Case Summary (G.R. No. 155407)
Core factual allegations and procedural posture
An Information (October 12, 2016) charged petitioner with violating Section 5(i) of R.A. 9262 by allegedly willfully, unlawfully and feloniously depriving or denying his minor child, CCC, of financial support, thereby causing mental and emotional anguish to AAA. The RTC conducted a full trial after petitioner pleaded not guilty. The RTC convicted petitioner on March 19, 2018. The CA affirmed with modification (adding a fine and mandatory counseling) on November 5, 2019 and denied reconsideration. Petitioner filed a Rule 45 petition before the Supreme Court seeking acquittal, which was granted.
Prosecution’s Evidence
Testimony and documentary proof supporting the charge
Prosecution witnesses included AAA and BBB. AAA testified that she and petitioner cohabited since 1997, CCC was born November 3, 2000, and petitioner and AAA were married May 17, 2001. AAA testified she had no independent income and was dependent on petitioner or her sister. Petitioner allegedly provided P1,000–P2,000 monthly before 2005, then suddenly stopped providing support in 2005. Barangay conciliation allegedly resulted in an agreement for petitioner to provide P4,000 monthly, which petitioner did not honor except for a single P1,000 payment. BBB corroborated that she financially supported AAA and CCC for years, covering schooling and remittances from her US pension. Documentary exhibits included CCC’s birth certificate and the couple’s marriage certificate.
Defense Evidence
Petitioner’s account, corroborating witnesses, and expert testimony
Petitioner admitted living with AAA and acknowledged prior intermittent support but asserted he stopped living with AAA in 2005 because of alleged violence and harassment by AAA (including an incident where AAA threw a stainless dustpan causing a scar). He testified he offered P1,000–P2,000 monthly and offered to pay for CCC’s education in public school, but AAA refused these offers during barangay and prosecutorial conciliation. Petitioner said he worked as a mechanic (including 2005–2010 in his father’s shop), later became unemployed, and was diagnosed with hypertensive cardiovascular disease in 2011. Neighbors and a barangay official testified to petitioner’s physical capability but limited activity. Psychologist Jesselyn Mortejo conducted evaluations (clinical interviews and screening instruments) and diagnosed PTSD symptoms, including pronounced avoidance and paranoid ideations that, in her opinion, significantly impaired petitioner’s capacity to work and function outside a secure home environment. Mortejo clarified petitioner was not insane and retained moral reasoning and awareness of his support obligations; she opined symptoms could be managed with therapy and medication but not cured.
RTC Findings and Rationale
Trial court’s assessment and conviction
The RTC credited the prosecution’s evidence and found all elements of Section 5(i) proven, following the elements set out in Dinamling: (1) offended party is a woman and/or her child; (2) relationship element (wife, former wife, or woman with whom offender has a common child); (3) offender causes mental or emotional anguish to the woman/child; and (4) anguish is caused through denial of financial support. The RTC relied on documentary proof for elements (1) and (2), and on testimonial evidence (AAA’s distress, BBB’s support and observations, petitioner seen with another woman, barangay conciliation breakdown, and multiple complaints filed) to satisfy elements (3) and (4). The RTC found petitioner physically capable of supporting CCC (noting appearance, ability to post bail, and hire counsel) and rejected the defense of incapacity.
Court of Appeals Disposition
CA’s decision and modifications
The CA affirmed the RTC’s conviction but modified the penalty by adding a fine of P100,000 and ordering mandatory psychological or psychiatric treatment with compliance reporting to the CA. The CA noted, however, that the trial court had not applied Section 6(f) of R.A. 9262, which the CA nonetheless deemed a curable procedural oversight.
Issue on Review
Legal question before the Supreme Court
Whether the CA committed reversible error in affirming the RTC’s judgment finding petitioner guilty of violating Section 5(i) of R.A. 9262—specifically whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner’s acts constituted psychological violence causing mental or emotional anguish and that the denial of support was intentional or voluntary.
