XXX260504 vs. AAA260504

An acquittal based on reasonable doubt does not extinguish civil liability for support, which may be awarded in the same criminal action under RA 9262, provided the accused is afforded the opportunity to present evidence on the civil aspect after a demurrer to evidence filed with leave of court is granted.

XXX260504 and AAA260504 had a romantic relationship that produced a minor child, BBB260504, born on April 11, 2006. XXX260504 was charged under Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262, the "Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004," for allegedly causing psychological and economic abuse by deliberately failing, refusing, denying, and depriving AAA260504 and their minor child of financial support despite being gainfully employed. The case sits at the intersection of criminal liability under RA 9262 and the civil obligation of support under Title VIII of the Family Code, raising the question of whether and how support may be adjudicated in a criminal proceeding that terminates in acquittal.

XXX260504 and AAA260504 had a romantic relationship that produced a child, BBB260504, born on April 11, 2006. An Amended Information dated August 25, 2011 charged XXX260504 with violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262, alleging that from April 11, 2006 up to the present, being then the boyfriend of AAA260504, he willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously caused psychological and economic abuse against the complainant by deliberately failing, refusing, denying, and depriving AAA260504 and their minor child of financial support despite his being gainfully employed. Upon arraignment, XXX260504, assisted by counsel, entered a plea of not guilty.

To prove the charge, the prosecution presented AAA260504 and CCC260504 as witnesses. AAA260504 testified that despite demand, XXX260504 failed to fulfill his parental obligation to render child support to their daughter. However, upon questioning, the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses belied the allegation of failure, refusal, denial, or deprivation of support. After the prosecution rested its case, XXX260504 filed a Motion for Leave of Court to File Demurrer to Evidence, predicated on the prosecution's failure to present sufficient evidence to warrant a conviction. He argued that there was no deliberate denial of financial support on his part, but rather a refusal on the part of AAA260504 to accept the offer of financial support because the amount offered was insufficient, and that psychological abuse or violence was not adequately proven as AAA260504 did not testify on her social humiliation, wounded feelings, and anxiety.

The RTC granted the demurrer to evidence and acquitted XXX260504 of the crime charged, but found him civilly liable to support his minor child in the amount of USD 100.00 per month or its peso equivalent from April 2006 to June 2018, on the rationale that an acquittal based on reasonable doubt did not absolve him from civil liability which may be proved by preponderance of evidence. XXX260504 moved for partial reconsideration, arguing that the award of civil liability ex delicto was incongruent with the body of the order absolving him of the criminal charge, that the amount of support was fixed based on bare and unsubstantiated allegations failing to meet the quantum of preponderance of evidence, that the order violated his right to due process by fixing support without giving him opportunity to prove his financial capacity, and that his liability, if any, should be based on other sources of obligation rather than ex delicto. The RTC denied the motion for lack of merit, reiterating that the acquittal based on reasonable doubt did not exonerate him from his obligation to support his minor child under Article 195 of the Family Code. Both the RTC and the CA were uniform in declaring that the acquittal was based on reasonable doubt, the prosecution having failed to establish the elements of psychological violence under Section 5(i) of RA 9262 — namely, the deliberate intent to willfully refuse or consciously deny financial support, and the mental or emotional anguish caused — while the undisputed fact remained that XXX260504 failed to provide financial support and had admitted paternity.

• Civil Liability ex delicto Improperly Awarded: Petitioner argued that the CA committed reversible error in affirming the trial court's grant of civil liability ex delicto despite its categorical finding that he did not commit the acts charged in the Information, and that no adequate factual or legal basis justified the order for payment of civil liability.
• Due Process Violation: Petitioner maintained that the award of civil liability should be nullified for being made without due process or opportunity to prove his financial capacity.
• Jurisdiction and Proper Forum: Petitioner argued that the issue on liability for support was neither raised in the pleadings nor passed upon in the proceedings before the RTC, and that the award was misplaced because it was not sourced from criminal liability but from an obligation under Title VIII of the Family Code, which must be instituted in a separate independent action.
• Erroneous Application of RA 9262: Petitioner claimed that the court a quo committed reversible error in applying Republic Act No. 9262.

• Propriety of Civil Liability ex delicto: Respondent countered that the court a quo did not err in awarding civil liability ex delicto.
• Nature of Errors Raised: Respondent argued that the errors assigned by petitioner are factual in nature and therefore beyond the purview of a petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

• Civil Liability After Acquittal: Whether the CA erred in affirming XXX260504's civil liability for support in favor of BBB260504 despite his acquittal.
• Award of Support in a Criminal Action: Whether support may be awarded as civil liability in a criminal action under RA 9262, or whether it must be pursued in a separate civil action under the Family Code.
• Due Process in Fixing the Amount of Support: Whether the specific award of USD 100.00 per month was valid given that it was made upon the grant of a demurrer to evidence filed with leave of court, without affording the accused the opportunity to present evidence on his financial capacity.

