AAA vs. BBB, G.R. No. 212448

 AAA vs. BBB, G.R. No. 212448 January 11, 2018

Art. 177. Only children conceived and born outside of wedlock of parents who, at the time of the conception of the former, were not disqualified by any impediment to marry each other may be legitimated. (269a)

FACTS: 

AAA and BBB were married on August 1, 2006 in Quezon City. In May 2007, BBB started working in Singapore as a chef. AAA claimed that BBB sent little to no financial support, and only sporadically. There were also allegations of virtual abandonment, mistreatment of her and their CCC, and physical and sexual violence. The motion to quash was granted on ground of lack of jurisdiction (acts complained of had occurred in Singapore), and the case was archived.

On November 6, 2013, an Entry of Appearance as Counsel for the Accused with Omnibus Motion to Revive Case, Quash Information, Lift Hold Departure Order and Warrant of Arrest was filed on behalf of BBB. In the main, 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 affair takes place.

ISSUES:

1. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT SHOULD ENTERTAIN THE PETITION FILED BY AAA INSTEAD OF THE OSG AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PEOPLE ON PURE QUESTION OF LAW

2. WHETHER OR NOT THE RTC HAS JURISDICTION OVER PSYCHOLOGICAL ABUSE UNDER R.A. 9262 WHEN COMMITTED THROUGH MARITAL INFIDELITY AND THE ALLEGED ILLICIT RELATIONSHIP TOOK PLACE OUTSIDE THE PHILIPPINES

RULING:

1. AAA’s motion for extension to file the petition was timely filed. Thus, considering its timeliness, she was granted an additional period to file a petition for review. In her motion for extension of time, it was mentioned that she was awaiting the OSG’s response to her Letter, requesting for representation. Since, the OSG was unresponsive to her plea for assistance in filing the intended petition, AAA filed the present petition in her own name before the lapse of the extension given her by this Court.

2. The Court found that under the circumstances, the ends of substantial justice will be better served by entertaining the petition if only to resolve the question of law lodged before this Court. In Morillo v. People of the Philippines, et al., where the Court entertained a Rule 45 petition which raised only a question of law filed by the private offended party in the absence of the OSG’s participation, the Court allowed it in the interest of substantial justice.