Governing Legal Principles
Elements of Section 5(i) and standards of proof
Section 5(i) penalizes acts that cause mental or emotional anguish through denial of financial support. Two indispensable requirements identified: (1) psychological violence (the means employed), and (2) resultant emotional anguish or mental suffering (the effect on the offended party). Although R.A. 9262 punishes mala prohibita acts, the prosecution must still prove that the prohibited act was intentional or voluntary—i.e., that the accused’s conduct was not merely an involuntary failure to provide support. The Court distinguished psychological violence (Section 3(C)) from economic abuse (Section 3(D)) and noted jurisprudence (Melgar) holding economic abuse prosecuted under different subsections (e.g., Section 5(e)).
Analysis of Evidence on Psychological Violence and Causation
Court’s evaluation of whether mental anguish was proven and causation established
The Supreme Court found the prosecution established that petitioner failed to provide adequate support but concluded there was no proof beyond reasonable doubt that such failure constituted psychological violence or caused AAA’s mental and emotional distress. The record showed petitioner made offers in 2005 to provide financial support (P1,000–P2,000 monthly, and proposals to open an account and pay schooling in public school), and that AAA refused these offers during barangay and prosecutorial negotiations. The Court emphasized that petitioner attempted to negotiate support within his means, and that AAA’s refusal and insistence on private schooling expectations were material to the parties’ impasse. Consequently, the Court could not conclude the failure to provide was willful or intended to inflict psychological violence upon AAA.
Mental Incapacity, PTSD Evidence, and Criminal Liability
Effect of petitioner’s PTSD diagnosis on voluntariness and criminal responsibility
The Court gave significant weight to Mortejo’s expert testimony that petitioner exhibited severe PTSD symptoms with pronounced avoidance and paranoid ideations, impeding his capacity to seek work or function outside a secure home environment. Although petitioner was not insane and retained moral awareness, the Court observed that his cognitive distortions and avoidance mechanisms effectively incapacitated him from performing the act (working and providing support) at the relevant time. Under criminal law principles cited (including People v. Lacerna), voluntariness of the prohibited act is a key inquiry even in mala prohibita offenses: if the accused did not, by volition, perpetrate the act, guilt cannot be established. The Supreme Court concluded that the combination of AAA’s refusal of petitioner’s offers and petitioner’s mental debilitation meant the prosecution failed to prove the requisite intentional or v
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 155407)
Procedural Background and Posture
- Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by petitioner XXX (G.R. No. 252087).
- RTC of Balanga City, Bataan, Branch 93 rendered Judgment on March 19, 2018 in Criminal Case No. 16554 finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5(i) of R.A. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Children Act of 2004).
- Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC Judgment in a Decision dated November 5, 2019, but modified the penalty to include (i) a fine of P100,000.00 and (ii) mandatory psychological counselling or psychiatric treatment to be reported to the CA.
- CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated January 23, 2020.
- Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court seeking acquittal and reversal of the CA Decision and Resolution.
- Supreme Court (First Division) rendered decision reversing and setting aside the CA Decision and acquitting petitioner (reported 119 OG No. 35, 6830, August 28, 2023).
Charged Offense / Information
- Information dated October 12, 2016 charged petitioner with violation of Section 5(i) of R.A. 9262.
- Allegation: In 2005 and subsequent years in Balanga City, Bataan, petitioner willfully, unlawfully and feloniously deprived, denied, refused his minor child CCC of financial support thereby causing mental and emotional anguish to his wife AAA.
- Charge framed as causing mental and emotional anguish through denial of financial support, contrary to law.
Factual Background (Family and Living Circumstances)
- AAA and petitioner lived together since 1997 without marriage in BBB’s house in Tenejero, Balanga City.
- CCC (the minor child) was born November 3, 2000.
- Petitioner and AAA were officially married on May 17, 2001.
- AAA had no source of income before CCC’s birth up to the filing of the case and depended on petitioner or her sister BBB for support.
- Petitioner worked as a mechanic in Makati City, worked five days a week, and returned to Balanga on Saturdays.
- Petitioner and AAA continued living in BBB’s house until 2004.
- Sometime in 2005 petitioner stopped coming home and providing support; AAA sought relief via barangay conciliation in Arellano, Orion.
