XXX vs. People

The deprivation of financial support legally due a woman or child under Section 5(e)(2) of Republic Act No. 9262 is a malum prohibitum offense, and the absence of malice or criminal intent is immaterial; the sole inquiry is whether the accused committed the act of deprivation. The best interest of the child is paramount, and a parent’s hostility toward the other spouse cannot justify withholding support.

AAA and XXX married in March 2005 after AAA became pregnant. Following marital conflict and alleged mistreatment, AAA left the family home after only two months of marriage and returned to her parents’ house. She gave birth to their son, BBB, in August 2005. The child was later diagnosed with Congenital Torch Syndrome, resulting in delayed development and bilateral profound hearing loss. AAA shouldered nearly all of BBB’s specialized medical and educational expenses alone, including the cost of a hearing aid and tuition at a school for the hearing impaired, while XXX provided only minimal and sporadic support. When AAA sought financial assistance for costly cochlear implants, XXX claimed incapacity and eventually told her he had a new family so she would stop contacting him. He began giving regular monthly support of P4,000 only after the Office of the City Prosecutor recommended the filing of an Information against him. The criminal charge for violation of Section 5(e)(2) of RA 9262 ensued, resulting in his conviction by the trial court and affirmance by the Court of Appeals.

• Marriage and Separation: AAA and XXX were married on March 8, 2005, after AAA became pregnant. They lived with XXX’s family, but AAA left the family home after only two months, alleging mistreatment and an argument during which XXX hurt her. She returned to her parents’ house and never cohabited with XXX again as husband and wife.

• Child’s Medical Condition and Needs: AAA gave birth to their son, BBB, on August 2, 2005. BBB was diagnosed with Congenital Torch Syndrome, which caused delayed development and bilateral profound hearing loss. A speech and language pathologist recommended a high-powered hearing device or cochlear implant and regular one-on-one therapy, emphasizing that the auditory nerve would eventually die without intervention. AAA bought one hearing aid for approximately P35,000.00 and enrolled BBB in a school for the hearing impaired, paying the P20,000.00 tuition alone. The cost of cochlear implants was estimated at P1,000,000.00 per ear, which AAA could not afford on her salary as a call center agent.

• Petitioner’s Failure to Provide Sufficient Support: Prior to the filing of the criminal case, XXX gave financial support only about five times over a span of five years, totaling roughly P10,000.00. When AAA asked him for help with the hearing aid and school expenses, he claimed his salary could only cover his own needs and later told her on social media to leave him alone because he was happy with his new family. The trial court found that XXX had posted pictures on social media of himself hugging and holding hands with another woman. XXX admitted he told AAA he had a new family to make her stop contacting him; he also admitted failing to give support from December 2005 to August 2008, attributing it to anger after AAA did not bring the child to him on Christmas Day.

• Support After the Filing of the Case: After the Office of the City Prosecutor issued a resolution recommending the filing of the Information, XXX began giving P4,000.00 monthly. He presented receipts, cash deposit slips, and cash load slips for the years 2010 to 2013. The trial court, however, noted that this belated support commenced only after the prosecution moved against him and that the child’s needs—given his condition—remained unmet.

• Defense Version and Trial Court Findings: XXX claimed AAA was manipulative, prevented him from giving support, and forced him to sign a kasunduan under threat of a restraining order, though he never presented the document in court. He also asserted that AAA’s family prevented him from visiting the child. The RTC rejected these defenses as unsubstantiated and found it incredible that a pregnant woman would maul a man of XXX’s build. The trial court found that XXX deliberately deprived AAA and BBB of sufficient financial support and that his constant refusal caused AAA mental and emotional suffering.

• Financial Capacity: Petitioner’s 2009 Income Tax Return showed gross compensation of P234,565.79. At trial, he stated he earned about P16,000.00 monthly, of which he would give P5,000.00 as support. The court found him capable of providing for BBB’s necessary medical and educational expenses but deliberately withholding it.

• Documented Support and Absence of Deprivation: Petitioner argued that his payment of support was fully documented by receipts from 2010 to 2013, and that he shouldered the hospital expenses when BBB was born; he denied deliberately depriving BBB of financial support.
• Limited Financial Capacity: He contended that when BBB was born, he had only limited income and could provide only milk and miscellaneous baby needs until AAA forced him to sign a kasunduan to live apart and stay away under threat of a restraining order.
• Prevention by Wife: Petitioner maintained that AAA prevented him from complying with his obligation and that her demand for P1,000,000.00 amounted to blackmail.
• Absence of Malice: He asserted that his failure to give support was not attended by malice, which should warrant his acquittal.

• Impermissible Questions of Fact: The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) countered that petitioner’s claims—that AAA prevented him from giving support and that she was a domineering wife who blackmailed him—raised questions of fact improper in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
• Failure to Adduce Proof of Attempted Support: The OSG argued that petitioner still failed to produce evidence that he tried to provide support to BBB despite knowing the child’s hearing impairment.
• Established Elements of Economic Abuse: The OSG maintained that all elements of economic abuse under Section 5(e)(2) of RA 9262 were proven beyond reasonable doubt.

