SC acquits father in VAWC case: Failure to give financial support not automatically a crime

The Supreme Court (SC) has acquitted a father convicted of violating the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act, ruling that his failure to give the full amount of support for his son does not, by itself, amount to psychological violence.

In an 11-page decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the SC Second Division reversed the ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA), which had sentenced the man to as much as 10 years in prison for violating Section 5(i) of Republic Act (RA) No. 9262.

“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[al] anguish,” the SC said.

“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,” it added.

The decision in G.R. No. 273288 was promulgated on August 4, 2025. The names of the parties and the places involved were withheld in the decision.

Live-in partners

Records showed that the accused and the complainant met in 2015 while working at a convenience store. They became a couple and lived together in a rented house, but were never married.

The relationship was strained by money problems, the SC noted. The two separated after the woman suffered a miscarriage in 2016, but later got back together. In March 2018, she gave birth to their son.

After giving birth, the woman learned that the man already had four children with another woman. She eventually left him and went back to her parents.

The woman told the trial court that the man ignored her calls and messages asking for help with their son’s needs, cursed at her when she went to his workplace, and skipped mediation hearings at the barangay.

In April 2019, their son was confined in a hospital for acute gastroenteritis and was later transferred to another hospital. His hospital and medicine expenses reached P30,000.

The woman said the father refused to help despite her pleas, forcing her to borrow money from a lending company and from other people.

She then filed a criminal complaint against him, claiming that his “continuous negligence as a father” caused her “emotional and mental anguish or suffering.”

In his defense, the man said he regularly sent money for their son through remittances from April 2018 to September 2019, and presented the receipts in court.

He admitted that he could not always send the full P4,000 monthly support they had agreed on, because he also had to support his other children. He also claimed that he gave P3,000 when he learned that the child was in the hospital.

Convicted twice

On December 18, 2020, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) found the man guilty. It said he “maliciously and willfully refused to extend financial support for the medication of his son.”

The RTC sentenced him to two years, four months and one day to eight years in prison. It also ordered him to pay a P100,000 fine and P10,000 in moral and exemplary damages, and to undergo psychological counseling.

The CA affirmed the conviction on July 31, 2023, but increased the penalty to four years of prision correccional, as minimum, to 10 years of prision mayor, as maximum. The appellate court denied his motion for reconsideration on March 5, 2024.

The man then elevated the case to the SC, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove that he “deliberately intended to inflict mental or emotional anguish” on the woman, or that he “willfully denied financial support” to their son.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), for its part, asked the SC to deny the petition, saying it raised questions of fact that cannot be taken up in a Rule 45 petition.

The SC acknowledged that it generally does not review factual findings of lower courts, but said the case fell under an exception: a judgment “based on a misapprehension of facts.”

Intent must be proven

Citing its 2021 en banc ruling in Acharon v. People, the SC stressed that it is “not enough” for the woman to experience anguish or for her partner to deny her financial support.

Under Acharon, there must be proof 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 SC found that the prosecution failed to prove this.

It pointed out that under the Family Code, “only legally married spouses are obliged to support each other,” and this obligation “does not extend to live-in or common-law partners.”

Since the man and the woman were never married, the SC said his failure to give her financial support “alone cannot give rise to psychological violence within the contemplation of the law.”

The father, however, is legally obliged to support his son, whether legitimate or illegitimate. But the SC said the remittance receipts, which even the CA acknowledged, showed that he regularly sent money for the child.

“Petitioner’s continued remittances, despite variations in amount, clearly reflect his earnest effort to support his child and negate any allegation of willful denial,” the SC said.

His failure to always send P4,000, it added, “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.”

As for the hospital bills, the SC said that even if the father gave nothing at that time, he still cannot be convicted because the prosecution failed to prove that he intended to cause the woman mental and emotional anguish.

“A father who strives to meet his obligations, despite limited means, should not be punished for falling short,” the SC said.

The SC said it did “not discount the emotional and financial hardship” the woman went through while her son was in the hospital. But this, it said, “does not, by itself, amount to psychological violence as defined under the law and jurisprudence.”

File a case for support instead

The SC said the proper remedy in such cases is civil, not criminal, specifically “the filing of a case for support against the delinquent parent” under the Civil Code and the Family Code.

“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,” the SC said.

A civil case, 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,” it added.

The SC clarified that acquitting the father “is not to condone the systemic patriarchy that persists in our society,” noting that many women “continue to suffer from patterns of neglect, control, and abuse.”

“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,” the SC said.

The SC granted the petition, reversed and set aside the CA decision and resolution, and acquitted the father. It also ordered the immediate entry of final judgment.