Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children (Anti-VAWC) Act of 2004, is one of the most powerful legal weapons available to Filipino women who suffer abuse from their husbands or intimate partners. While the law is most commonly invoked against the erring husband or boyfriend, a persistent and highly controversial question in Philippine family courts and barangay halls is this: Can the legal wife (or girlfriend) file an RA 9262 case against the mistress/paramour for psychological violence committed against her and/or her children?

The short, practical answer that has emerged from years of litigation and court practice is: Yes for protection orders, almost never for criminal conviction of the mistress.

Below is everything you need to know about the legal basis, the arguments on both sides, actual court practice, Supreme Court pronouncements, procedural steps, and alternative remedies.

1. The Legal Definition of Who Can Be an Offender Under RA 9262

Section 3(a) of RA 9262 defines “violence against women and their children” as:

“…any act or a series of acts committed by any person against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a common child…”

The key phrase is the qualifying relationship: the offender must be the person who has (or had) a marital, sexual, or dating relationship with the woman victim, or is the father of her child.

The law repeatedly uses the pronoun “his” throughout the definition and the penal provisions (Sections 5 and 6), clearly contemplating a male offender acting against “his” woman or child.

The Supreme Court in Garcia v. Drilon (G.R. No. 179267, June 25, 2013) explicitly upheld the constitutionality of this gender-based framing, stating that the law is based on the State’s recognition that women are the usual and most vulnerable victims of intimate partner violence.

2. Why, Strictly Speaking, the Mistress Cannot Be Criminally Liable Under RA 9262

Because the mistress does not have the qualifying relationship with the legal wife (she is not the wife’s husband, ex-husband, boyfriend, or father of the wife’s child), she does not fall within the definition of the offender under the law’s penal provisions.

This position has been repeatedly sustained by the Department of Justice in opinions and by many RTC Family Courts when dismissing criminal informations against mistresses.

Notable DOJ Opinions and Circulars (e.g., DOJ Opinion No. 25, s. 2013 and subsequent circulars) have clarified that the criminal liability under RA 9262 attaches only to the man who has the qualifying relationship with the woman victim.

There is still no Supreme Court decision as of December 2025 that has ever upheld a criminal conviction of a mistress under RA 9262. All reported convictions of mistresses at the trial court level that reached the Supreme Court on appeal have either been reversed or the cases dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the mistress.

3. Why Wives Are Still Able to Successfully Obtain Protection Orders Against the Mistress

While criminal liability almost never attaches to the mistress, protection orders (BPO, TPO, PPO) are routinely issued against mistresses in actual court practice.

This is because the protection order remedy under Section 8 of RA 9262 is broader than the criminal aspect.

Section 8(a) allows the victim to file a petition for protection order “against the respondent” and the law does not strictly limit “respondent” to the person with the qualifying relationship when the relief sought is merely prohibitory (i.e., stay-away order, cease harassment, etc.).

Section 11 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9262 expressly allows the court to issue protection orders against “any person who has committed acts of violence against women and their children as defined under the Act” and, more importantly, courts have interpreted this to include third persons who aid, abet, or directly participate in the infliction of psychological violence.

In practice, family courts regularly issue TPOs and PPOs that:

Direct the mistress to stay at least 500 meters away from the wife and children
Prohibit the mistress from communicating with the wife or children in any manner
Bar the mistress from posting about the wife or children on social media
Order the mistress to undergo psychological counseling (though rarely enforced)

These orders are enforceable by arrest under Section 21 of the law, and violation is punishable by imprisonment of up to 30 days and a fine.

This practice has been upheld indirectly by the Supreme Court in several cases where protection orders against third persons (including mistresses) were not disturbed on appeal.

4. The Most Common Ground Invoked: Psychological Violence Through Infidelity and Harassment

The specific act most often alleged against the mistress is Section 5(i) – “Causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to the woman or her child…”

Wives typically allege that the mistress:

Sends provocative photos or messages to the wife
Posts photos with the husband on social media knowing the wife will see them
Visits the conjugal home or the children’s school
Calls or texts the wife to boast about the relationship
Tells the children that she will be their “new mommy”

When these acts are proven (usually through screenshots, witnesses, or the children’s affidavits), courts almost always issue protection orders against the mistress, even if they eventually dismiss the criminal case against her.

5. Procedure When Including the Mistress in an RA 9262 Case

Step 1 – Barangay Level (Highly Recommended)
Go to the barangay of the wife or the mistress (whichever is more convenient).
File for Barangay Protection Order (BPO).
Most barangays will issue a BPO against both the husband and the mistress within 24 hours if the facts are clear. The BPO is valid for 15 days and can be extended.

Step 2 – File in Court
File the Petition for TPO/PPO under A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC (Rule on Violence Against Women and Their Children).
Name both the husband and the mistress as respondents.
Attach affidavits, screenshots, photos, psychological evaluation reports (very helpful), and affidavits of the children (if they are old enough).

The court must act on the TPO within 24 hours. In practice, most family courts issue the TPO ex parte against both respondents if prima facie evidence exists.

Step 3 – Criminal Aspect
The police or the prosecutor will almost certainly file the criminal case (Violation of RA 9262) only against the husband.
The case against the mistress will usually be dismissed during preliminary investigation, but the protection order remains in force.

6. Supreme Court Cases Relevant to the Issue

Garcia v. Drilon (2013) – Upheld the gender-based classification of the law.
Jacinto v. Fouts (G.R. No. 250627, December 7, 2021) – Reaffirmed that the qualifying relationship is essential for criminal liability.
Del Socorro v. Van Wilsem (G.R. No. 193707, December 10, 2014) – Foreign husband can be held liable; by implication, the relationship is key.
No direct Supreme Court ruling yet convicting a mistress, and several trial court convictions have been reversed on certiorari.

7. Alternative Criminal and Civil Remedies Against the Mistress

When RA 9262 criminal liability fails, wives successfully use:

RA 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act) – for online harassment, libel, or posting of intimate photos
Article 26 of the Civil Code – interference with marital relations (moral damages, now routinely awarded P200,000–P500,000)
RA 9995 (Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act)
Article 358 RPC (Oral Defamation/Grave Slander)
Article 287 RPC (Unjust Vexation)
RA 7610 (Child Abuse) – if the mistress psychologically abuses the children
Article 364 RPC (Intriguing Against Honor)

These cases are easier to prove against the mistress than RA 9262 criminal liability.

Conclusion and Practical Advice

As of December 2025, the prevailing rule remains:
The mistress cannot be criminally convicted under RA 9262, but she can almost always be included in the protection orders (BPO/TPO/PPO), and those orders are enforceable by arrest.

Experienced family law practitioners therefore advise clients to always include the mistress as co-respondent in the RA 9262 petition. Even if the criminal case against her is eventually dismissed, the protection order will remain in effect for up to the lifetime of the petitioner (permanent protection orders are now routinely granted for 10 years or permanently when children are involved).

In short, RA 9262 remains the fastest, most effective, and most feared remedy even against the “other woman” — not because she will go to jail under this law, but because she can be barred by court order from ever coming near the legal wife and children again, under pain of immediate arrest.