G.R. No. 221370, June 28, 2021
XXX, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner XXX and private complainant AAA were married in March 2005. Their marriage became estranged shortly after, with AAA leaving the conjugal home in May 2005. In August 2005, AAA gave birth to their son, BBB, who was diagnosed with Congenital Torch Syndrome, causing profound hearing loss and developmental delays, necessitating significant medical and educational expenses (e.g., hearing aids, specialized schooling, and a potential cochlear implant costing approximately P1,000,000.00 per ear). AAA alleged that from 2005 onward, XXX willfully deprived her and BBB of sufficient financial support, despite her repeated requests. XXX claimed he provided support when able, contested AAA’s allegations of deprivation, and cited instances of giving financial assistance. The prosecution presented evidence that XXX’s regular support commenced only after the filing of the criminal case for violation of Section 5(e)(2) of Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004). The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found XXX guilty, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA).

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s decision finding petitioner XXX guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5(e)(2) of R.A. No. 9262 for willfully depriving AAA and their child BBB of financial support legally due them.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the CA decision with MODIFICATION regarding the penalty. The Court held that all elements of the crime under Section 5(e)(2) of R.A. No. 9262 were proven beyond reasonable doubt:
1. The offended party is a woman and/or her child: AAA is the wife and BBB is their child.
2. The woman and/or her child have suffered violence or abuse: The deprivation of financial support constitutes economic abuse under the law.
3. The act of violence or abuse is committed by the woman’s husband or former husband: XXX is AAA’s husband.
The Court found that XXX’s failure to provide consistent and sufficient financial support was willful and deliberate, not due to financial incapacity. His actions—such as telling AAA to leave him alone as he had a “new family,” his delayed and irregular support, and his failure to adequately contribute to BBB’s substantial medical and educational needs—constituted a conscious design to evade his legal obligation under the Family Code. His claim that AAA prevented him from giving support was unsubstantiated. The Court modified the penalty, imposing an indeterminate sentence of six (6) months of arresto mayor as minimum to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional as maximum, while affirming the fine of P100,000.00, the order for psychological counseling, and the award of moral damages.