Is a husband’s mere failure or inability to financially support his family an outright criminal offense under Republic Act No. 9262, the Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act?
No, said the Supreme Court (SC) in a unanimous full court decision written by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa and made public last May 26.
The SC pointed out that “those entitled to support and are not given any have the remedy of filing a civil case for support against the delinquent person, consistent with the provisions of the Civil Code and the Family Code.”
The SC said:
“R.A. 9262 was not meant to make the partners of women criminals just because they fail or are unable to financially provide for them. Certainly, courts cannot send individuals to jail because of their mere inability -- without malice or evil intention -- to provide for their respective families.
“In a developing country like ours, where poverty and unemployment are especially rampant, courts would inevitably find themselves incarcerating countless people, mostly fathers, should the interpretation be that mere failure or inability to provide financial support is enough to convict under Sections 5(e) and 5(i)” of RA 9262.
Under Section (e) of RA 9262, acts of violence against women and children are committed by “depriving or threatening to deprive the woman or her children of financial support legally due her or her family, or deliberately providing the woman's children insufficient financial support.”
Under Section 5 (i), the prohibited acts are “causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to the woman or her child, including, but not limited to, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, and denial of financial support or custody of minor children of access to the woman's child/children.”
With the SC’s new decision on the issue, the High Court now abandons its two previous ruling which declared that “a person charged with a violation of Section 5(i) of R.A. 9262 may be convicted of violating Section 5(e) by applying the variance doctrine.”
The variance doctrine under the Rules of Court “allows the conviction of an accused for a crime proved which is different from but necessarily included in the crime charged.”
The SC explained:
“The portions of Sections 5(e) and 5(i) that deal with denial or deprivation of financial support punish different things. Section 5(e) punishes the deprivation of financial support for the purpose of controlling the woman or to make her and/or her child or children lose their agency.
“Section 5(i), on the other hand, punishes the willful infliction of mental or emotional anguish, or public ridicule or humiliation upon the woman and/or her child or children by denying her and/or her child or children financial support that is legally due her and/or her child or children.
“Thus, while the portions of Sections 5(e) and 5(i) that deal with denial or deprivation of financial support may seem similar at first glance, they, in reality, deal with different matters and penalize distinct acts.
“As the Court comes to the realization that the said sections punish different things, the Court, therefore, abandons Melgar and Reyes (the two previous decisions) to the extent that they hold that the variance doctrine may be applied for Sections 5(e) and 5(i) of R.A. 9262.
“Finally, the Court clarifies that in either case, whether the accused is prosecuted under Section 5(e) or Section S(i), the mere failure to provide financial support is not enough.
“In other words, neither Section 5(e) nor 5(i) can be construed to mean that mere failure or inability to provide support is sufficient for a conviction. Those entitled to support and are not given any have the remedy of filing a civil case for support against the delinquent person, consistent with the provisions of the Civil Code and the Family Code.
“In order to be liable under the penal provisions of R.A. 9262, therefore, it is necessary to allege and prove the existence of the facts that qualify the act of denial or deprivation of financial support from one in which mere civil liability may arise to one where a person may be criminally liable.”
The SC’s decision in GR No. 224946 was issued on the appeal of a husband (Manila Bulletin opted not to publish his name since the wife was denominated in the decision as “AAA”) who was convicted by the trial court whose ruling was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The husband was sentenced to a prison term ranging from two years, four months and one day as minimum to six years and one day as maximum, and ordered to pay a fine of P100,000.
The husband was charged before the trial court with “willfully, unlawfully and feloniously caused mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to his wife..., by denying financial support to the said complainant."
The couple secured P85,000 loan for the husband’s expenses to work abroad. The husband had been consistently sending money to his wife to repay the loan. He then stopped sending money. At the time of the filing of the case by the wife, they had paid a total of P71,500 out of the P85,000 loan.
The wife alleged that her husband’s failure to send money and to pay the loan was because he maintained a paramour abroad.
The husband denied the paramour issue as he explained that he failed to send money because he met an accident abroad and the place where he was staying was razed by fire.
In reversing the CA and acquitting the husband, the SC said “it was error for the RTC to have allowed the introduction of evidence tending to establish, for instance, that (the husband) had a paramour when he was in (abroad) as this is an irrelevant issue in this case in light of its absence in the Information (criminal charge filed in court.”
“Needless to say, the RTC further erred in appreciating these pieces of evidence in establishing his guilt,” the SC said.
“At the outset, it must be emphasized that (the husband’s) criminal liability should be adjudged only on the basis of his alleged failure to give financial support to his wife as this is the only allegation contained in the Information,” it said.
It added that “’no less than the Constitution guarantees the right of every person accused in a criminal prosecution to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him.’ The purpose of the law in having a right to be informed ‘is to enable the accused to suitably prepare his defense, as he is presumed to have no independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense.’"
“By virtue of this right, ‘an accused cannot be convicted of a crime, even if duly proven, unless it is alleged or necessarily included in the information filed against him,’” the SC stressed.
The SC ruled:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated February 17, 2016 and Resolution dated May 31, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 36913 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, petitioner (the husband) is ACQUITTED of the crime charged. Let an entry of final judgment be issued immediately. SO ORDERED.”