G.R. No. 224946 , November 9, 2021
CHRISTIAN PANTONIAL ACHARON, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

This case involves a Concurring Opinion by Justice Zalameda regarding the interpretation of Sections 5(e) and 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 (The Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004). The opinion concurs with the main decision (ponencia) which clarified that the mere failure or inability to provide financial support does not automatically constitute criminal liability under the said provisions. The petitioner, Christian Pantonial Acharon, was charged under Section 5(i) of RA 9262. The factual background from the ponencia, as referenced, indicates that the private complainant could not simply wait for financial support from Acharon, as he had paid more than half of a debt and had justifiable explanations for his failure to continue support, which was not found to be deliberate or malicious.

ISSUE

The primary issue addressed in the concurring opinion is the proper construction of Sections 5(e) and 5(i) of RA 9262, specifically regarding whether the mere failure to provide financial support constitutes criminal violence under these provisions, and the applicability of the variance doctrine between these sections.

RULING

The concurring opinion rules as follows:
1. On Section 5(e) of RA 9262: The deprivation or threat to deprive financial support, to be criminally punishable under this provision, must be committed with the purpose or effect of controlling or restricting the woman’s or her child’s movement or conduct. The act must be done with the intent to control or restrict the woman’s actions. Non-payment of financial support, to be punishable, must be done to compel or prevent conduct, and when it amounts to “economic abuse” as defined in Section 3(D) of RA 9262 (acts that make or attempt to make a woman financially dependent), it is necessarily punishable under Section 5(e).
2. On Section 5(i) of RA 9262: To be punishable under this provision for causing mental or emotional anguish through the denial of financial support, there must be a deliberate intent to inflict psychological violence. The willful denial of financial support must be proven.
3. On Mutual Obligation of Support: Citing the Family Code (Articles 68, 70, and 195), the opinion stresses that both spouses have a mutual obligation to support the family, qualified by their resources and necessities. This supports the interpretation that mere failure to provide support does not automatically constitute criminal violence.
4. On the Variance Doctrine: Given the material distinctions between Sections 5(e) and 5(i)—specifically the additional element of control for Section 5(e) and the requirement of causing mental or emotional anguish for Section 5(i)—the variance doctrine cannot be applied to convict an accused charged under one provision for a violation of the other. One offense is not necessarily included in the other.
5. Disposition: Justice Zalameda concurs in the result to GRANT the petition and ACQUIT petitioner Christian Pantonial Acharon of violation of Section 5(i) of RA 9262.