Title
Calingasan vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 239313
Decision Date
Feb 15, 2022
Husband acquitted of economic abuse under VAWC law; failure to provide support due to incarceration and unemployment lacked intent to cause harm.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 239313)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and relationship
    • Cesar M. Calingasan (petitioner) and AAA (private complainant) married on November 27, 1995 in Manila; they have a son, BBB, born January 22, 1997.
    • Their marriage was marked by frequent quarrels witnessed by their son.
  • Separation and support history
    • In October 1998, petitioner left the conjugal home, promising financial support as a seaman earning US$939.00 per month, but allegedly sent no funds thereafter.
    • Private complainant worked as a seafarer and solely supported BBB, paying rent, utilities, groceries, and approximately ₱500,000.00 in elementary and high-school fees; by the time of trial, BBB was a college student.
  • Prosecution’s evidence
    • In 2010, private complainant fell ill, could no longer work, depleted her savings, and relied on relatives; she then emailed petitioner for ₱160,000.00 per year plus ₱6,000.00 monthly allowance.
    • Petitioner allegedly claimed bankruptcy in Canada and refused further support. Receipts for tuition, dental expenses, utilities, and rent were presented.
  • Defense’s evidence
    • Petitioner testified he sent remittances and items from 1998 to 2005; in 2009 he was convicted of sexual assault in British Columbia, jailed until 2010, and upon release could not find work.
    • His brother, Danilo, offered private complainant post-dated checks of ₱7,500.00 per month or lump-sum payment in exchange for withdrawal of the complaint; private complainant demanded ₱1,400,000.00 or ₱300,000.00 for a condominium, which Danilo could not provide.

Issues:

  • Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt all elements of Section 5(i) of R.A. 9262, specifically:
    • That petitioner willfully or consciously denied financial support legally due private complainant and their child.
    • That such denial was for the purpose of inflicting mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule, or humiliation.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.