FACTS:

Petitioner Christian Acharon was charged for violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9262 or the Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act (VAWC Law) for allegedly causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to his wife AAA, by denying financial support to the said complainant.

Christian pleaded not guilty to the charge.

Pre-trial and trial then ensued.

[AAA] testified that on October 6, 2011, only six (6) days after their wedding, Christian left to work in Brunei as delivery rider. As placement fee, they borrowed P85,000.00 with 3% monthly interest from their godmother, Emelina So. The couple agreed that Christian would send money monthly to pay their loan. However, Christian did not send money regularly, and was able to send Php71,500.00 only, leaving the balance in the amount of Php13,500.00. AAA felt so embarrassed with Emelina and pleaded for her not to lodge a complaint. Emelina communicated to the employer of Christian in Brunei about their debt to her. The prosecution likewise alleged that Christian was living with a paramour while in Brunei.

Christian Acharon vehemently denied the accusations against him. According to him, he had to extend his stay in Brunei to bring some money to his family. While he was in Brunei, his rented place was razed by fire and he met a vehicular accident which required him to spend a significant sum of money. He and [AAA] had an on and off communication from October 2011 until April 2013.

The RTC found Christian guilty for his failure to maintain an open communication with his wife, his having a paramour while he was in Brunei, and his neglect of his legal obligation to extend financial support.

On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC Decision.

ISSUE: 

Whether the CA erred in finding Christian guilty of causing psychological or emotional anguish when he allegedly failed to: (1) financially support AAA; and (2) keep the communication lines open with the latter.

RULING:

The Court grants the appeal. Christian is acquitted of the charge.

At the outset, it must be emphasized that Christian’s criminal liability should be adjudged only on the basis of his alleged failure to give financial support to his wife as this is the only allegation contained in the Information.

“No less than the Constitution guarantees the right of every person accused in a criminal prosecution to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him.” The purpose of the law in having a right to be informed “is to enable the accused to suitably prepare his defense, as he is presumed to have no independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense.”  By virtue of this right, “an accused cannot be convicted of a crime, even if duly proven, unless it is alleged or necessarily included in the information filed against him.”

In this case, the Information filed against Christian only alleged that he “did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously cause mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to his wife AAA, by denying financial support to the said complainant.”

It was error, therefore, for the RTC to have allowed the introduction of evidence tending to establish that Christian had a paramour while in Brunei as this is an irrelevant issue in this case in light of its absence in the Information. 

In Dinamling v. People, the Court laid down the elements to prove a violation of Section 5(i):

(1) The offended party is a woman and/or her child or children;

(2) 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;

(3) The offender causes on the woman and/or child mental or emotional anguish; and

(4) 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.

The fourth element was not established beyond reasonable doubt.

It is well-settled that “criminal and penal statutes must be strictly construed, that is, they cannot be enlarged or extended by intendment, implication, or by any equitable considerations. In other words, the language cannot be enlarged beyond the ordinary meaning of its terms in order to carry into effect the general purpose for which the statute was enacted.

It is not enough, therefore, for the woman to experience mental or emotional anguish, or for her partner to deny financial support that is legally due her. In order for criminal liability to arise under Section 5(i) of R.A. 9262, insofar as it deals with “denial of financial support,” 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. In other words, the actus reus of the offense under Section 5(i) is the willful denial of financial support, while the mens rea is the intention to inflict mental or emotional anguish upon the woman. Both must thus exist and be proven in court before a person may be convicted of violating Section 5(i) of R.A. 9262.

This means that the mere failure or one’s inability to provide financial support is not sufficient to rise to the level of criminality under Section 5(i), even if mental or emotional anguish is experienced by the woman. In other words, even if the woman were to suffer mental or emotional anguish due to the lack of financial support, but the accused merely failed or was unable to so provide support, then criminal liability would not arise.