G.R. No. 209344 - People vs. Brioso

Case Summary (G.R. No. 209344)

Factual Background

XXX256611 and AAA256611 lived together as partners from 1999 to 2002 and had two children, BBB256611 and CCC256611. The Information alleged that beginning in 2009 and continuously up to the filing of the case, XXX256611 willfully deprived the children of financial support, thereby causing psychological and emotional anguish to AAA256611 and their children. AAA256611 testified that an agreement in August 2008 obligated XXX256611 to give a monthly allowance of P1,000 for their two children but that he paid intermittently and stopped entirely in 2010. She stated that despite XXX256611’s receipt in June 2014 of P761,206.68 in retirement benefits and P953,685.99 as commutation of leave credits, and a monthly pension thereafter, he gave no financial support.

Defense Evidence

XXX256611 testified that he provided financial support until 2012 but that on August 3, 2012 he suffered a vehicular accident for which he was hospitalized for forty days and incurred around P1,400,000 in medical expenses. He claimed resultant disabilities, two loans totaling P700,000, and that his retirement proceeds and commutation were used to settle loans and related fees. He also stated that his monthly pension was largely consumed by his maintenance, medical needs, and travel to Manila for hearings, and that he was later diagnosed with stage three prostate cancer.

Information, Arraignment, and Trial Evidence

An Information charging violation of Section 5(i) of RA 9262 was filed on October 31, 2014. XXX256611 pleaded not guilty. AAA256611 testified to the alleged deprivation of support and introduced a letter purportedly authored by the children, but the children did not testify. The defense presented medical and financial records and testimony from EEE256611, petitioner’s mother, to corroborate the financial difficulties occasioned by the accident and consequent loans and expenses.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

The RTC assessed credibility in favor of AAA256611 and found XXX256611 guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5(i), sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty of two years, four months and one day of prision correccional as minimum to six years and one day of prision mayor as maximum, and to pay a fine of P100,000. The RTC relied on the testimony that XXX256611 received retirement and commutation benefits and a pension yet failed to provide any support, concluding that the deprivation caused emotional anguish to the offended parties.

Appeal to the Court of Appeals

On appeal, XXX256611 argued that the prosecution failed to prove that the alleged deprivation caused mental or emotional anguish and that the letter by the children was unauthenticated and thus inadmissible. The Office of the Solicitor General maintained that the evidence established economic abuse through deprivation of support and reliance on the children’s letter showed clear and repeated promises unfulfilled.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification and found XXX256611 guilty of violating Section 5(e)(2) of RA 9262, rather than Section 5(i). The CA concluded that the prosecution proved deprivation of financial support but not the element of psychological violence under Section 5(i). Applying the variance doctrine, the CA convicted under the necessarily included offense of deprivation of support under Section 5(e)(2). The CA imposed imprisonment of six months of arresto mayor to four years and two months of prision correccional, a fine of P300,000, and ordered mandatory psychological counseling.

Petition before the Supreme Court

XXX256611 filed a petition for review seeking acquittal and reiterated that his failure to provide support was not willful but compelled by the accident, medical expenses, loan obligations, and physical incapacity. The People, through the OSG, filed a comment reiterating that XXX256611 had the means yet refused to support the children and that the denial caused pain and anxiety to the children and AAA256611.

Issue Presented

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding XXX256611 guilty of violating Section 5(e)(2) of RA 9262.

Governing Law and Controlling Precedent

The Court applied Section 5(e)(2) and Section 5(i) of RA 9262 and relied principally on the Court’s En Banc decision in Acharon v. People, G.R. No. 224946, November 7, 2021. The Court cited Acharon for the propositions that: mere denial or failure to provide financial support is insufficient for conviction; the deprivation must be willful and committed with the purpose or effect of controlling or restricting the woman’s or child’s movement or conduct under Section 5(e); and that Sections 5(e) and 5(i) penalize distinct conduct so that the variance doctrine is inapplicable to substitute one for the other.

Elements of the Offenses as Articulated

The Court recalled that Acharon articulated the elements of Section 5(e) to include: (1) the offended party is a woman and/or her child; (2) the relationship element; (3) the offender deprived or threatened to deprive the woman or her children of financial support legally due; and (4) the deprivation was committed for the purpose of controlling or restricting the woman’s or her child’s movement or conduct. The Court also reiterated Acharon’s formulation of Section 5(i) elements, requiring willful refusal to give financial support and that such refusal be intended to cause mental or emotional anguish.

Application of Law to the Facts

The Court observed undisputed testimony by XXX256611 regarding his severe accident, prolonged hospitalization, resultant amputation and disability, substantial medical expenses, loans, the use of retirement proceeds to settle indebtedness and fees, and a limited monthly pension largely consumed by his subsistence and travel expenses and by his stage three prostate cancer diagnosis. The Court noted that neither the RTC nor the Court of Appeals made contrary factual findings or refuted these assertions. Applying Acharon, the Court concluded that the pro

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 209344)

Parties and Posture

XXX256611 was the petitioner and accused in Criminal Case No. R‑QZN‑15‑03541‑CR before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 94, Quezon City.
People of the Philippines was the respondent and prosecuting party represented by the Office of the Solicitor General in the Supreme Court proceedings.
The RTC rendered a verdict of conviction for violation of Section 5(i) of RA 9262, which the Court of Appeals modified to a conviction for Section 5(e)(2) of RA 9262, prompting this petition for review.
The petition to the Supreme Court challenged the Court of Appeals Decision dated June 8, 2020 and its Resolution denying reconsideration dated February 23, 2021.

Key Factual Allegations

XXX256611 had a live‑in relationship with AAA256611 from 1999 to 2002 and acknowledged paternity of two children, BBB256611 and CCC256611.
AAA256611 alleged that XXX256611 failed to consistently provide financial support for the children from about 2005 and totally ceased support in 2010.
XXX256611 allegedly promised in May 2014 to remit support after receiving retirement benefits, but AAA256611 claimed he gave no support despite receiving P761,206.68 as retirement benefits and P953,685.99 as commutation of leave credits.
XXX256611 testified that he suffered a vehicular accident on August 3, 2012 that resulted in loss of a leg and impairment of his left hand, hospitalization for forty days, approximately P1,400,000.00 in medical expenses, a mortgage by his mother, and loans totaling P700,000.00.
XXX256611 further testified that he received a monthly pension (evidenced as P21,144.63) which he used for subsistence and travel to attend hearings and that he was later diagnosed with stage three prostate cancer.
A letter purportedly written by BBB256611 and CCC256611 complaining of lack of paternal support was introduced but the children did not testify and the letter lacked direct authentication.

Procedural History

The Information filed on October 31, 2014 charged XXX256611 with violation of Section 5(i) of RA 9262 for causing psychological and emotional anguish by depriving financial support.
The RTC, Branch 94, Quezon City, convicted XXX256611 on April 20, 2018 for Section 5(i) and imposed an indeterminate term of imprisonment and a P100,000.00 fine, and ordered mandatory psychological counseling.
The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and modified the conviction on June 8, 2020, finding XXX256611 guilty of Section 5(e)(2) of RA 9262 under the variance doctrine, imposing imprisonment of six months to four years and two months, a P300,000.00 fine, and mandatory counseling.
The Court of Appeals denied reconsideration by Resolution dated February 23, 2021, after which XXX256611 filed the present petition for certiorari, review, and/or relief.

Issues Presented

The sole issue was whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding XXX256611 guilty for violation of Section 5(e)(2) of RA 9262.
Ancillary issues included whether the evidence proved the willful deprivation of financial support and whether such deprivation was committed for the purpose of controlling or restricting the woman or her children.
Another evidentiary issue raised was the admissibility and weight of the unsigned and unauthenticated letter purportedly written by the children.

Statutory Framework

Section 5(e)(2) of RA 9262 penalizes depriving or threatening to deprive the woman or her children of financial suppor