The Husband’s Failure To Provide Financial Support To His Wife Is Not An Automatic Violation of VAWC (RA 9262)

In a 29 March 2023 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the husband’s failure or inability to provide financial support to his wife does not automatically lead to a criminal prosecution under R.A. No. 9262.

The Supreme Court stressed and cited the Family Code that, “[t]he obligation to provide support is imposed by the law mutually upon both spouses. The obligation is not a one-way street for the husband to support his wife. The wife has the identical obligation to provide support to her husband.” It further said that, “[T]he law certainly did not intend to impose a heavier burden on the husband to provide support for his wife, or institutionalize criminal prosecution as a measure to enforce support from him.”

The ruling of the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the conviction of the husband for violation of Anti-VAWC Law and was sentenced to imprisonment of two (2) years to six (6) years.

Based on the records of the case, the spouses were married in 2002, rented a house and lived together until 2004 until the husband left the country to work as a seafarer. He initially remitted his part of his monthly salary to his wife but stopped after a few months. He told his wife to live in the province with his parents’, but she refused.

For the next 13 years, the spouses did not communicate with each other, and the husband did not send her support. She eventually had a sari-sari store, but it eventually became bankrupt, so she was forced to support herself and worked as a freelance massage therapist.

In 2016, the wife filed a criminal complaint against the husband for “willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit psychological violence and economic abuse upon her” which allegedly caused substantial, mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to her.

In his defense, the husband testified that he was only forced to marry his wife. He admitted that he initially sent remittances to her but requested his employer to stop making the remittances in 2004 because his father became sick with cancer. He did not inform his wife that he would stop the remittances because he was traumatized from their frequent fights. When returned to the country in 2007 and worked as an instructor but did not contact his wife or sent her support.

The trial court convicted the husband for his denial of financial support to his wife and ordered him to pay a fine of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (PhP 100,000.00) plus costs, and undergo a mandatory psychological counselling, in addition to his imprisonment.

The husband sought to reconsider his conviction but was denied by the trial court, which led him to appeal the decision before the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court and held that the unilateral decision of the husband to stop providing financial support and communicating with his wife undeniably caused her pain and psychological suffering. It further said that, even if the husband claimed that he was only forced to marry his wife, he still had the marital obligation to render love and support to her.

The husband filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied. Hence, the husband challenged the decision before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court acquitted the husband, and reiterated the landmark case of Acharon v. People, G.R. No. 224946, 09 November 2021, that provided guidelines for determining what property constitutes a violation of Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262 for cases involving denial of financial support. It enumerated the following elements of the crime:

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 him 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 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.

The Supreme Court said that the prosecution failed to establish the third and fourth elements of the crime. Although it is undeniable that the husband eventually failed to send financial support to the wife, there was no allegation or proof that the husband willfully or deliberately did this for purpose of causing his wife mental and emotional anguish. His failure to provide financial support to his wife was because he was spending for his father’s hospitalization due to liver and lung cancer.

The Court further noted that, the wife never even tried to reach out to the husband or asked him to provide her financial support. The fact that she did not do anything whatsoever to get support prior to filing the criminal case casts serious doubt on her claim that she needed it.

In resolution, the decision of the Court of Appeals was said to be an unfair ruling which mistakenly tended to establish a unilateral and not a reciprocal obligation of support between the spouses. “Although R.A. No. 9262 was enacted to protect women, it did not intend to limit or discount their capacity to provide for and support themselves. The law cannot presume that women are weak and disadvantaged victims.” The wife was a person fully capable of providing for herself. She was gainfully employed as a massage therapist and owner of a sari-sari store. “She was not a destitute victim who had no choice but to depend on her husband’s money to live. It would be greatly erroneous to interpret and apply the law in a manner that will perpetuate gender disparities that should not exist.”