Prosecution’s Evidence and Witness Testimony
- AAA testified regarding cohabitation since 1997, birth of CCC in 2000, marriage in 2001, dependency on petitioner and sister, petitioner’s provision of P1,000–P2,000 per month, petitioner’s sudden stoppage of support in 2005, barangay conciliation agreement for P4,000 per month which petitioner did not honor (only gave P1,000 once), long absence of petitioner thereafter, and filing of criminal complaint in 2016 because BBB could no longer support AAA and CCC.
- BBB (AAA’s sister) testified she owned the four-bedroom house where AAA and petitioner lived; that after petitioner disappeared in 2005 she financially supported AAA and CCC, remitting US$1,000.00 per month from her US pension, paid for CCC’s schooling (Bataan Montessori and later Asia Pacific), and testified about AAA’s crying and dependence on her; BBB admitted lack of knowledge of petitioner’s financial situation.
- Prosecution presented documentary evidence including CCC’s birth certificate and marriage certificate of petitioner and AAA to prove relationship elements.
- Prosecution relied on evidence of AAA’s emotional distress (shame, crying, harassment, public incidents, leaving barangay conciliation in disgust, filing multiple complaints) as proof of mental and emotional anguish caused by petitioner’s denial of financial support.
Defense Evidence and Testimony
- Petitioner denied willful denial of support; recounted meeting AAA while studying; admitted marriage in 2001; described AAA’s allegedly dominating personality and violent behavior (incident of being struck by a stainless dustpan resulting in scarring).
- Petitioner testified he provided money to AAA and CCC when he could (examples: P15,000 after a sibling’s death; P3,000 for AAA’s false teeth; payment of CCC’s tuition at Bataan Montessori in 2006).
- Petitioner testified he stopped living with AAA in 2005 because of violence and harassment; that he offered P1,000–P2,000 per month at barangay conciliation and offered to pay for CCC’s education provided she attends public school; AAA refused and pursued complaints (barangay, prosecutor’s office, police, public attorney’s office).
- Petitioner admitted stopping support after barangay conciliation; stated he worked as a mechanic in his father’s shop from 2005 to 2010 and was diagnosed with hypertensive cardiovascular disease in 2011, requiring maintenance medication.
- Petitioner claimed inability to secure work due to fear of AAA and her continued harassment; presently unemployed and supported by mother and siblings.
- Remigio G. Aguilar (barangay official) testified that no amicable settlement was reached at conciliation because AAA stormed out; recalled petitioner’s work as piece-rate mechanic in 2005 and, on cross-examination, stated petitioner was physically fit to work but did not do so.
- Nancy Dalisay San Jose (neighbor) testified to witnessing AAA confront petitioner and that petitioner stays at home most of the time; she observed petitioner could move swiftly and appeared capable of working.
- Jesselyn Mortejo, licensed counseling psychologist and psychometrician, testified after conducting structured clinical interviews and screening instruments that petitioner exhibited symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) with pronounced avoidance symptoms, detachment, paranoid thinking, very low coping mechanism for stress and traumatic events, and distorted thinking causing indolence/lack of motivation to find work; she opined petitioner’s PTSD and paranoia had a strong correlation with his cardiovascular disease and that symptoms can be managed (not cured) through cognitive-behavioral therapy; she clarified petitioner was not insane and retained moral reasoning and understanding of his support obligations.
- Mortejo’s judicial affidavit and testimony recounted collateral interviews (sister, mother, a close relative) that confirmed petitioner suffered emotionally due to AAA’s alleged violent behaviors and public humiliation; she described the source of petitioner’s distress as negative experiences including public humiliation, physical violence and threats, and noted PTSD aggravated by case filing.
Trial Court (RTC) Findings and Disposition
- RTC gave full weight to prosecution evidence and found all elements of Section 5(i) of R.A. 9262 satisfied, citing Dinamling v. People for the elements: (1) offended party is a woman and/or her child; (2) woman’s relationship to offender (wife/former wife/common child); (3) offender causes mental or emotional anguish; and (4) anguish is caused through denial of financi