Acharon v. People (2021): Denial of Support Under RA 9262

Christian and his wife (called AAA in the decision, to protect her identity) married in 2011. Six days later, he left to work abroad in Brunei. The couple had borrowed money from their godmother to pay his placement fee, and he was supposed to send money every month to pay it off. He did not send money regularly, and he paid only part of the loan.

The wife testified that she was embarrassed in front of the lender and that she learned her husband had a relationship with another woman abroad. This caused her deep anguish and depression. She lost contact with him in 2012.

The husband said he sent money until his rented place in Brunei burned down and he was hurt in a vehicle accident, which cost him money. He said most of the loan was already paid.

He was charged with violating Section 5(i) of RA 9262 by causing his wife mental or emotional anguish through "denying financial support". The Regional Trial Court in Valenzuela City convicted him, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. He appealed to the Supreme Court.

The question was whether the husband was guilty of causing mental or emotional anguish under Section 5(i) when he failed to give his wife financial support. The Court also looked at whether he could instead be convicted under Section 5(e), which covers depriving a woman of financial support.

The Supreme Court granted the appeal, reversed the Court of Appeals and acquitted the husband.

• Only the charge counts. The information accused him only of denying financial support. The Court said it was an error for the trial court to rely on evidence of an affair, because that was not in the charge.
• Denial is not the same as failure. In the Court's words, "Mere failure or an inability to provide financial support is not punishable by R.A. 9262". The word "denial" in Section 5(i) means a willful act. The prosecution must prove that the accused willfully or consciously withheld support legally due to the woman, for the purpose of causing her mental or emotional anguish. The woman's suffering alone is not enough.
• A crime that needs intent. The Court clarified that the acts punished under Sections 5(i) and 5(e) are mala in se. That means criminal intent must be proven, even though RA 9262 is a special law.
• Section 5(e) needs a purpose to control. Depriving a woman of support is a crime under Section 5(e) only if it is done to control or restrict her or her children's movement or conduct. Without that element, not giving support leads only to civil liability.
• Earlier cases abandoned. The Court abandoned Melgar v. People and Reyes v. People to the extent that they allowed a person charged under Section 5(i) to be convicted under Section 5(e) through the variance doctrine. The two sections punish different acts.
• Applied to the facts. The evidence showed that the husband tried to give support, and did for a time, and stopped only after the fire and the accident. Much of the debt, which both spouses owed, was already paid. There was no proof that he willfully denied support to hurt his wife, or to control her. So he was not guilty under either section.

The Court also said that the duty of support is shared by both spouses under the Family Code, and that support depends on the means of the giver and the needs of the person receiving it. If inability to pay were a crime, courts would end up jailing many people, mostly fathers, just for being poor.

Denial of financial support is a crime under RA 9262 only if it is willful and done for a specific purpose: under Section 5(i), to cause the woman or her child mental or emotional anguish; under Section 5(e), to control or restrict their movement or conduct. Mere failure or inability to give support is not a crime, and the remedy is a civil action for support.

Acharon changed how VAWC cases about support are filed and proven. The complaint and the evidence must show more than unpaid support. They must show that the support was legally due, that it was deliberately withheld, and why it was withheld.

Illustration (invented names): Ramon loses his job abroad and cannot send money home for several months. That alone is not a crime under Section 5(i). By contrast, Mark earns well but stops all support to punish his wife for leaving him, and tells her he wants her to suffer. That can be a crime under Section 5(i), if the prosecution proves it beyond reasonable doubt.

The ruling does not remove the duty to support. A mother or child who receives no support may still ask the court for it in a civil case. See how much child support is in the Philippines and the Family Code rule that support depends on the giver's resources and the receiver's needs.

Acharon builds on Garcia v. Drilon, which upheld RA 9262. For how a VAWC complaint is filed, see how to file a VAWC case. For help with a real situation, see free legal help.