G.R. No. 224946

G.R. No. 224946, November 9, 2021,
♦ Decision, Caguioa, [J]
♦ Separate Concurring Opinion, Perlas-Bernabe, [J]
♦ Concurring Opinion, Leonen, [J]
♦ Concurring Opinion, Zalameda, [J]
♦ Concurring Opinion, M.Lopez, [J]
♦ Concurring Opinion, Lazaro-Javier, [J]

CHRISTIAN PANTONIAL ACHARON, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 assailing the Decision2 dated February 17, 2016 and Resolution3 dated May 31, 2016 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 36913 affirming the Decision4 dated August 26, 2014 of Branch 270, Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela City (RTC) in Crim. Case No. 34-V-13, which convicted petitioner Christian Pantonial Acharon (Christian) 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).

An Information was filed against Christian, the accusatory portion of which states:

That sometime in (sic) January 25, 2012, up to the present, in Valenzuela City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, 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.5

Christian pleaded not guilty to the charge. Pre-trial and trial then ensued. The version of the prosecution, as summarized by the RTC, is as follows:

[AAA]6 testified that she and [Christian] have been sweethearts for six (6) years before they got married on September 30, 2011, in a civil wedding officiated by Mayor Gatchalian. On October 6, 2011 or only six (6) days after their wedding, [Christian] left to work at Pizza Hut, Brunei as delivery rider. As placement fee, they borrowed the amount of P85,000.00 with 3% monthly interest from their godmother, Emelina So. She and [Christian] agreed that the latter would send money in the amount of Php9,633.00 per month in payment of their loan. However, [Christian] did not send money on a regular basis. All in all, he was able to send money in the total amount of Php71,500.00 only, leaving the balance in the amount of Php13,500.00. For which reason, she felt so embarrassed with Emelina So because she could not pay the balance. She even pleaded to So not to lodge a complaint to the barangay. Emelina So communicated to the employer of [Christian] in Brunei about their debt to her.

Moreover, while in Brunei, [Christian] maintained a paramour in the person of Melete Domalaon. The manager of [Christian] and his board mate, Jovelyn Pastrano disclosed to her the indiscretions of [Christian]. [AAA] identified the photographs marked as Exhibits "C" to "C-5" depicting [Christian] and his alleged paramour. This brought her so much anguish. The womanizing activity of [Christian] extremely hurt her feelings and caused her depression. The message of [Christian] that he no longer cares for her since they are childless destroyed her whole being. [AAA] identified [Christian] in open court and her sworn statement (Exhibit "A") she executed in connection with this case.

On cross, she stated that when [Christian] left in December 2011, she [was] jobless. Presently, she is gainfully employed. She lost communication with [Christian] since January 2012. According to the employer and friends of [Christian], the latter is living with his paramour in Brunei. She filed this case because she was extremely hurt and she experienced emotional agony by the neglect and utter insensitivity that [Christian] made her endure and suffer.7

On the other hand, the version of the defense, as likewise summarized by the RTC, is as follows:

Christian Acharon vehemently denied the accusations against him. According to him, his original stay in Brunei was two (2) years and three (3) months. However, when he left on October 6, 2011, he was able to come back to the Philippines only in February 2014. 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. [AAA] demanded for him to pay their debt in the entire amount.

He used to send money to [AAA]. But it was the latter who told him not to send money anymore. He also claimed that he was able to send the total amount of Php71,000.00 to [AAA] in payment of their loan. He agreed that the same is not enough to fully pay their loan in the total amount of Php85,000.00. In their exchange of messages [on] Facebook, he and [AAA] were talking about their debt, his alleged womanizing, and their separation.

On cross, he testified that [when he met a minor motor accident, he managed] to go back to the office. He confirmed that [medical expenses are included in his Employment Contract in Brunei] (Exhibit "I"). He told the court that when he arrived in Brunei, he was made to sign another contract which has lower basic salary and big amounts were deducted from it. When he met [the accident] he paid for his medicines because it would take [a] long period of time to process and claim it to their office. For a year, he estimated that he spent about $1,000.00 for medical expenses only. He affirmed that he was the one who encourage[d] [AAA] to look for another man (Exhibit "J"). Jovelyn Ranoso Pastrana is her former friend. It is not true that he was staying in his girlfriend's house while he was in Brunei.8

In its Decision9 dated August 26, 2014, the RTC convicted Christian, disposing as follows:

WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, the prosecution having proven the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, ACCUSED CHRISTIAN ACHARON y PANTONIAL is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment with a term of two (2) years, four (4) months and one day of prision correccional [as minimum,] to six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor [as maximum] of his indeterminate sentence and a FINE of One Hundred (sic) Pesos (P100,000.00). The accused is further sentenced to undergo mandatory psychological counseling under the supervision of any government accredited clinical psychologist/psychiatrist and shall immediately report to court his compliance thereto.10

The reasons advanced by the RTC for adjudging Christian guilty were 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.11

In its Decision12 dated February 17, 2016, the CA denied Christian's appeal and affirmed the RTC Decision. The CA held that the refusal to give financial support constitutes violence against women. According to the CA, Christian's failure to provide financial support, especially for the payment of the loan they used to send him to Brunei, constitutes economic abuse. Thus, the CA upheld his conviction.

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.13

The Court grants the appeal. Christian is, as he should be, acquitted of the charge.

