XXX273288 v. People, G.R. No. 273288 (August 5, 2025)

The mere failure or inability to provide financial support does not automatically give rise to a criminal liability even if the offended party experienced mental or emotion anguish.¹ A parent who makes earnest efforts to fulfill his or her responsibilities, despite limited means, should not be penalized for being unable to fully meet them.

This Court resolves a Petition for Review on Certiorari² assailing the Court of Appeals’ Decision³ and Resolution⁴ in CA-G.R. CR No. 45881 finding petitioner XXX273288 guilty of violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004,⁵ with modification on the penalty imposed.

XXX273288 was charged in an Information which reads:

That on or about or sometime in May 2019, in the city [redacted], Philippines, the said accused willfully, unlawfully[,] and feloniously abandoned, left, separated[,] and deprived financial support to BBB273288, his live-in partner, and their minor child, AAA273288[,] thereby causing her mental anguish[,] emotional anxiety[,] and suffering.

Contrary to law.⁶

When arraigned, XXX273288 pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. Trial on the merits then ensued.⁷

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 in [redacted] sometime in 2015. They eventually started dating and lived together in a rented house in [redacted].⁸

The relationship, however, suffered due to the couples’ financial constraints. In 2016, BBB273288 had a miscarriage, prompting her to part ways with XXX273288. The couple got back together afterward. This time, their union bore a child named AAA273288.⁹

After the birth of AAA273288 in March 2018, BBB273288 discovered that XXX273288 already had four other children with another woman. CCC273288 then advised her daughter to leave XXX273288. BBB273288 initially ignored her mother because she needed XXX273288’s financial support given that she was also her family’s sole breadwinner. BBB273288 eventually left XXX273288 and lived with her parents.¹⁰

Due to financial constraints in sustaining AAA273288’s needs, BBB273288 claimed that she repeatedly contacted XXX273288 for financial support, but her messages and calls were left unanswered. When BBB273288 went to XXX273288’s workplace, she was met with curse words and foul language when she asked for financial assistance. BBB273288 also sought help from barangay officials, but XXX273288 failed to appear at the mediation hearings.¹¹

In April 2019, AAA273288 was diagnosed with acute gastroenteritis and was confined at [redacted]. Since his condition did not improve, he was transferred to [redacted]. His hospital and medication expenses amounted to PHP 30,000.00.¹²

According to BBB273288, she begged XXX273288 for financial support but he refused to give any kind of assistance. Due to this, BBB273288 had to borrow money from a lending company and from other people to pay the hospital and other medical expenses of her son.¹³

Aggrieved, BBB273288 filed a criminal case against XXX273288, asserting that his continuous negligence as a father to AAA273288 caused her emotional and mental anguish or suffering.¹⁴

CCC273288 also testified and corroborated XXX273288’s lack of financial support for his son, as well as the mental anguish and emotional anxiety that her daughter suffered.¹⁵

In defense, XXX273288 denied the accusation against him. He averred that he regularly sent financial support to AAA273288 through money remittances from April 2018 to September 2019, as shown by remittances receipts. XXX273288 claimed that his inability to provide the full amount of the agreed PHP 4,000.00 monthly support was due to his obligation to provide support for his other children. He also asserted that he gave PHP 3,000.00 to BBB273288 when he found out that AAA273288 was hospitalized.¹⁶

On December 18, 2020, the Regional Trial Court rendered a Decision¹⁷ convicting XXX273288 of violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262. The dispositive portion reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the prosecution, having established the guilt of the accused XXX273288 beyond reasonable doubt, the Court finds the accused GUILTY for Violation of Section 5 (i) of Republic Act No. 9262 and he is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day to eight (8) years.

In addition to imprisonment, the accused is likewise directed to (a) pay a fine in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos ([PHP]100,000.00); (b) pay the private complainant the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos ([PHP]10,000.00) by way of moral and exemplary damages; and (c) undergo mandatory psychological counseling for psychiatric treatment on anger management and shall report compliance to the court.

No Costs.

SO ORDERED.¹⁸

In convicting XXX273288, the trial court found that he “maliciously and willfully refused to extend financial support for the medication of his son.”¹⁹ It concluded that BBB273288’s helplessness and financial disability during his son’s confinement, coupled by XXX273288’s indifference and willful refusal to render financial support for the hospitalization, is considered an act of violence against women and children.²⁰

Aggrieved, XXX273288 filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals, claiming that the trial court erred in convicting him of violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 despite the prosecution’s failure to establish the elements of the crime.²¹

On July 31, 2023, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s conviction, with modifications as to the penalty. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated 18 December 2020 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch [redacted], [redacted] in Crim. Case No. R-MNL-19-09438-CR is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that herein accused-appellant [XXX273288] is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of four (4) years of prision correccional[,] as minimum, to ten (10) years of prision mayor medium, as maximum, and that the award of Ten Thousand Pesos ([PHP]10,000.00) as moral and exemplary damages shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum to be reckoned from the finality of this Decision until full payment.

SO ORDERED.²² (Emphasis in the original)

XXX273288 filed his Motion for Reconsideration, but it was denied by the Court of Appeals in a March 5, 2024 Resolution.²³

Hence, a Petition for Review on Certiorari was filed before this Court.²⁴ Petitioner claims that “the prosecution failed to present evidence that [he] had deliberately intended to inflict mental or emotional anguish to [BBB273288], and that he willfully denied financial support to [AAA273288].”²⁵

Respondent, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed its Comment²⁶ praying that the Petition be denied for lack of merit. It argues that questions of fact are outside the ambit of a Rule 45 petition and the prosecution has proved all elements of the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt.²⁷

The sole issue for this Court’s resolution is 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.

At the outset, Pascual v. Burgos²⁸ instructs that “[t]he Rules of Court require that only questions of law should be raised in petitions filed under Rule 45.” It is a settled rule that this Court will not entertain questions of fact since the factual findings of appellate courts are generally “‘final, binding, or conclusive on the parties and upon this court’ when ‘supported by substantial evidence.’”²⁹

However, this rule has several exceptions:

Over time, the exceptions to these rules have expanded. . . . At present, there are 10 recognized exceptions that were first listed in Medina v. Mayor Asistio, Jr.:

(1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) Where there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) When the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) The findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner’s main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (10) The finding of fact of the Court of Appeals is premised on the supposed absence of evidence and is contradicted by the evidence on record.³¹ (Citations omitted)

In Republic v. Kikuchi,³² this Court states another recognized exception to the general rule, which is when the Court of Appeals “manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.”³³

Petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals reached its decision based on a misapprehension of facts, and that a correct appreciation of these facts would warrant a different outcome. He argues that his petition falls within the exceptions to the general rule. If substantiated by the records of the case, the factual circumstances he raised may justify a reversal of the lower court’s ruling.

Upon careful examination of the case records and relevant jurisprudence, the Court resolves to acquit petitioner.

Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004, is a landmark piece of Philippine legislation enacted to address and penalize various forms of violence committed against women and their children. It was enacted to “recognize the systemic presence of patriarchy in our society, and how this contributes to the abuse of women.”³⁴

The law caters to the unique and often systemic forms of abuse experienced by women in intimate or domestic relationships, which includes physical, sexual, psychological, and economic violence, and provides both criminal penalties and protective mechanisms to safeguard the rights and well-being of victims.

Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 states:

SECTION 5. Acts of Violence Against Women and Their Children. — The crime of violence against women and their children is committed through any of the following acts:

. . . .

(i) Causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to the woman or her child, including, but not limited to, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, and denial of financial support or custody of minor children of access to the woman’s child/children.

In Dinamling v. People,³⁵ this Court enumerated the elements of a violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262:

(1) The offended party is a woman and/or her child or children;

(2) The woman is either the wife or former wife of the offender, or is a woman with whom the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or is a woman with whom such offender has a common child. As for the woman’s child or children, they may be legitimate or illegitimate, or living within or without the family abode;

(3) The offender causes on the woman and/or child mental or emotional anguish; and

(4) The anguish is caused through acts of public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, denial of financial support or custody of minor children or access to the children or similar such acts or omissions.³⁶ (Citations omitted)

Here, the Information charged petitioner of “[depriving] financial support to [BBB273288], his live-in partner, and their minor child, [AAA273288] thereby causing her mental anguish[,] emotional anxiety[,] and suffering.”³⁷

