The Supreme Court has acquitted a man previously found guilty of violating Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262, the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004. The Court reversed the rulings of the Court of Appeals (CA) and the Regional Trial Court (RTC), holding that the prosecution failed to prove that he willfully or consciously withheld financial support legally due to his wife for the purpose of inflicting mental or emotional anguish upon her.
The Case
The accused, referred to as XXX to protect the identity of the private complainant, was charged under one Information in Criminal Case No. L-10964 for allegedly abandoning his legally married spouse, referred to as AAA, in favor of another woman and deliberately denying her regular sufficient financial support that caused her mental or emotional anguish.
According to the prosecution, XXX and AAA were married on December 26, 1982 in Dagupan City, Pangasinan. Sometime in 2013, they separated after AAA learned that XXX was living with another woman named Mary Joy Sison, with whom XXX had a child. XXX admitted that he had a mistress and a child with her. AAA told XXX to leave the house, and he agreed.
XXX and AAA later entered into a written agreement to separate, on the condition that AAA would receive a share from XXX's retirement benefits and pension. AAA received PHP 600,000.00 as her share from XXX's retirement benefits. XXX, a retired police officer, later received a monthly pension. The prosecution said AAA did not receive any amount from XXX's pension and suffered pain and anguish.
The defense narrated that XXX, a former member of the Philippine National Police, provided for his family's needs while he and AAA were together. After they separated, XXX gave AAA PHP 600,000.00 on the condition that she would not file any civil or criminal case against him. XXX testified that he did not give support to AAA and was earning as a bodyguard.
The RTC found XXX guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to imprisonment, a fine, and mandatory psychological counseling. On appeal, the CA denied the appeal and affirmed the RTC ruling with modification of the penalty.
The Issue
The question before the Court was whether XXX could be held criminally liable under Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 for the alleged denial of financial support that caused mental or emotional anguish to AAA.
The Ruling
The Court granted the petition and acquitted XXX. It ruled that AAA's testimony on record was lacking in any essential details pertaining to the mental or emotional anguish that she allegedly suffered.
The dispositive portion states: "ACCORDINGLY, the Petition is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated October 1, 2020, and Resolution dated May 28, 2021 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 42037 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, petitioner XXX256676 is ACQUITTED of the crime charged. Let entry of judgment be issued immediately."
By the Numbers
- G.R. No. 256676
- Married on December 26, 1982 in Dagupan City, Pangasinan
- Separated sometime in 2013
- PHP 600,000.00 received by AAA from XXX's retirement benefits
- Monthly pension of PHP 28,000.00 (as of 2016)
- PHP 5,000.00 monthly earnings as bodyguard
- RTC Decision dated June 26, 2018, Criminal Case No. L-10964
- CA Decision dated October 1, 2020 and Resolution dated May 28, 2021, CA-G.R. CR No. 42037
The Court's Reasoning
Citing Acharon v. People, the Court explained that Section 5(i) uses the phrase "denial of financial support," which connotes willfulness. The act punished is dolo in nature, requiring a concurrence of intent, freedom, and intelligence. There must be evidence that the accused willfully or consciously withheld financial support legally due the woman for the purpose of inflicting mental or emotional anguish upon her. The Court stated that the mere failure or inability to provide financial support is not sufficient to rise to the level of criminality under Section 5(i).
The Court also noted that under Article 203 of the Family Code, the obligation to give support is demandable from the time the person needs it, but is payable only from the date of judicial or extra-judicial demand. In XXX's case, there was no evidence of any judicial or extrajudicial demand for legal support. Consequently, XXX was not guilty of withholding support when legal support was not yet due and payable.
Even assuming legal support was due, the Court found no evidence that XXX willfully or consciously withheld support for the purpose of inflicting anguish. It was not disputed that XXX already gave AAA PHP 600,000.00 to provide for her financial needs, and there was no evidence he intended to cause her mental or emotional anguish through withholding support.
Source: Supreme Court Decision in G.R. No. 256676, penned by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.