XXX vs. People of the Philippines

Mere delay, insufficiency, or inability to provide consistent financial support does not satisfy the “denial of financial support” element of Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262 absent proof that the accused willfully or consciously withheld legally due support for the purpose of inflicting mental or emotional anguish upon the woman or her child.

Petitioner XXX and private complainant AAA married in 1996 and had four children. The marriage deteriorated, and the couple separated in November 2012 after AAA discovered petitioner’s infidelity through text messages. An Information charged petitioner with willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously depriving his wife and children of love, care, protection, financial support, and sustenance from November 2012 onward, in violation of Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262. The case underwent multiple provisional dismissals after the parties executed compromise agreements, only to be revived when the prosecution alleged non-compliance.

• Nature of the Charge: Petitioner was accused of willfully depriving his wife AAA and their four minor children of financial support, love, care, and protection from November 2012 onward, under Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262. The Information did not allege marital infidelity or the existence of a paramour.

• Marriage and Separation: Petitioner and AAA married in 1996 and had four children: BBB, CCC, DDD, and EEE. The couple separated in November 2012 after AAA discovered petitioner’s infidelity through text messages exchanged with his secretary, Normena Hamid.

• Compromise Agreements: The case was provisionally dismissed several times after the parties executed compromise agreements. The last agreement, signed on June 28, 2017, required petitioner to provide weekly support of PHP 5,000.00, pay tuition fees, provide a laptop, maintain health insurance, and spend bonding time with the children, among other conditions.

• Prosecution’s Evidence:

  • AAA testified that after separation, the children stopped schooling for a year because petitioner failed to provide support for seven months. She acknowledged that petitioner later paid tuition fees, sent PHP 5,000.00 weekly, and consistently provided support from January to October 2018. She claimed the trucking business with 15 trucks was profitable and that Normena Hamid handled its finances.
  • BBB, the eldest daughter, testified that she and her siblings had to wait long hours or were sometimes turned away when they asked for money. She recounted an incident at a mall where petitioner refused money for a school project but bought pizza for Normena. She admitted petitioner paid her college tuition and bought her a laptop, though the laptop initially lacked software. She also stated that petitioner would increase or double the amount sent to make up for delays and sent money to cover loans her mother incurred because of late support.
  • CCC, the second daughter, emotionally narrated finding the secretary inside petitioner’s house appearing to have taken a bath, and petitioner angrily disowning his children during that encounter.

• Defense’s Evidence:

  • Petitioner denied willfully refusing support. He attributed delays to the unpredictable nature of collections from his trucking clients and the limited number of serviceable trucks (only nine were operational; others were old or belonged to a friend). He presented deposit receipts as proof of payments made. He also provided transportation allowance and health insurance for the children even though not required by the agreement.
  • Petitioner explained the laptop issue as a misunderstanding: he instructed the children to bring it to a technician to specify needed software, but they failed to do so. Regarding the pizza incident, he claimed BBB insulted him by referring to the pizza as intended for his mistress, which triggered an argument.
  • Defense witness Nestor Adonay, a former truck driver, corroborated that delays in salary occurred whenever petitioner could not collect from clients and that he never saw petitioner drive his children away.

• Delay Not Tantamount to Denial: Petitioner maintained that while he occasionally delayed sending support due to failed collections in his trucking business, he never willfully refused or denied financial support. He argued that delay—which he compensated by doubling later payments—does not equate to the “denial” penalized under Section 5(i).

• Lack of Expert Testimony on Mental or Emotional Anguish: Petitioner contended that the prosecution’s failure to present a psychologist or psychiatrist meant the alleged mental and emotional anguish suffered by AAA and the children remained unsubstantiated and could not serve as the basis for conviction.

• No Conclusive Proof of Infidelity: Petitioner argued there was no conclusive evidence of an extramarital affair, and any insinuation thereof should not substitute for proof of the elements of the charged offense.

• Denial of Support and Emotional Anguish Proven: The prosecution maintained that petitioner’s infidelity and subsequent neglect inflicted psychological violence upon his wife and children, causing them mental and emotional anguish. The testimonies of AAA, BBB, and CCC regarding their suffering and petitioner’s conduct, including making them beg for support, sufficed to establish all elements of the offense.

• Willful Deprivation Established: The prosecution asserted that petitioner consciously prioritized his paramour and mismanaged finances, thereby willfully depriving his family of the support legally due them, even if some amounts were eventually given.

