A criminal case for not providing support to a child in violation of the law on Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children (VAWC) cannot stand in court if it is not proven that a man is the father.

With the ruling, the SC acquitted a man convicted by both the trial court and the Court of Appeals (CA) for not providing support to a child who was not proven by evidence as his own.

The names of the parties in the case docketed as GR No. 262419 were redacted in the decision written by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao and made public on Wednesday, May 6.

The SC pointed out that a legal duty to provide financial support arises only after filiation or paternity has been established. It added that when a birth certificate is used to prove filiation, it must be signed by both the mother and the father.

Since the man’s paternity was not proven, no legal obligation to provide support could be imposed, it also said.

At the same time, the SC stressed that even if paternity had been established, “there must be evidence on record that the accused willfully or consciously withheld financial support legally due the woman for the purpose of inflicting mental or emotional anguish upon her.”

In 2016 a case was filed before the regional trial court (RTC) by a woman against her former boyfriend who was accused of not providing support to their child.

In his defense, the man told the court that he is not the father of the child because the child was born only eight months after his last sexual relations with the woman.

The court was told that a deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) test was not conducted because the man and the woman could not agree on who would shoulder the cost of the test.

During the trial, the woman presented the birth certificate of the child. However, the portion of the birth certificate indicating the father’s name was marked “N/A” or not applicable and was unsigned.

At the same time, the woman admitted that the man refused to give financial support because he doubted that he was the father of the child.

The RTC convicted the man of violation of Section 5(i) of the VAWC law under Republic Act No. 9262. He was sentenced to a prison term ranging from two years and four months as minimum to six years and one day as maximum and ordered to pay a fine of P100,000.

The man elevated the case before the CA.

In a decision issued on April 11, 2022, the CA affirmed the RTC’s ruling as it held that all the elements of the crime were present. The appellate court also declared that the establishment of paternity is not an element of the crime.

The CA modified the decision and sentenced the man to a prison term ranging from two years to four months to eight years and one day. The P100,000 fine was upheld.

The man elevated his conviction before the SC.

In resolving the petition, the SC said four elements must be proven to convict a person of economic abuse under RA 9262 -- the victim is a woman and/or her child; the woman is the offender’s wife or partner, or someone with whom the offender has a common child; the offender refused to give financial support due; and the refusal was intended to cause mental or emotional suffering.

It said in the present case, the prosecution failed to prove two essential elements -- that the accused and the woman share a common child, and that the refusal to provide support was done to inflict psychological harm.

“Here, the prosecution was unable to successfully establish that support is legally due the woman and her child and that the man deliberately withheld the same,” the SC ruled.