In Acharon v. People,³⁸ the Court clarified that to be liable under Section 5(i) via denial of financial support:

It is not enough, therefore, for the woman to experience mental or emotional anguish, or for her partner to deny financial support that is legally due her. In order for criminal liability to arise under Section 5(i) of R.A. 9262, insofar as it deals with ‘denial of financial support,’ there must, therefore, be evidence on record that the accused willfully or consciously withheld financial support legally due the woman for the purpose of inflicting mental or emotional anguish upon her. In other words, the actus reus of the offense under Section 5(i) is the willful denial of financial support, while the mens rea is the intention to inflict mental or emotional anguish upon the woman. Both must thus exist and be proven in court before a person may be convicted of violating Section 5(i) of R.A. 9262.

It bears emphasis that Section 5(i) penalizes some forms of psychological violence that are inflicted on victims who are women and children. In prosecutions under Section 5(i), therefore, psychological violence is the means employed by the perpetrator with denial of financial support as the weapon of choice. In other words, to be punishable by Section 5(i) of R.A. 9262, it must ultimately be proven that the accused had the intent of inflicting mental or emotional anguish upon the woman, thereby inflicting psychological violence upon her, with the willful denial of financial support being the means selected by the accused to accomplish said purpose.³⁹ (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)

Meanwhile, under the Family Code, only legally married spouses are obliged to support each other.⁴⁰ This statutory obligation does not extend to live-in or common-law partners. As expressly provided under Article 195, the obligation to give support is limited to spouses and specified blood relatives.

In this case, it is established that although petitioner and BBB273288 cohabited for a few years prior to their separation, they were never legally married. Consequently, no legal obligation exists between them to provide mutual support under the Family Code. As such, petitioner’s failure to provide financial support to BBB273288 alone cannot give rise to psychological violence within the contemplation of the law.

However, it is different with respect to the petitioner’s obligation to support his son, AAA273288. Under the Family Code, a parent is legally obliged to provide financial support to their children, whether legitimate or illegitimate. This obligation exists regardless of the marital status of the parents and remains enforceable for as long as the child is in need of support.

In Acharon, this Court also laid down the elements of Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 when it involves denial of financial support:

(1) The offended party is a woman and/or her child or children;

(2) The woman is either the wife or former wife of the offender, or is a woman with whom the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or is a woman with whom such offender has a common child. As for the woman’s child or children, they may be legitimate or illegitimate, or living within or without the family abode;

(3) The offender willfully refuses to give or consciously denies the woman and/or her child or children financial support that is legally due her and/or her child or children; and

(4) The offender denied the woman and/or her child or children the financial support for the purpose of causing the woman and/or her child or children mental or emotional anguish.⁴¹

Only the first and second elements are present in this case. It is undisputed that BBB273288 and the petitioner have a common child together.

The third element is absent as the prosecution failed to show that petitioner willfully denied financial support to BBB273288. Moreover, it was not established that such support was legally due her, since the obligation pertains to their child, AAA273288. On the contrary, remittance receipts presented in evidence show that petitioner regularly sent financial support for AAA273288’s sustenance.⁴² The Court of Appeals itself acknowledged that such remittances were made from April 2018 to September 2019.⁴³

Petitioner’s continued remittances, despite variations in amount, clearly reflect his earnest effort to support his child and negate any allegation of willful denial. His inability to consistently provide the agreed sum of PHP 4,000.00 should not be seen as a deliberate refusal to fulfill his duty, but rather as a consequence of the financial burden of also providing for his other children.

The parties differ in their claims as to whether petitioner provided financial support to AAA273288 when he was hospitalized. BBB273288 claims that she did not receive any amount from petitioner despite her pleas,⁴⁴ while petitioner asserted that he gave the amount of PHP 3,000.00 when he was informed that AAA273288 was hospitalized.⁴⁵

However, even if petitioner did not give financial support at this particular instance, he still cannot be convicted for violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 as the fourth element is not present. The prosecution also failed to establish that petitioner intended to inflict mental and emotional anguish upon BBB273288 by denying her financial support.