• Scope of Review: Whether the petition raised only questions of fact that are not reviewable under Rule 45, and whether the findings of the lower courts should be accorded finality.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner deliberately deprived BBB of sufficient financial support legally due.
• Nature of the Offense (Malum Prohibitum): Whether the offense of deprivation of financial support under Section 5(e)(2) of RA 9262 requires proof of malice or criminal intent, and whether the absence of malice warrants acquittal.

• Scope of Review: The petition raised the same factual issues already passed upon by the trial and appellate courts, and none of the recognized exceptions justifying a review of factual questions was present. The findings of fact of the trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, were accorded high respect and not disturbed.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: All elements of Section 5(e)(2) of RA 9262 were established: XXX and AAA were married, XXX acknowledged BBB as his child, he failed to provide sufficient support for BBB’s sustenance, medical, and educational needs, he withheld financial support due to anger toward his wife, and he only began giving regular support after the complaint was filed. The total of about P10,000.00 given over five years was grossly inadequate given BBB’s condition, and the belated payments after the prosecutor’s resolution confirmed rather than negated deprivation. The child’s best interest must prevail over the spouses’ conflict, and a parent’s anger is not a justification to terminate support.

• Nature of the Offense (Malum Prohibitum): Deprivation of financial support under RA 9262, a special law, is malum prohibitum. In such offenses, malice or criminal intent is immaterial; the only relevant inquiry is whether the accused committed the prohibited act. Petitioner’s argument of absence of malice was therefore rejected.

• Malum Prohibitum Nature of Deprivation of Financial Support under RA 9262 — The offense defined in Section 5(e)(2) of RA 9262 is a malum prohibitum, a violation of a special law where malice or criminal intent is not an element and need not be proved. The sole focus is on whether the accused performed the act of depriving or threatening to deprive financial support legally due. Because RA 9262 is a special penal statute, the general rule that mala prohibita do not require criminal intent applies, and the absence of malice is not a defense.

• Continuing Offense — Deprivation of financial support under Section 5(e)(2) of RA 9262 is a continuing offense, as the withdrawal or withholding of support persists over time until legal duty is discharged.

• Best Interest of the Child in Support Cases — In all disputes involving spousal or parental conflict that affect the support of a child, the paramount consideration is the best interest of the child. A parent’s anger, resentment, or grudge against the other parent cannot justify the termination or withholding of legally due child support, as condoning such a pattern of revenge would violate the State’s policy to protect those who cannot protect themselves.

• Obligation of Parental Support — Under Articles 194 and 195(4) of the Family Code, parents are obligated to support their children with everything indispensable for sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical attendance, education, and transportation, in keeping with the financial capacity of the family. The amount of support is proportionate to the necessity of the recipient and the means of the person obliged to give support (Article 201).

• “However, while one can understand his annoyance at his wife, there is no justification for him to terminate giving support to their child on the basis of his anger toward his spouse. In cases of support, the best interest of the child must always be considered and if the pattern of revenge shown by the accused-appellant is condoned by this Court, it would violate the State’s mandate to protect those that cannot protect themselves.” — The appellate court’s pronouncement, expressly echoed by the Supreme Court, crystallizing the child-centered approach in economic abuse prosecutions under RA 9262.

• “In acts which are declared to be mala prohibita, malice or intent is immaterial. Since RA 9262 or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 is a special law, the act of deprivation of financial support is considered malum prohibitum. Petitioner’s argument of absence of malice or intent is immaterial and the only inquiry to be made is whether or not XXX committed the act.” — The ratio decidendi on the nature of the offense, disallowing a defense of good faith or lack of intent.

• People v. Mores, 712 Phil. 480 (2013) — Applied for the principle that findings of fact of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are accorded high respect if not conclusive effect.
• Del Socorro v. Van Wilsem, 749 Phil. 823 (2014) — Cited for the characterization of deprivation of financial support under RA 9262 as a continuing offense.
• Co v. The Fifth Division of Sandiganbayan, 558 Phil. 736 (2007) — Relied upon for the rule that in mala prohibita, malice or intent is immaterial.
• ABS-CBN Corp. v. Gozon, 755 Phil. 709 (2015) — Referenced for the distinction between mala in se and mala prohibita, with special laws generally falling under mala prohibita.

• Section 5(e)(2), Republic Act No. 9262 — The specific penal provision under which petitioner was charged and convicted, punishing deprivation or threat of deprivation of financial support legally due the woman or her child as a form of economic abuse. The Court applied the provision strictly as a malum prohibitum, requiring only proof of the act of deprivation.
• Section 3(a) [Definition of Economic Abuse], RA 9262 — The definition of economic abuse was quoted to delineate the prohibited acts, including withdrawal of financial support or deprivation of financial resources.
• Article 195(4), Family Code — Established the legal obligation of parents to support their children. The Court used this to underscore that the support withheld was legally due and indispensable.
• Articles 194 and 201, Family Code — Defined the scope of support (indispensable for sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical attendance, education, and transportation) and the rule on proportionality between the recipient’s necessity and the obligor’s means, against which petitioner’s contributions were measured and found insufficient.

Leonen (Chairperson), Inting, Delos Santos, and J. Lopez, JJ., concur.