G.R. No. 256611. October 12, 2022.
XXX256611, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner XXX256611 was charged with violating Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act) for allegedly causing psychological and emotional anguish upon his former common-law wife, AAA256611, by depriving her and their two children of financial support. The prosecution established that the couple cohabited from 1999 to 2002. Despite a 2008 agreement to provide a monthly allowance, the petitioner’s support was intermittent and ceased entirely by 2010. Evidence showed he received substantial retirement benefits and a monthly pension starting in 2014 and 2016, respectively, but provided no support to his children. The defense claimed he consistently supported his children until a debilitating accident in 2012, after which he used his funds to pay resulting medical debts and loans. His mother corroborated this financial hardship.
The Regional Trial Court convicted the petitioner under Section 5(i) of RA 9262. On appeal, the Court of Appeals modified the conviction, finding him guilty instead under Section 5(e)(2) of the same law for deprivation of financial support, but ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the essential element of psychological violence. The petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing his conviction was improper.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in convicting the petitioner under Section 5(e)(2) of RA 9262 for deprivation of financial support despite its finding that the element of psychological violence was not established.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition and acquitted the petitioner. The Court clarified the distinct natures of the offenses under RA 9262. Section 5(i) penalizes causing psychological violence, which includes deprivation of financial support as a means to inflict such violence. In contrast, Section 5(e)(2) specifically penalizes the act of deprivation of financial support as an act of economic abuse, but this provision is found within a clause that defines acts committed with the purpose of controlling or restricting movement or conduct through force, threat, or intimidation. The Court, citing People v. Genosa, held that for a conviction under Section 5(e)(2), the prosecution must prove not only the deprivation but also that it was done with a specific purpose: to control or restrict the victim’s freedom of movement or conduct by means of force, threat, harm, or intimidation.
The Court of Appeals correctly found that the prosecution failed to prove psychological violence, which was essential for a conviction under the originally charged Section 5(i). However, it erred in convicting under Section 5(e)(2) because the prosecution also failed to prove the specific intent to control or restrict through force or intimidation. The evidence merely established non-provision of support, which, while potentially a ground for a civil action for support, does not automatically constitute the criminal act of economic abuse under RA 9262 without the requisite coercive or controlling purpose. Consequently, the petitioner’s guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.