By Benjamin Pulta
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 the 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 found the accused guilty of economic abuse under Republic Act 9262, or the Anti-VAWC Act.
The case arose from a complaint filed by a woman against her former boyfriend, accusing him of refusing to provide financial support for her child.
The accused consistently denied he was the father, claiming that the child was born only eight months after they last had sexual relations.
Although they discussed undergoing DNA testing to settle the issue of paternity, no test was conducted because they could not agree on who would pay for it.
During the trial, the woman presented the child’s birth certificate as evidence. However, the portion indicating the father’s name was marked “N/A” and left unsigned.
The woman also admitted in court that the accused refused to give financial support because he doubted that he was the child’s father.
The RTC convicted the accused, giving more weight to the woman’s testimony than the accused’s denial. The CA affirmed the conviction, ruling that proof of paternity is not an element of the crime.
The SC explained that to convict a person for economic abuse under Section 5(i) of RA 9262, the prosecution must show that the victim is a woman and/or her child; the woman is the offender’s wife or partner, or someone with whom the offender has a common child; the offender refused to give financial support due; and the refusal was intended to cause mental or emotional suffering.
In this case, the high tribunal ruled that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused and the woman share a common child, and that the refusal to provide support was done to inflict psychological harm.
The SC emphasized that a legal duty to provide financial support arises only after filiation or paternity has been established.
It added that when a birth certificate is used to prove filiation, it must be signed by both the mother and the father.
“Because the accused’s paternity was not proven in this case, no legal obligation to provide support could be imposed,” it said in a news release.
The SC further ruled that even if paternity had been established, criminal liability would still require evidence that the accused deliberately withheld support to make the woman suffer, “which was not proved in this case.” (PNA)