The mere failure or inability to provide financial support does not automatically give rise to a criminal liability even if the offended party experienced mental or emotion anguish.⁴⁶ A father who strives to meet his obligations, despite limited means, should not be punished for falling short.

While we do not discount the emotional and financial hardship that BBB273288 went through when her son was hospitalized, this does not, by itself, amount to psychological violence as defined under the law and jurisprudence—much less one that can be attributed to the petitioner. Thus, we must acquit petitioner.

Absent any deliberate intent to inflict mental and emotional anguish by willfully denying her child financial support legally due, the proper remedy is civil in nature—specifically, the filing of a case for support against the delinquent parent, in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code and the Family Code.⁴⁷

This is consistent with the principles of social justice, as it seeks a balanced and humane resolution that benefits both the parent and the child. Pursuing a civil remedy rather than criminal prosecution avoids the punitive consequences of incarceration, which often does little to address the underlying issue of financial incapacity.

Imprisonment will not provide a sustainable solution, as it deprives the parent of the opportunity to earn and, in turn, deprives the child of the much-needed support. A civil action, on the other hand, allows the parent to continue working and fulfilling their obligation while giving the child access to the support they are rightfully entitled to.

To acquit the accused in this case is not to condone the systemic patriarchy that persists in our society. Acknowledging the absence of criminal liability under the strict standards of the law does not erase the broader reality that many women continue to suffer from patterns of neglect, control, and abuse—often enabled by deeply rooted gender norms.

At the same time, it must also be recognized that women are not always victims, and justice demands an objective, evidence-based application of the law that does not rely solely on social assumptions. Legal outcomes must remain faithful to due process and the requirements of criminal liability, even as we strive to dismantle structures that perpetuate inequality. In doing so, we affirm both the integrity of our legal system and the need for deeper cultural and institutional change.

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-G.R. CR No. 45881 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner XXX273288 is ACQUITTED of the crime charged.

Let entry of final judgment be issued immediately.

SO ORDERED.

Footnotes

¹ Acharon v. People, 913 Phil. 731, 739 (2021) [Per J. Caguioa, En Banc].

² Rollo, pp. 13–28.

³ Id. at 33–44. The July 31, 2023 Decision in CA-G.R. CR No. 45881 was penned by Associate Justice Maximo M. De Leon and concurred in by Associate Justices Marlene B. Gonzales-Sison and Perpetua Susana T. Atal-Paño of the Seventh Division of the Court of Appeals, Manila.

⁴ Id. at 46–52. The March 5, 2024 Resolution in CA-G.R. CR No. 45881 was penned by Associate Justice Maximo M. De Leon and concurred in by Associate Justices Marlene B. Gonzales-Sison and Perpetua Susana T. Atal-Paño of the Former Seventh Division of the Court of Appeals, Manila.

⁵ Republic Act No. 9262, sec. 5(i) states:

Section 5. Acts of Violence Against Women and Their Children. — The crime of violence against women and their children is committed through any of the following acts:

. . . .

(i) Causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to the woman or her child, including, but not limited to, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, and denial of financial support or custody of minor children of access to the woman’s child/children.

⁶ Rollo, p. 74.

⁷ Id.

⁸ Id. at 35, 75.

⁹ Id. at 75.

¹⁰ Id. at 35, 75.

¹¹ Id.

¹² Id. at 36, 75–76.

¹³ Id.

¹⁴ Id. at 36. (Citation omitted)

¹⁵ Id. at 76.

¹⁶ Id. at 36, 76.

¹⁷ Id. at 74–83.

¹⁸ Id. at 82.

¹⁹ Id. at 81.

²⁰ Id. at 80.

²¹ Id. at 37.

²² Id. at 43–44.

²³ Id. at 51.

²⁴ Id. at 13–26.

²⁵ Id. at 24.

²⁶ Id. at 128–144.

²⁷ Id. at 133.

²⁸ Pascual v. Burgos, 776 Phil. 167 (2016) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].

²⁹ Id. at 182. See also RULES OF COURT, Rule 45, sec. 1.

³⁰ Id. (Citation omitted)

³¹ Id. at 182–183.

³² 923 Phil. 711 (2022) [Per J. Hernando, First Division].

