Accused ACQUITTED
G.R. No. 273288, August 4, 2025
Second Division
Ponente: Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen
Court: Supreme Court of the Philippines
Subject: Section 5(i), Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-VAWC Act); denial of financial support; psychological violence; criminal intent (mens rea).
I. FACTS
The accused and the private complainant were former live-in partners. They had a child together, born in March 2018.
After their separation, the mother repeatedly sought financial assistance from the father for their child's needs. She alleged that he ignored her calls and messages and refused to provide adequate support.
In April 2019, their child was hospitalized for acute gastroenteritis. Hospital and medication expenses reached approximately ₱30,000.
The mother claimed that the father refused to help despite her pleas, forcing her to borrow money to pay the medical expenses.
The father denied deliberately abandoning his financial responsibilities. He presented money-remittance receipts showing that he had regularly sent financial assistance from April 2018 to September 2019.
He explained that he could not consistently provide the agreed ₱4,000 monthly because he also had other children to support. He further claimed that he gave ₱3,000 when he learned of their child's hospitalization.
The Regional Trial Court convicted him under Section 5(i) of RA 9262.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, with modifications to the penalty.
He elevated the case to the Supreme Court.
II. ISSUE
Whether the father's failure or inability to provide sufficient financial support to his former live-in partner and their child constituted psychological violence punishable under Section 5(i) of RA 9262.
III. RULING
NO. The Supreme Court acquitted the accused.
The Court held that mere failure or inability to provide financial support does not automatically constitute psychological violence under Section 5(i) of RA 9262.
There must be proof not only of the willful denial of financial support legally due, but also of the specific intent to cause mental or emotional anguish to the woman or her child.
The Court applied the doctrine established in Acharon v. People, G.R. No. 224946, November 9, 2021.
IV. RATIO DECIDENDI
The Supreme Court emphasized that two essential elements must concur:
1. Actus reus – The willful or conscious denial of financial support legally due to the woman and/or her child.
2. Mens rea – The deliberate intention to cause mental or emotional anguish through such denial of financial support.
Both elements must be established beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court found that the accused had regularly sent financial assistance, as demonstrated by the remittance receipts.
His inability to consistently provide the agreed amount was not equivalent to a deliberate refusal to fulfill his parental obligation.
Even assuming that he failed to provide assistance during the child's hospitalization, the prosecution failed to establish that he withheld support for the specific purpose of inflicting mental or emotional anguish upon the mother.
The mother's financial difficulties and emotional suffering were acknowledged by the Court. However, these circumstances alone did not establish the accused's criminal intent.
Another important clarification:
The Court distinguished the obligation to support a former live-in partner from the obligation to support their common child.
Under Article 195 of the Family Code, former live-in partners who were never legally married do not have the same mutual support obligation imposed upon spouses.
However, parents remain legally obligated to support their legitimate and illegitimate children, regardless of whether their parents were married.
V. DOCTRINE
The mere failure or inability to provide financial support is insufficient to establish criminal liability under Section 5(i) of RA 9262, even when the woman experiences mental or emotional anguish.
The prosecution must prove that the accused willfully denied financial support legally due for the specific purpose of causing mental or emotional anguish.
Absent such criminal intent, the appropriate remedy is a civil action for support under the Civil Code and Family Code.
The Court explained that imprisonment does not necessarily solve the underlying problem of financial incapacity. A civil remedy allows the parent to continue earning and providing support to the child.
VI. DISPOSITION
The Supreme Court:
* GRANTED the petition for review.
* REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Court of Appeals' decision and resolution.
* ACQUITTED the accused of violation of Section 5(i) of RA 9262.
The decision was penned by Justice Leonen, with Justices Lazaro-Javier, Lopez and Kho, Jr. concurring.
VII. LEGAL ANALYSIS AND SIGNIFICANCE
Three important legal principles emerge:
1. VAWC is not a strict-liability offense.
The mere existence of unpaid support and the resulting emotional suffering does not automatically establish criminal liability. Criminal intent must be proven.
2. Financial incapacity must be distinguished from deliberate economic or psychological abuse.
A parent who makes genuine efforts to provide support but lacks sufficient financial resources should not automatically be prosecuted under the Anti-VAWC Act.
However, financial incapacity cannot be used as a blanket defense where evidence establishes deliberate withholding of legally due support to inflict psychological harm.
3. Civil liability for support is distinct from criminal liability under VAWC.
The father's obligation to support his child remains enforceable notwithstanding his acquittal.
The mother may pursue a civil action for support. Acquittal does not extinguish the child's right to financial support.
Observation:
This decision reinforces an important distinction in criminal law: not every violation of a legal or family obligation constitutes a crime. Criminal liability requires proof of all the statutory elements, including the required criminal intent.
VIII. RELATED JURISPRUDENCE
The decision relies substantially on the following precedents:
1. Acharon v. People, G.R. No. 224946, November 9, 2021. En Banc. This is the leading authority requiring proof of deliberate intent to cause mental or emotional anguish through denial of financial support.
2. Dinamling v. People, G.R. No. 199522, June 22, 2015. This case enumerated the elements of psychological violence under Section 5(i).
3. XXX v. People, G.R. No. 255877, March 29, 2023. Applied the requirement of criminal intent in cases involving denial of financial support.
IX. PRIMARY SOURCES — VERIFIED
The following are official or authoritative copies of the decisions:
1. Case under discussion: G.R. No. 273288, August 4, 2025
Supreme Court E-Library: [https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/70610]
2. Acharon v. People, G.R. No. 224946, November 9, 2021
Lawphil: [https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/nov2021/gr_224946_2021.html]
3. Dinamling v. People, G.R. No. 199522, June 22, 2015
Supreme Court jurisprudence should be consulted for the original decision.
4. Republic Act No. 9262
Lawphil: [https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2004/ra_9262_2004.html]
5. Executive Order No. 209, Family Code of the Philippines, particularly Articles 194–196.
Lawphil: [https://lawphil.net/executive/execord/eo1987/eo_209_1987.html]
Assisted by ChatGPT AI research.