• Sufficiency of the Information: Whether evidence of petitioner’s alleged extramarital affair could be considered in determining his guilt when the Information charged only deprivation of financial support.
• Willful Denial of Financial Support: Whether petitioner’s occasional delay and insufficiency in providing financial support constituted the “denial of financial support” punishable under Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262.
• Intent to Inflict Mental or Emotional Anguish: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner withheld financial support for the specific purpose of causing mental or emotional anguish.
• Necessity of Expert Testimony: Whether expert testimony from a psychologist or psychiatrist was required to prove the mental or emotional anguish element of the offense.

• Sufficiency of the Information: Evidence of an alleged extramarital relationship could not properly form the basis of conviction because the Information did not allege such fact. An accused cannot be convicted of a crime, even if proven, unless it is alleged or necessarily included in the information.

• Willful Denial of Financial Support: Petitioner’s conduct did not amount to willful denial. AAA admitted petitioner paid tuition and regularly sent support for a substantial period; BBB confirmed tuition payments and that petitioner doubled amounts to cover delays. Deposit receipts corroborated financial support. The delays were attributable to unpredictable collections in the trucking business and the limited number of serviceable trucks. Mere inability, insufficiency, or delay in giving support, without more, falls short of the “denial” required by the law.

• Intent to Inflict Mental or Emotional Anguish: The prosecution failed to establish the requisite mens rea. The evidence showed at most that petitioner had difficulty providing consistent support, not that he consciously withheld it to cause psychological violence. Because the third element (willful refusal or conscious denial) and fourth element (purpose of causing mental or emotional anguish) were not proven, the causal link between act and intent remained unestablished, rendering the offense incomplete.

• Necessity of Expert Testimony: The testimony of the victims themselves may suffice to prove mental or emotional anguish. However, the failure to present an expert witness was immaterial because the prosecution still failed to prove the elements of willful denial and malicious intent.

• Acharon v. People Doctrine on Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262: The act punished under Section 5(i) is mala in se. It requires proof of two distinct but interrelated elements beyond the status of the victim: (1) the offender willfully refuses to give or consciously denies financial support legally due to the woman and/or her children; and (2) the denial is committed for the purpose of causing mental or emotional anguish. Mere failure or inability to provide support, even if it results in anguish, does not give rise to criminal liability. The law penalizes the willful denial of support as a means of inflicting psychological violence, not the mere absence of support.

• Conviction Must Conform to the Information: An accused cannot be convicted of an offense or on the basis of facts not alleged in the Information, consistent with the constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. This principle applied to exclude evidence of an alleged extramarital affair that was never pleaded.

• Joint Parental Obligation for Support: The law recognizes no distinction between husband and wife regarding the responsibility to provide financial support to the family. The mother has a corresponding obligation, and it is unjust to place the entire burden on the father alone, especially when the woman is capable of providing for herself.

• “Section 5(i) of R.A. 9262 uses the phrase ‘denial of financial support’ … The word ‘denial’ is defined as ‘refusal to satisfy a request or desire’ or ‘the act of not allowing someone to do or have something.’ The foregoing definitions connote willfulness, or an active exertion of effort so that one would not be able to have or do something. This may be contrasted with the word ‘failure,’ defined as ‘the fact of not doing something [which one] should have done,’ which in turn connotes passivity.”

• “[E]ven if the woman were to suffer mental or emotional anguish due to the lack of financial support, but the accused merely failed or was unable to so provide support, then criminal liability would not arise.”

• “It bears to emphasize that delay in giving financial support is not tantamount to willful denial.”

• “It is certainly unjust and not in keeping with the concept of joint parenting to hand all the burden of sustaining the children on one parent alone.”

• Acharon v. People, G.R. No. 224946, November 9, 2021 (En Banc): Controlling precedent that definitively interpreted Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262, distinguishing “denial” from “failure” to provide support and requiring proof of specific intent to inflict psychological violence.

• XXX256611 v. People, G.R. No. 256611, October 12, 2022 (Second Division): Applied to reinforce the rule that mere inability or insufficiency of financial support does not warrant conviction under Section 5(i).

• Canceran v. People, 762 Phil. 558 (2015) (Second Division): Cited for the principle that an accused cannot be convicted of a crime not alleged or necessarily included in the Information.

• Section 5(i), Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004): Defines the crime as 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 or denial of access to the woman’s child/children. The Court interpreted “denial” to require willfulness and a specific intent to cause psychological harm.

• Section 6, Republic Act No. 9262: Prescribes the penalty of prision mayor for violations of Section 5(i). The Court’s acquittal rendered penalty discussion moot, though the lower courts had applied this provision.

Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen (Chairperson), Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, and Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr., concurred. Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier was on official business.