³³ Id. at 714. (Citations omitted)

³⁴ J. Leonen, Dissenting Opinion in Acharon v. People, 913 Phil. 731, 779 (2021) [Per J. Caguioa, En Banc].

³⁵ 761 Phil. 356 (2015) [Per J. Peralta, Third Division].

³⁶ Id. at 373.

³⁷ Rollo, p. 74.

³⁸ 913 Phil. 731 (2021) [Per J. Caguioa, En Banc].

³⁹ Id. at 738–739.

⁴⁰ See FAMILY CODE, art. 195 provides:

Article 195. Subject to the provisions of the succeeding articles, the following are obliged to support each other to the whole extent set forth in the preceding article:

(1) The spouses;

(2) Legitimate ascendants and descendants;

(3) Parents and their legitimate children and the legitimate and illegitimate children of the latter;

(4) Parents and their illegitimate children and the legitimate and illegitimate children of the latter; and

(5) Legitimate brothers and sisters, whether of full or half-blood.

⁴¹ 913 Phil. 731, 740 (2021) [Per J. Caguioa, En Banc].

⁴² Rollo, p. 36.

⁴³ Id. at 40.

⁴⁴ Id. at 36.

⁴⁵ Id. at 76.

⁴⁶ Acharon v. People, 913 Phil. 731, 739 (2021) [Per J. Caguioa, En Banc].

⁴⁷ Id. at 756.

Case Digest

XXX273288 v. People
G.R. No. 273288, August 4, 2025
[Per SAJ. Leonen, Second Division]

Syllabus: Criminal Law; Special Penal Laws; Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 (Republic Act No. 9262); Psychological Violence through Denial of Financial Support (Section 5[i]); Civil Law; Family Code; Support

Doctrines

1. The elements of a violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 through denial of financial support are:
   1. the offended party is a woman and/or her child or children;
   2. the woman is the wife or former wife of the offender, or a woman with whom the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a common child, and the child may be legitimate or illegitimate and may live within or without the family abode;
   3. the offender willfully refuses to give, or consciously denies, the woman and/or her child financial support that is legally due her and/or her child; and
   4. the offender denied the financial support for the purpose of causing the woman and/or her child mental or emotional anguish.
2. The actus reus of Section 5(i) is the willful denial of financial support. The mens rea is the intention to inflict mental or emotional anguish on the woman. Both must exist and be proven before a person may be convicted.
3. It is not enough that the woman experienced mental or emotional anguish, or that her partner denied financial support legally due her. The mere failure or inability to provide financial support does not automatically give rise to criminal liability.
4. Under the Family Code, only legally married spouses are obliged to support each other. This obligation does not extend to live-in or common-law partners, so failure to support a live-in partner alone cannot give rise to psychological violence under Section 5(i).
5. A parent is legally obliged to support his or her children, whether legitimate or illegitimate, regardless of the parents’ marital status.
6. Without a deliberate intent to inflict mental or emotional anguish by willfully denying financial support legally due, the proper remedy is civil: an action for support under the Civil Code and the Family Code.

Facts:

XXX273288 (petitioner) and BBB273288 were co-workers who later dated and lived together. They were never married. After a miscarriage in 2016 and a brief separation, they reconciled and had a son, AAA273288, born in March 2018. BBB273288 then learned that petitioner had four other children with another woman. She left him and moved back with her parents.

BBB273288 testified that she repeatedly asked petitioner for financial support for their son. According to her, he ignored her calls and messages, cursed at her when she went to his workplace, and did not appear at the barangay mediation hearings. In April 2019, AAA273288 was hospitalized for acute gastroenteritis, incurring about PHP 30,000.00 in expenses. BBB273288 said that petitioner refused to help despite her pleas, so she borrowed money to pay the bills. Her mother, CCC273288, corroborated her testimony on the lack of support and the anguish she suffered.

Petitioner was charged with violating Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 for depriving BBB273288 and their son of financial support, thereby causing her mental and emotional anguish. In his defense, he said he regularly sent support for his son through money remittances from April 2018 to September 2019 and presented the receipts. He admitted he could not always send the full PHP 4,000.00 monthly support they had agreed on, because he also had to support his other children. He also claimed he gave BBB273288 PHP 3,000.00 when he learned that their son was hospitalized.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted petitioner. It found that he maliciously and willfully refused to support his son’s medication. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed and modified the penalty to an indeterminate four years of prision correccional, as minimum, to ten years of prision mayor medium, as maximum. Petitioner filed a Rule 45 petition. He argued that the prosecution did not prove that he willfully denied support or intended to cause mental or emotional anguish.