The present case is limited only to Christian's alleged lack of financial support

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."14 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."15 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."16

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."17

It was error, therefore, for the RTC to have allowed the introduction of evidence tending to establish, for instance, that Christian had a paramour when he was in Brunei as this is an irrelevant issue in this case in light of its absence in the Information. Needless to say, the RTC further erred in appreciating these pieces of evidence in establishing his guilt.

Prescinding from the foregoing, the Court now proceeds to determine whether Christian is indeed guilty of violating R.A. 9262 by denying financial support to AAA.

Mere failure or an inability to provide financial support is not punishable by R.A. 9262

Christian was charged, and later on convicted by the RTC and the CA, under an Information that alleges a violation of Section 5(i) of R.A. 9262, as the Information accused him of "caus[ing] mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to his wife AAA, by denying financial support." Section 5(i) considers as "violence against women" those acts "[c]ausing 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 or denial of access to the woman's child/children."18 In Dinamling v. People,19 the Court laid down the elements to prove a violation of Section 5(i):

(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.20

Not all of the foregoing elements, however, are present in this case. Specifically, 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."21

The Court stresses that Section 5(i) of R.A. 9262 uses the phrase "denial of financial support" in defining the criminal act. The word "denial" is defined as "refusal to satisfy a request or desire"22 or "the act of not allowing someone to do or have something."23 The foregoing definitions connote willfulness, or an active exertion of effort so that one would not be able to have or do something. This may be contrasted with the word "failure," defined as "the fact of not doing something [one] should have done,"24 which in turn connotes passivity. From the plain meaning of the words used, the act punished by Section 5(i) is, therefore, dolo in nature - there must be a concurrence between intent, freedom, and intelligence,25 in order to consummate the crime.

In this connection, the Court deems it proper to clarify, as Associate Justices Amy C. Lazaro-Javier and Mario V. Lopez pointed out in their respective Opinions that the crimes penalized under Sections 5(i) and 5(e) of R.A. 9262 are mala in se, not mala prohibita, even though R.A. 9262 is a special penal law.26 The acts punished therein are inherently wrong or depraved,27 and the language used under the said penal law requires a mental element.28 Being a crime mala in se, there must thus be a concurrence of both actus reus and mens rea to constitute the crime. "Actus reus pertains to the external or overt acts or omissions included in a crime's definition while mens rea refers to the accused's guilty state of mind or criminal intent accompanying the actus reus."29

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.

"It bears emphasis that Section 5(i) penalizes some forms of psychological violence that are inflicted on victims who are women and children."30 In prosecutions under Section 5(i), therefore, "[p]sychological violence is the means employed by the perpetrator"31 with denial of financial support as the weapon of choice. In other words, to be punishable by Section 5(i) of R.A. 9262, it must ultimately be proven that the accused had the intent of inflicting mental or emotional anguish upon the woman, thereby inflicting psychological violence upon her, with the willful denial of financial support being the means selected by the accused to accomplish said purpose.

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. A contrary interpretation to the foregoing would result in absurd, if not outright unconstitutional, consequences.

To be sure, under the Family Code, the obligation to support is imposed mutually upon the spouses.32 In other words, both the husband and the wife have the obligation to give support to each other. However, even as the law imposes the obligation to support mutually upon the spouses, the failure of the wife to financially support the husband only results in civil liability, whereas if it is the husband who fails to provide financial support to the wife, this will result not only in civil liability, but also criminal liability under Section 5(i) of R.A. 9262. Surely, this cannot be the case, as the law recognizes no substantial distinction between the husband and the wife as regards their responsibility to provide financial support to each other and the family.

It is also worth emphasizing that the obligation to give support is measured "in keeping with the financial capacity of the family"33 - which also implies that it may depend on who is earning for the family. As well, the amount of support "shall be in proportion to the resources or means of the giver and to the necessities of the recipient."34 As previously stated, therefore, the prosecution must first establish that there is an amount of support legally due the woman, and that the partner willfully denied the same to her to cause mental or emotional anguish, before a conviction under Section 5(i) of R.A. 9262 may be had.

The elements of a violation of Section 5(i), insofar as it deals with denial of financial support, are therefore:

(3) The offender willfully refuses to give or consciously denies the woman and/or her child or children financial support that is legally due her and/or her child or children; and

(4) The offender denied the woman and/or her child or children the financial support for the purpose of causing the woman and/or her child or children mental or emotional anguish.

Applying the foregoing discussion to the facts of the present case, the Court finds that Christian is not guilty of violating Section 5(i) of R.A. 9262 for the failure of the prosecution to establish the third and fourth elements of the crime. The Court finds him innocent, for there is undenied evidence that Christian tried, as he successfully did for a time, to provide financial support. He testified under oath that he failed to continue providing support only when his apartment in Brunei was razed by fire, and when he met a vehicular accident there. There is also no dispute that he had already paid P71,000.00 out of the P85,000.000 of the debt that the spouses - not the husband alone - were obligated to pay from their community property.

While Christian eventually failed to continue providing financial support, this, however, is not enough to support a conviction under Section 5(i) of R.A. 9262. Again, to be convicted under Section 5(i), the evidence must establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intended to cause the victim mental or emotional anguish, or public ridicule or humiliation through the denial of - not the mere failure or inability to provide - financial support, which thereby resulted into psychological violence. As the prosecution failed to establish that fact, i.e., willful refusal to provide financial support, then Christian cannot be held guilty of violating Section 5(i) of R.A. 9262.

The Court is aware that cases involving denial of financial support typically involve Informations charging a person with a violation of either Section 5(e) or Section 5(i) of R.A. 9262. This is so because Section 5(e) of R.A. 9262 punishes the acts of: