The Supreme Court acquitted a father who had been convicted of violating Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262, the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove the elements of the crime. The Court reversed and set aside the Court of Appeals rulings that had affirmed his conviction.
The Case
The petitioner, referred to as XXX273288, was charged in an Information alleging that on or about or sometime in May 2019, in the city, he willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously abandoned, left, separated from, and deprived financial support to BBB273288, his live-in partner, and their minor child, AAA273288, thereby causing her mental anguish, emotional anxiety, and suffering.
When arraigned, XXX273288 pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented BBB273288, the private complainant, and CCC273288, BBB273288's mother, as witnesses. According to the prosecution, XXX273288 and BBB273288 worked together in a convenience store and started dating sometime in 2015. They lived together in a rented house. After a miscarriage and a brief separation, the couple got back together and had a child named AAA273288.
After the birth of AAA273288 in March 2018, BBB273288 discovered that XXX273288 already had four other children with another woman. BBB273288 eventually left XXX273288 and lived with her parents. In April 2019, AAA273288 was diagnosed with acute gastroenteritis and was confined, with hospital and medication expenses amounting to PHP 30,000.00. BBB273288 said she borrowed money from a lending company and from other people to pay the expenses.
In defense, XXX273288 denied the accusation. He averred that he regularly sent financial support to AAA273288 through money remittances from April 2018 to September 2019, as shown by remittance receipts. He claimed his inability to provide the full agreed PHP 4,000.00 monthly support was due to his obligation to support his other children, and asserted he gave PHP 3,000.00 to BBB273288 when he learned AAA273288 was hospitalized.
On December 18, 2020, the Regional Trial Court convicted XXX273288. On July 31, 2023, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with modification as to the penalty, and later denied his Motion for Reconsideration in a March 5, 2024 Resolution. He then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.
The Issue
The sole issue the Court resolved was whether the petitioner XXX273288 is guilty of violating Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act.
The Ruling
The Court granted the petition and acquitted the petitioner. The dispositive portion reads: "ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is GRANTED. The July 31, 2023 Decision and March 5, 2024 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR. CR No. 45881 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner XXX273288 is ACQUITTED of the crime charged."
The Court also ordered that entry of final judgment be issued immediately.
By the Numbers
- May 2019 — date in the Information when the alleged acts occurred
- 2015 — when the couple started dating
- March 2018 — birth of AAA273288
- April 2019 — AAA273288 diagnosed with acute gastroenteritis
- PHP 30,000.00 — hospital and medication expenses
- PHP 4,000.00 — agreed monthly support
- PHP 3,000.00 — amount petitioner claimed he gave upon learning of the hospitalization
- April 2018 to September 2019 — period of remittances
- December 18, 2020 — RTC Decision
- July 31, 2023 — Court of Appeals Decision
- March 5, 2024 — Court of Appeals Resolution denying reconsideration
The Court's Reasoning
The Court found that only the first and second elements of Section 5(i) involving denial of financial support were present. It was undisputed that BBB273288 and the petitioner have a common child together.
The third element was absent, as the prosecution failed to show that petitioner willfully denied financial support to BBB273288. The Court noted it was not established that such support was legally due her, since the obligation pertains to their child, AAA273288. Remittance receipts presented in evidence showed the petitioner regularly sent financial support, and the Court of Appeals itself acknowledged these remittances were made from April 2018 to September 2019. The Court said the continued remittances, despite variations in amount, reflect his earnest effort to support his child and negate any allegation of willful denial.
The Court also found the fourth element absent. The prosecution failed to establish that petitioner intended to inflict mental and emotional anguish upon BBB273288 by denying her financial support. The Court said the mere failure or inability to provide financial support does not automatically give rise to criminal liability even if the offended party experienced mental or emotional anguish.
While the Court did not discount the emotional and financial hardship BBB273288 went through when her son was hospitalized, it held this does not by itself amount to psychological violence as defined under the law and jurisprudence. Absent any deliberate intent to inflict mental and emotional anguish by willfully denying her child financial support legally due, the Court said the proper remedy is civil in nature — specifically, the filing of a case for support against the delinquent parent in accordance with the Civil Code and the Family Code.
Source: Supreme Court Decision, G.R. No. 273288.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.