Issues:

1. May the Court review the factual findings of the lower courts in this Rule 45 petition?
2. Is petitioner guilty of violating Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262?

Ruling:

1. May the Court review the factual findings of the lower courts in this Rule 45 petition? — Yes.

At the outset, Pascual v. Burgos instructs that “[t]he Rules of Court require that only questions of law should be raised in petitions filed under Rule 45.” It is a settled rule that this Court will not entertain questions of fact since the factual findings of appellate courts are generally “‘final, binding, or conclusive on the parties and upon this court’ when ‘supported by substantial evidence.’”

However, this rule has several exceptions:

Over time, the exceptions to these rules have expanded. . . . At present, there are 10 recognized exceptions that were first listed in Medina v. Mayor Asistio, Jr.:

x x x (4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; x x x

In Republic v. Kikuchi, this Court states another recognized exception to the general rule, which is when the Court of Appeals “manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.”

Petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals reached its decision based on a misapprehension of facts, and that a correct appreciation of these facts would warrant a different outcome. He argues that his petition falls within the exceptions to the general rule. If substantiated by the records of the case, the factual circumstances he raised may justify a reversal of the lower court’s ruling.

2. Is petitioner guilty of violating Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262? — No.

Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 states:

SECTION 5. Acts of Violence Against Women and Their Children. — The crime of violence against women and their children is committed through any of the following acts:

. . . .

(i) Causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to the woman or her child, including, but not limited to, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, and denial of financial support or custody of minor children of access to the woman’s child/children.

In Dinamling v. People, this Court enumerated the elements of a violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262. x x x

In Acharon v. People, the Court clarified that to be liable under Section 5(i) via denial of financial support:

It is not enough, therefore, for the woman to experience mental or emotional anguish, or for her partner to deny financial support that is legally due her. In order for criminal liability to arise under Section 5(i) of R.A. 9262, insofar as it deals with ‘denial of financial support,’ there must, therefore, be evidence on record that the accused willfully or consciously withheld financial support legally due the woman for the purpose of inflicting mental or emotional anguish upon her. In other words, the actus reus of the offense under Section 5(i) is the willful denial of financial support, while the mens rea is the intention to inflict mental or emotional anguish upon the woman. Both must thus exist and be proven in court before a person may be convicted of violating Section 5(i) of R.A. 9262.

Meanwhile, under the Family Code, only legally married spouses are obliged to support each other. This statutory obligation does not extend to live-in or common-law partners. As expressly provided under Article 195, the obligation to give support is limited to spouses and specified blood relatives.

In this case, it is established that although petitioner and BBB273288 cohabited for a few years prior to their separation, they were never legally married. Consequently, no legal obligation exists between them to provide mutual support under the Family Code. As such, petitioner’s failure to provide financial support to BBB273288 alone cannot give rise to psychological violence within the contemplation of the law.

However, it is different with respect to the petitioner’s obligation to support his son, AAA273288. Under the Family Code, a parent is legally obliged to provide financial support to their children, whether legitimate or illegitimate. This obligation exists regardless of the marital status of the parents and remains enforceable for as long as the child is in need of support.

In Acharon, this Court also laid down the elements of Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 when it involves denial of financial support:

(1) The offended party is a woman and/or her child or children;

(2) The woman is either the wife or former wife of the offender, or is a woman with whom the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or is a woman with whom such offender has a common child. As for the woman’s child or children, they may be legitimate or illegitimate, or living within or without the family abode;

(3) The offender willfully refuses to give or consciously denies the woman and/or her child or children financial support that is legally due her and/or her child or children; and

(4) The offender denied the woman and/or her child or children the financial support for the purpose of causing the woman and/or her child or children mental or emotional anguish.

Only the first and second elements are present in this case. It is undisputed that BBB273288 and the petitioner have a common child together.

