Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9262 or the Anti Violence against Women and their Children Act
Sometimes parents are met with the burden of choosing between taking care of their children or providing for their family. Oftentimes, it is the woman who is asked to stay at home and take care of the children. What happens then when a woman, who is not financially independent, is deprived of support by the partner or husband?
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9262 or the Anti Violence against Women and their Children Act aims to “protect women and their children from various forms of violence and abuse committed within a setting of an intimate relationship.” In XXX vs. AAA et al., the Supreme Court reiterated that as long as there was an intimate relationship between the accused and the woman, they are protected by the law, regardless of whether the relationship was illicit or immoral.
R.A. 9262 seeks to protect women from various forms of violence including instances when their partners withhold support from them. These may either be characterized as (1) economic abuse or (2) psychological violence.
An offender may be guilty of economic abuse under Section 5(e)(2) of R.A. 9262 when the denial of financial support has the "purpose or effect of controlling or restricting the woman's x x x movement or conduct."
Section 5(e)(2) identifies the act of “depriving or threatening to deprive the woman or her children of financial support legally due her or her family, or deliberately providing the woman's children insufficient financial support” as economic abuse when it is done with “the purpose or effect of controlling or restricting the woman's or her child's movement or conduct.” Section 3(d) further provides for certain acts resulting in economic abuse that make or attempt to make a woman financially dependent on their partner or spouse.
When the deprivation or deliberately providing insufficient support is done with the purpose or effect of controlling, it may be considered as economic abuse.
The case of Melgar vs. People shows how economic abuse is present when the offender evades his obligation and fails to remit the proceeds of a sale of property pursuant to an agreement that such sale shall answer for the support-in-arrears of his son. While in Reyes vs. People, the offender was found to commit economic abuse by deliberately withholding support despite being gainfully employed.
Meanwhile, Section 5(i) of R.A. 9262 refers to acts which may constitute psychological violence by: “(i) Causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to the woman or her child, including, but not limited to, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, and denial of financial support or custody of minor children of access to the woman's child/children.”
The Supreme Court laid down the elements of the crime constituting a violation of Section 5(i) in the case of Dinamling vs. People. The elements are:
The offended party is a woman and/or her child or children;
The woman is either the wife or former wife of the offender, or is a woman with whom the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or is a woman with whom such offender has a common child. As for the woman's child or children, they may be legitimate or illegitimate, or living within or without the family abode;
The offender causes on the woman and/or child mental or emotional anguish; and
The anguish is caused through acts of public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, denial of financial support or custody of minor children or access to the children or similar such acts or omissions.
In Acharon vs. People, the Supreme Court emphasized that in order for there to be a violation of Section 5(i), there must be denial of financial support. As such, mere failure to provide support will not result in an offense. It further provides that “there must, therefore, 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.”
It must therefore be clear that the purpose of denying support is to inflict mental or emotional anguish as compared to Section 5(e) where the purpose is to control or effect control over the woman and the child.
Unfortunately for the victim in the case of Acharon, they failed to establish that there was actually deliberate denial to provide support with the purpose of inflicting mental or emotional anguish. The accused claimed that the denial was due to the fact that he did not have the means to provide the same. Likewise, the court recognized the joint obligation of spouses to support each other.
On 29 August 2023, House Bill No. 8987 or the “Paternal Child Support Responsibility Act of 2023” was filed in Congress wherein an imposition as to the amount of paternal child support was made. The bill proposes that at least 10% of the father’s salary be imposed as the minimum amount of paternal child support. It seeks to further mandate that support per child shall not be lower than Six Thousand Pesos (P6,000.00) per month. A penalty of imprisonment or fine as the case may be is likewise imposed on any person who willfully fails to pay paternal child support.
1 Estacio v. Estacio. G.R. No. 211851, September 16, 2020.
2 G.R. No. 187175. July 06, 2022
3 Christian Pantonial Acharon vs. People of the Philippines. G.R. No. 224946. November 9, 2021.
4 Sec. 5(e)(2), R.A. 9262
5 Id.
6 Sec. 3(d) R.A. 9262
7 Celso Melgar vs. People of the Philippines. G.R. No. 223477, February 14, 2018.
8 Esteban Donato Reyes vs. People of the Philippines. G.R. No. 232678, July 3, 2019.
9 Section 5(i), R.A. 9262
10 Ricky Dinamling, vs. People of the Philippines. G.R. No. 199522, June 22, 2015.
11 Christian Pantonial Acharon vs. People of the Philippines. G.R. No. 224946. November 9, 2021.
