Case Summary (G.R. No. 239313)
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution (for cases decided in 1990 or later)
• Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004)
– Section 5(i): Causing mental or emotional anguish by denial of financial support
– Section 6(f): Penalty for acts under Section 5(i)
Key Dates
• October 1998: Petitioner left the conjugal home in Quezon City
• November 17, 2016: RTC Decision convicting petitioner under Section 5(i) of R.A. 9262
• December 15, 2017: CA Decision affirming with modification the RTC penalty
• May 10, 2018: CA Resolution denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration
• February 15, 2022: Supreme Court Decision
Factual Background
Petitioner and AAA married in 1995 and had a son, BBB, in 1997. Frequent domestic quarrels led petitioner to leave their home in October 1998, promising financial support from his seafarer’s salary. He subsequently ceased remittances, migrated to Canada, and pursued business. AAA, as sole provider, incurred substantial expenses—rent, utilities, P500,000 school fees for BBB’s elementary and high school, and daily sustenance. In 2010, AAA fell ill, depleting her savings and compelling her to seek P160,000 per year plus monthly allowance from petitioner. He claimed bankruptcy after a business failure in Canada.
Proceedings Before the RTC
The Information charged petitioner with economic abuse under Section 5(i) in relation to Section 6(f) of R.A. 9262 for willfully abandoning and denying support to his wife and child, causing mental and emotional anguish. At trial, AAA testified and introduced receipts evidencing her sole financial burden. Petitioner testified that he had remitted support until 2005, was incarcerated in Canada (2009–2010) for sexual assault, and lacked means to resume support thereafter. His brother offered monthly checks but AAA demanded a lump sum and allegedly sought P2,000,000 for a condominium purchase.
The RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt, discredited his incarceration defense for lack of corroboration, and sentenced him to an indeterminate term of prision correccional to prision mayor and a P100,000 fine, plus mandatory counseling.
Proceedings Before the Court of Appeals
The CA affirmed the RTC’s conviction and modified the maximum penalty to nine years and four months of prision mayor. It agreed that denial of support constituted psychological violence under Section 5(i) and rejected petitioner’s good-faith defense, emphasizing that R.A. 9262 is malum prohibitum.
Issue on Appeal
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner willfully and consciously denied financial support for the purpose of inflicting mental or emotional anguish on AAA and BBB, thus constituting a violation of Section 5(i) of R.A. 9262.
Parties’ Arguments
• Petitioner: Lack of proof on willful denial or its psychological impact; his failure was involuntary and due to circumstances beyond control.
• Respondent (OSG): R.A. 9262 penalizes denial of support per se; criminal intent and good faith are immaterial; abandonment alone suffices to establish mental anguish.
Supreme Court’s Analysis on Section 5(i)
Invoking Acharon v. People, the Court clarified that Section 5(i) penalizes the willful denial of financial support as a means of inflicting psychological violence. Mere inability or passive failure to provide support does not satisfy the willfulness requirement.
Elements of Section 5(i) (Acharon v. People)
- Offended party is a woman and/or her child.
- Relationship: wife and child of the offender.
- Offender willfully refuses or consciously denies support legally due.
- Denial is for the purpose of causing mental or emotional anguish.
Application to the Instant Case
• Elements 1 and 2: Established (AAA is wife; BBB is minor son).
• Element 3: No evidence that petitioner deliberately withheld support. He initially remitted funds; later interruptions were due to incarcerat
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 239313)
Facts of the Case
- Cesar M. Calingasan (accused) married private complainant AAA on November 27, 1995, in Manila; their son BBB was born on January 22, 1997.
- The marriage was marked by frequent quarrels, some witnessed by their son, BBB.
- In October 1998, Calingasan left the conjugal home promising to continue financial support; at the time he earned US$939 per month as a seaman.
- Thereafter, he failed to send any financial support; AAA lost contact with him after he resigned from seafaring and migrated to Canada to start a business.
- AAA worked as a seafarer and solely supported herself and BBB—paying house rentals, utilities, groceries, and around ₱500,000 in school fees for elementary and high school.
- By 2010, AAA fell ill and could no longer work as a seafarer; her savings depleted, she had to beg for help.
- AAA emailed Calingasan demanding ₱160,000 per year (including school and other fees) and ₱6,000 monthly allowance; he replied that his Canadian business had gone bankrupt.
- At trial, AAA presented receipts for tuition, dental expenses, utilities (telephone, internet, water, electricity), groceries, and apartment rentals.
Defense Version
- Calingasan denied abandonment and testified he sent money via bank remittances and sent items door-to-door from 1998 to 2005.
- In 2009, he was convicted of sexual assault in British Columbia, Canada, incarcerated until 2010, and lost his seafaring job; upon release, he could not secure employment and depended on family support.
- He became a Canadian citizen and resident; he returned to the Philippines in 2011 for his father’s wake but was barred from returning to Canada by a hold-departure order in this case.
- He claimed AAA initiated the criminal complaint to extract money; she bought a Bataan property on installment and sought ₱2,000,000 from his brother Danilo.
- Danilo offered AAA postdated checks of ₱7,500 per month until BBB graduated in exch