Manila: The Supreme Court (SC) on Wednesday announced the acquittal of a man charged with violence against women and their children (VAWC) for refusing to provide financial support to a child not proven to be his. In a decision written by Associate Justice Japar Dimaampao, the SC's Third Division reversed the rulings of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA), which had previously found the accused guilty of economic abuse under Republic Act 9262, or the Anti-VAWC Act.
According to Philippines News Agency, the case originated from a complaint filed by a woman against her former boyfriend, accusing him of not providing financial support for her child. The accused consistently denied being the father, arguing that the child was born only eight months after their last sexual encounter. Despite discussing a DNA test to resolve the paternity issue, the parties could not agree on who would bear the cost, resulting in no test being conducted.
During the trial, the woman presented the child's birth certificate as evidence. However, the document's section for the father's name was marked 'N/A' and left unsigned. She also admitted that the accused refused to provide financial support due to doubts about his paternity.
The RTC had convicted the accused, prioritizing the woman's testimony over his denial. The CA affirmed this conviction, stating that proof of paternity is not a necessary element for the crime. However, the SC clarified that to convict someone for economic abuse under Section 5(i) of RA 9262, the prosecution must demonstrate that the victim is a woman and/or her child; the woman is the offender's wife, partner, or someone with whom the offender shares a common child; the offender refused financial support; and the refusal was intended to cause mental or emotional suffering.
In this context, the SC concluded that the prosecution failed to establish a common child between the accused and the woman, and that the refusal to provide support was intended to inflict psychological harm. The SC stressed that a legal duty to provide financial support emerges only after establishing filiation or paternity.
The SC stated that when using a birth certificate to prove filiation, both the mother and father must sign it. 'Because the accused's paternity was not proven in this case, no legal obligation to provide support could be imposed,' the court noted in a news release. It further asserted that even if paternity had been proven, criminal liability would require evidence that the accused deliberately withheld support to cause suffering, 'which was not proved in this case.'
