Case Summary (G.R. No. 228150)
Facts and Procedural History
The petitioner and AAA married on 30 September 2011. Six days later, he departed for employment in Brunei, funded by an ₱85,000 placement‐fee loan with 3% monthly interest. He remitted ₱71,000 in partial payment but failed to discharge the ₱13,500 balance. While abroad, he allegedly maintained a paramour and lost regular communication with his wife. AAA filed an RA 9262 complaint for denial of financial support. The RTC found him guilty under Section 5(i) and sentenced him to imprisonment and fine. The CA affirmed.
Issue
Whether the CA erred in convicting petitioner under Section 5(i) of RA 9262 for (a) denying financial support; and (b) failing to keep communication lines open, thereby causing psychological violence.
Statutory Interpretation of “Denial of Support”
Section 5(i) penalizes the willful “denial of financial support” as a mode of psychological violence causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule, or humiliation. The plain meaning of “denial” connotes an intentional refusal, which differs from mere “failure” or inability to provide support. Criminal liability thus requires a deliberate withholding of support.
Actus Reus and Mens Rea Requirements
Actus reus under Section 5(i) comprises: (1) a qualifying relationship (wife, former wife, sexual/dating partner, or mother of a common child); (2) willful refusal to provide support legally due; and (3) resultant mental or emotional anguish. Mens rea demands specific intent: conscious denial of support with the purpose of inflicting psychological harm. Both elements must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Application to Petitioner’s Case
Evidence established petitioner initially remitted ₱71,000 and ceased remittances only after a fire destroyed his lodging and he suffered a serious accident in Brunei, both requiring significant outlays. AAA was gainfully employed, did not request further support, and made no showing of willful refusal on petitioner’s part. The prosecution failed to prove he intended to withhold support to cause anguish.
Distinction Between Sections 5(e) and 5(i)
Section 5(e) penalizes economic abuse when deprivation of support is employed to control or restrict the woman’s movement or conduct. Section 5(i) targets psychological violence by denial of support intended to cause emotional harm. Each provision contains distinct actus reus and mens rea elements. Mere overlap in the phrase “denial of financial support” does not render the two provisions interchangeable.
Variance Doctrine and Precedent Abandonment
Prior rulings in Melgar v. People and Reyes v. People applied the variance doctrine to permit conviction under Section 5(e) when charged under Section 5(i) and vice versa. The Court abandons this practice, recognizing that Sections 5(e) and 5(i) penalize different acts and intents. An information u
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 228150)
Facts
- Christian Pantonial Acharon (petitioner) married AAA on September 30, 2011; six days later he left for Brunei to work as a Pizza Hut delivery rider.
- To cover his placement fee he and AAA borrowed ₱85,000.00 from their godmother, Emelina So, at 3% monthly interest, with an agreement that he would send ₱9,633.00 per month.
- Between October 2011 and his last communication in January 2012, petitioner remitted only ₱71,500.00 (or ₱71,000.00 as claimed in defense), leaving a balance of ₱13,500.00.
- AAA felt embarrassed before Emelina So, pleaded not to be reported to the barangay, and endured public humiliation when So informed petitioner’s employer in Brunei.
- While in Brunei, petitioner maintained a paramour, Melete Domalaon; AAA identified photographic exhibits C–C-5 depicting the affair.
- AAA testified that petitioner’s infidelity and message that he no longer cared for her caused her depression and emotional anguish.
- On cross-examination, AAA admitted she was jobless when petitioner left but became gainfully employed; she lost communication with petitioner in January 2012.
- Petitioner denied the accusations, explaining that his rented place burned down and he suffered a vehicular accident in Brunei, exhausting his savings; he asserted AAA told him to stop sending money.
Procedural History
- An Information under Section 5(i) of R.A. 9262 (the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act) was filed in RTC Branch 270, Valenzuela City (Crim. Case No. 34-V-13) charging petitioner with causing mental or emotional anguish by denying financial support.
- RTC rendered its Decision on August 26, 2014, convicting petitioner to an indeterminate sentence of 2 years, 4 months and 1 day to 6 years and 1 day of imprisonment and a fine of ₱100,000.00. The RTC cited his failure to communicate, his paramour, and his neglect of support obligations.
- The Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 36913, via Decision dated February 17, 2016 and Resolution dated May 31, 2016, affirmed the RTC, holding that refusal to give financial support constitutes economic abuse under Section 5(i) of R.A. 9262.
- Petitioner filed