying harassing messages alone do not meet the threshold required by law.
The court defined “substantial” distress as harm that is real and significant, not merely perceived or speculative, and said intent to inflict such harm must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
“Not all forms of harassing behavior will fall under such law, which was never meant to be used either as a resolution to private romantic relationships,” the court said. “Neither should it be used as a weapon to seek vengeance on a former lover.”
The court ordered the immediate release of the petitioner from the Davao Prison and Penal Farm, overturning his conviction and ending his detention under the charge.
The ruling clarifies the scope of Republic Act No. 9262, reinforcing its role as a legal remedy for victims of abuse while preventing its misuse in personal disputes.