The third element is absent as the prosecution failed to show that petitioner willfully denied financial support to BBB273288. Moreover, it was not established that such support was legally due her, since the obligation pertains to their child, AAA273288. On the contrary, remittance receipts presented in evidence show that petitioner regularly sent financial support for AAA273288’s sustenance. The Court of Appeals itself acknowledged that such remittances were made from April 2018 to September 2019.

Petitioner’s continued remittances, despite variations in amount, clearly reflect his earnest effort to support his child and negate any allegation of willful denial. His inability to consistently provide the agreed sum of PHP 4,000.00 should not be seen as a deliberate refusal to fulfill his duty, but rather as a consequence of the financial burden of also providing for his other children.

x x x

However, even if petitioner did not give financial support at this particular instance, he still cannot be convicted for violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 as the fourth element is not present. The prosecution also failed to establish that petitioner intended to inflict mental and emotional anguish upon BBB273288 by denying her financial support.

The mere failure or inability to provide financial support does not automatically give rise to a criminal liability even if the offended party experienced mental or emotion anguish. A father who strives to meet his obligations, despite limited means, should not be punished for falling short.

x x x

Absent any deliberate intent to inflict mental and emotional anguish by willfully denying her child financial support legally due, the proper remedy is civil in nature—specifically, the filing of a case for support against the delinquent parent, in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code and the Family Code.

The Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the CA Decision and Resolution, and acquitted petitioner.

Discussion:

1. Review of factual findings under Rule 45

The general rule is that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, and the CA’s findings bind the Court when supported by substantial evidence. Petitioner invoked two exceptions:

• Misapprehension of facts. He argued that the CA misread the evidence on support.
• Relevant and undisputed facts manifestly overlooked (Republic v. Kikuchi). The CA itself acknowledged the remittances from April 2018 to September 2019, yet still affirmed the conviction. Properly weighed, those undisputed remittances justify a different conclusion.

Because of these exceptions, the Court re-examined the evidence.

Bar takeaway: When a Rule 45 petition raises facts, name the specific exception and point to the fact that triggers it.

2. Liability under Section 5(i) through denial of financial support

The Court applied the four elements from Acharon v. People and examined BBB273288 (the woman) and AAA273288 (the child) separately.

• (a) The offended party is a woman and/or her child. Present. BBB273288 is a woman, and AAA273288 is her child.
• (b) Qualifying relationship. Present. BBB273288 and petitioner had a dating relationship and a common child.
• (c) Willful refusal or conscious denial of financial support legally due. Absent, for different reasons as to each offended party:
  • As to BBB273288: No support was legally due her. She and petitioner were live-in partners, never married. Under Article 195 of the Family Code, the obligation of support is limited to spouses and specified blood relatives. Without a legal obligation, there can be no denial of support “legally due” her.
  • As to AAA273288: Support was legally due, because a parent must support his child, legitimate or illegitimate, regardless of the parents’ marital status. However, there was no willful denial. The remittance receipts showed regular support from April 2018 to September 2019, and the CA acknowledged this. Sending less than the agreed PHP 4,000.00 was due to his obligation to his other children, not deliberate refusal.
• (d) Denial for the purpose of causing mental or emotional anguish. Absent. This is the mens rea. The parties disputed whether petitioner gave PHP 3,000.00 during the hospitalization. The Court held that even if he gave nothing at that time, the prosecution did not prove that he withheld support in order to cause BBB273288 anguish. Her real distress during her son’s confinement does not, by itself, prove that petitioner intended it.

Since the third and fourth elements were missing, petitioner was acquitted.

Two points are useful to remember:

• Anguish alone is not the crime. Proof that the woman suffered is not enough. The prosecution must prove both the actus reus (willful denial of support legally due) and the mens rea (intent to cause anguish).
• The remedy is civil when intent is absent. A parent who cannot fully pay support may be sued for support under the Family Code. The Court reasoned that jailing such a parent would only stop him from earning, which would further deprive the child.

Bar takeaway: In a Section 5(i) problem involving support, ask three questions in order: (1) Was support legally due to this particular offended party? (2) Was it willfully denied? (3) Was it denied in order to cause anguish? A “no” to any of them means acquittal. Watch for unmarried partners, because support may be due to the child but not to the woman.