• Civil Liability After Acquittal: No error. The acquittal was based on reasonable doubt, which does not extinguish civil liability, as only preponderance of evidence is required for the civil aspect.
• Award of Support in a Criminal Action: Yes, support may be awarded as civil liability in the same criminal action under RA 9262. Section 35(d) of RA 9262 expressly entitles victims to all legal remedies and support as provided under the Family Code; a separate civil action is not the sole permissible mode of recovery.
• Due Process in Fixing the Amount of Support: No, the specific award of USD 100.00 was void. When a demurrer to evidence is granted after being filed with leave of court, the accused retains the right to adduce evidence on the civil aspect; the trial court should have issued a partial judgment of acquittal and continued trial on the civil aspect.

• Civil Liability After Acquittal: The RTC and the CA were uniform in declaring that the acquittal was based on reasonable doubt, the prosecution having failed to establish the elements of psychological violence under Section 5(i) of RA 9262 — the deliberate intent to willfully refuse or consciously deny financial support, and the mental or emotional anguish caused on the woman and/or child. Jurisprudence distinguishes two kinds of acquittal: one where the accused is found not to be the author of the act or omission, which closes the door to civil liability ex delicto, and another based on reasonable doubt, where the accused is not exempt from civil liability which may be proved by preponderance of evidence. Because the acquittal here fell under the second category, the extinction of the penal action did not carry with it the extinction of civil liability. Rule 111, Section 1 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that the civil action for recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged is deemed instituted with the criminal action unless waived, reserved, or separately instituted. Rule 120, Section 2 requires that a judgment of acquittal state whether the evidence absolutely failed to prove guilt or merely failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and in either case determine if the act or omission from which civil liability might arise did not exist. In the absence of a declaration that the act or omission did not exist, it is presumed that the acquittal was due to reasonable doubt, and the accused remains civilly liable ex delicto.

• Award of Support in a Criminal Action: The denial of support is an incident of the criminal action under Section 5(i) of RA 9262, being the means by which psychological violence is committed upon women and their children. However, support, while inherently intertwined with the criminal action, is not the civil liability ex delicto contemplated by law; the liability for support is distinct and independent of any criminal prosecution and may be filed separately based on Title VIII of the Family Code. Nevertheless, a separate filing is not the sole permissible mode of recovery. Section 35(d) of RA 9262 expressly entitles victims "to all legal remedies and support as provided for under the Family Code," institutionalizing the entitlement to support as a right. Unlike an ordinary case of support under the Family Code which is solely meant to provide subsistence, the grant of support under RA 9262 serves to protect the offended party from harm and violence and help them recover. When filiation is beyond question — as here, where XXX260504 admitted paternity — support follows as a matter of obligation under Article 194 of the Family Code, which obliges a parent to support his child with everything indispensable for sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical attendance, education, and transportation, in keeping with his financial capacity. Requiring a separate civil action would mean needless duplication of litigation, as the facts to be proved have already been established in the criminal proceedings.

• Due Process in Fixing the Amount of Support: The award of USD 100.00 per month was nullified on account of due process considerations. The support was awarded in connection with the RTC Order granting the demurrer to evidence, which was filed with leave of court. Under Rule 119, Section 23 of the Rules of Court, when a demurrer is filed without leave, the accused waives the right to present evidence; conversely, when filed with leave, the accused retains the right to adduce evidence on both the criminal and civil aspects if the demurrer is denied. This right to adduce evidence is not lost when the demurrer is granted. The proper procedure, as reiterated in Cacdac vs. Mercado, is for the trial court to issue a partial judgment granting the demurrer and acquitting the accused, and set the case for continuation of trial for the accused to adduce evidence on the civil aspect and for the private complainant to adduce rebuttal evidence. Only after both parties are given meaningful opportunity to present evidence can the court render judgment on the civil aspect. Because the RTC fixed the amount of support based solely on the prosecution's evidence, without affording XXX260504 the opportunity to present countervailing evidence on his financial capabilities, the award was void for violating his constitutional right to due process. The CA therefore acted correctly in remanding the case for proper reception of evidence and determination of the amount of support.

• Two Kinds of Acquittal and Their Effects on Civil Liability — The law recognizes two kinds of acquittal. First, an acquittal on the ground that the accused is not the author of the act or omission complained of, which closes the door to civil liability ex delicto because there is no delict. Second, an acquittal based on reasonable doubt, where the accused is not exempt from civil liability which may be proved by preponderance of evidence. The Court applied this doctrine by classifying XXX260504's acquittal as based on reasonable doubt, thereby preserving his civil liability for support.

• Demurrer to Evidence with Leave of Court — Right to Adduce Evidence on Civil Aspect — When an accused files a demurrer to evidence with leave of court and the demurrer is granted, the accused retains the right to adduce evidence on the civil aspect of the case. The trial court must render a partial judgment of acquittal and continue trial on the civil aspect, allowing both the accused and the private complainant to present evidence. Only after both parties have been given meaningful opportunity to present evidence can the court render judgment on the civil aspect. The Court applied this doctrine to nullify the RTC's award of USD 100.00, which was fixed without affording the accused the opportunity to present evidence on his financial capacity.

