MANILA— A parent’s failure or inability to provide financial support does not automatically constitute psychological violence punishable under the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act, the Supreme Court (SC) has ruled, emphasizing that prosecutors must establish the deliberate intent to cause mental or emotional suffering.

In a 12-page decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, the SC Second Division acquitted a man convicted of violating Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262, or the Anti-VAWC Act, after finding that the prosecution failed to prove that he deliberately withheld financial support to inflict emotional or psychological anguish on his common-law partner.

The case stemmed from the couple’s relationship, which began in 2015 when they worked together at a convenience store before eventually dating and living together in a rented house.

Their relationship encountered financial difficulties, and the woman suffered a miscarriage in 2016, prompting their separation. They eventually reconciled several months later and had a child conceived in 2018.

The complainant later learned that the man had four other children with another woman. Although her mother advised her to leave him, she initially stayed because she relied on his financial assistance while also supporting her own family.

The woman accused her partner of ignoring her calls and messages seeking financial support. In 2019, their child was hospitalized after being diagnosed with acute gastroenteritis, resulting in a hospital bill of ₱30,000.

She claimed that despite repeatedly asking for assistance, the man refused to shoulder the expenses, forcing her to borrow money from a lending company and other individuals to pay for their child’s hospitalization and medical needs.

She subsequently filed a complaint under the Anti-VAWC Act, alleging that the man’s refusal to provide financial support caused her mental and emotional anguish.

The accused denied the allegations, presenting remittance receipts to establish that he had regularly sent money for their child’s needs.

He also explained that he could not consistently provide the full agreed monthly support of ₱4,000 because he also had financial obligations to his four other children.

The Regional Trial Court found him guilty under Section 5(i) of the law, ruling that he had maliciously and willfully refused to provide financial assistance for his son’s medication. The Court of Appeals later affirmed the conviction, which carried an imprisonment penalty of up to four years.

However, the Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish all the elements necessary to convict the accused of psychological violence.

Under Section 5(i), prosecutors must prove that the victim is a woman and/or her child; that the woman is the offender’s wife, former wife, or partner, or someone with whom the offender has a common child; that the offender denied or refused to provide financial support legally due; and that such denial was intended to cause mental or emotional suffering.

The high court stressed that the law specifically uses the term “denial of financial support” to describe the punishable act, which requires more than simply failing to meet a financial obligation.

It cited the definition of “denial” as the “refusal to satisfy a request or desire” or “the act of not allowing someone to do or have something.”

While acknowledging that the accused failed to contribute to their child’s hospital expenses, the court said the prosecution did not establish that he deliberately withheld support to cause his partner emotional or psychological suffering.

The justices also considered the remittance receipts presented by the accused as evidence that he had regularly provided financial assistance for the child’s needs.

“While we do not discount the emotional and financial hardship that [the complainant] went through when her son was hospitalized, this does not, by itself, amount to psychological violence as defined under the law and jurisprudence—much less that can be attributed to the petitioner. Thus, we must acquit the petitioner,” the Supreme Court said.

The court clarified that the absence of criminal liability does not eliminate a parent’s obligation to provide financial support.

“Absent any deliberate intent to inflict mental and emotional anguish by willfully denying her child financial support, legally due, the proper remedy is civil in nature—specifically, the filing of a case for support against the delinquent parent, in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code and the Family Code,” it added.