The mere failure to provide financial support is not sufficient for a conviction under Republic Act No. 9262 - Acharon vs. People
Christian was charged, and later on convicted by the Regional Trail Court and the Court of Appeals, under an Information that alleges a violation of Section 5 (i) of R.A. 9262, accusing him of “causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to his wife AAA, by denying financial support.” The Supreme Court, however, ruled that mere failure or inability to provide financial support is not punishable by R.A. 9262.
The Supreme Court found Christian not guilty of violating Section 5 (i) of R.A. 9262 for the failure of the prosecution to establish all the elements of Section 5 (i) with respect to denial of financial support – finding him innocent for there is undenied evidence that Christian tried, as he successfully did for a time, to provide financial support.
The Supreme Court further ruled that the general element in Section 5 (i) that “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” was not established beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court stressed that there must 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.
The Supreme Court concluded that 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.
To be convicted under Section 5 (i), according to the High Court, the evidence must establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intended to cause the victim mental or emotional anguish, or public ridicule or humiliation through the denial of — not the mere failure or inability to provide — financial support, which thereby resulted into psychological violence. As the prosecution failed to establish willful refusal to provide financial support, Christian, the Court said, cannot be held guilty of violating Section 5 (i) of R.A. 9262.
The Court also found Christian not guilty of violating Section 5 (e), holding that Section 5 (e), if read and understood in its entirety, punishes acts, or the employment of machinations, that have the effect of either:
(1) compelling a woman and/or her child or children to do something unwillingly; or
(2) preventing her and/or her child or children from doing something which is within her or her child’s or her children’s right/s to do.
Absent this element, said the Supreme Court, the failure to provide financial support will entail only civil, not criminal, responsibility.
The Court also declared that the proper understanding of Section 5 (e) of R.A. 9262, insofar as it deals with the deprivation, or threat of deprivation, of financial support is that there must be allegation and proof that the act was done with the intent to control or restrict the woman’s and/or her child’s or her children’s actions or decisions, consistent with the letter of Section 5 (e) itself. Said otherwise, according to the Court, for deprivation of financial support to rise to a level that would make a person criminally liable under Section 5 (e), R.A. 9262, there must be allegation and proof that it was made with the intent to control or restrict the woman’s and/or her child’s or her children’s actions.
Applying the foregoing to this case, the Court held that Christian is also not guilty of violating Section 5 (e) of R.A. 9262 because there is no proof that he deliberately refused to give support in order to control the behavior or actions of AAA. Neither was there any allegation or proof that he prevented AAA from seeking gainful employment or pursuing economic opportunities. The evidence in this case simply established that he failed or was unable to provide financial support which, as discussed, is not enough to convict under the law.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court granted the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by Christian, and reversed and set aside the lower courts, declaring the accused acquitted of the crime charged.
Conclusion
Section 5 (e) punishes the deprivation of financial support for the purpose of controlling the woman or to make her and/or her child or children lose their agency. Section 5 (i), on the other hand, punishes the willful infliction of mental or emotional anguish, or public ridicule or humiliation upon the woman and/or her child or children by denying her and/or her child or children financial support that is legally due her and/or her child or children.
The Court clarified that in either case, whether the accused is prosecuted under Section 5 (e) or Section 5 (i), the mere failure to provide financial support is not sufficient for a conviction.
In order to be liable under the penal provisions of R.A. 9262, therefore, it is necessary to allege and prove the existence of the facts that qualify the act of denial or deprivation of financial support from one in which mere civil liability may arise to one where a person may be criminally liable.
By: Atty. Graham Edison Ragsac