• Civil Action Deemed Instituted with Criminal Action — Under Rule 111, Section 1 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, when a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged is deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party waives, reserves, or separately institutes it. The Court relied on this rule to sustain the jurisdiction of the courts to adjudicate civil liability for support within the criminal proceedings.

• "The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the extinction of the civil liability where: (a) the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only preponderance of evidence is required; (b) the court declares that the liability of the accused is only civil; and (c) the civil liability of the accused does not arise from or is not based upon the crime of which the accused is acquitted." — This passage states the controlling rule on the survival of civil liability after acquittal, articulating the three exceptions where the extinction of the penal action does not extinguish civil liability.

• "What the trial court should do is issue an order or partial judgment granting the demurrer to evidence and acquitting the accused, and set the case for continuation of trial for the accused to adduce evidence on the civil aspect of the case and for the private complainant to adduce evidence by way of rebuttal. Thereafter, the court shall render judgment on the civil aspect of the case." — This quotation, cited from Cacdac vs. Mercado, defines the proper procedure when a demurrer to evidence filed with leave of court is granted, ensuring due process on the civil aspect.

• "While a separate civil action may be filed, such separate filing is not the sole permissible mode of recovering support. Support may be awarded as part of civil liability." — This passage establishes that support need not be pursued in a separate action and may be adjudicated within the criminal proceedings, consistent with Section 35(d) of RA 9262.

• Manantan vs. Court of Appeals, 403 Phil. 298 (2001) — Followed. This case articulated the distinction between the two kinds of acquittal and their differing effects on civil liability. The Court relied on its formulation to classify XXX260504's acquittal as based on reasonable doubt, thereby preserving civil liability.

• Cacdac vs. Mercado, G.R. No. 242731, June 14, 2021 — Followed. This case established the proper procedure when a demurrer to evidence filed with leave of court is granted: the trial court must issue a partial judgment of acquittal and continue trial on the civil aspect. The Court applied this ruling to nullify the RTC's award of USD 100.00 for lack of due process.

• Padilla vs. Court of Appeals, 214 Phil. 492 (1984) — Followed. This case held that requiring a separate civil action after acquittal would mean needless duplication of litigation and clogging of court dockets, and that remand to the trial court for further hearings on the civil aspect is the more efficacious course. The Court echoed this reasoning in affirming the remand.

• Alcantara vs. Court of Appeals, 462 Phil. 72 (2003) — Followed. This case expounded on the definition of reasonable doubt, which the Court used to confirm that the acquittal was based on reasonable doubt rather than a finding that the act or omission did not exist.

• Kane vs. Roggenkamp, 876 Phil. 159 (2020) — Cited for the proposition that in the absence of a declaration in the judgment of acquittal that the act or omission from which civil liability might arise did not exist, it must be presumed that the acquittal was due to reasonable doubt and the accused remains civilly liable ex delicto.

• Section 5(i), Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-VAWC Act) — Defines and penalizes the crime of psychological violence, committed through acts or omissions causing mental or emotional anguish, including the deliberate denial of financial support. The prosecution failed to prove the elements of this offense, resulting in acquittal based on reasonable doubt.

• Section 35(d), Republic Act No. 9262 — Entitles victims of violence against women and their children "to all legal remedies and support as provided for under the Family Code." The Court relied on this provision to hold that support may be awarded as part of civil liability in the criminal action, and that a separate civil action is not the sole permissible mode of recovery.

• Article 194, Family Code — Defines support as comprising everything indispensable for sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical attendance, education, and transportation, in keeping with the financial capacity of the family. The Court cited this provision to establish that XXX260504, having admitted paternity, is obliged to support his child.

• Article 100, Revised Penal Code — Provides that every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. The Court cited this provision as the axiomatic basis for the rule that civil liability is impliedly instituted with the criminal action.

• Rule 111, Section 1, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure — Provides that when a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged is deemed instituted with the criminal action unless waived, reserved, or separately instituted. The Court relied on this rule to sustain the courts' jurisdiction to adjudicate civil liability for support within the criminal proceedings.

• Rule 120, Section 2, 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Requires that a judgment of acquittal state whether the prosecution's evidence absolutely failed to prove guilt or merely failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and determine if the act or omission from which civil liability might arise did not exist. The Court applied this provision to confirm that the RTC's failure to declare the non-existence of the act or omission meant the acquittal was presumed to be based on reasonable doubt.

• Rule 119, Section 23, Rules of Court — Governs demurrer to evidence, providing that when filed without leave of court, the accused waives the right to present evidence, but when filed with leave, the accused retains the right to adduce evidence. The Court applied this provision to hold that the right to present evidence on the civil aspect is not lost when the demurrer is granted, rendering the RTC's award void for violating due process.

Leonen, SAJ. (Chairperson), Lazaro-Javier, M. Lopez, and Kho, Jr., JJ., concurred.