Acharon Vs CA
Facts:
This case was a violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9262 or the Anti-Violence Against
Women and their Children Act (VAWC Law).
When AAA, wife of Acharon suffered mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation
through Acharon’s womanizing Act.
During their marriage, they contracted a loan to Emelina So the total amount of 85000 with 3%
monthly interest. In able To pay their loan, Christian went in brunei and the spouse agreed that the
latter will sent money as payment of their debt. 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.
SHe lost communication to Christian until she learned that 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.
Issue
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.
Ruling
RTC: Guilty for 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.
CA affirmed the ruling
SC. Mere failure or an inability to provide financial support is not punishable by R.A. 9262
In Dinamling v. People,19 the Court laid down the elements to prove a violation of Section 5(i):
(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 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.
The Supreme Court said that the language cannot be enlarged beyond the ordinary meaning of its
terms
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.
On Denial of Financial Support: Addressing the issue of financial support, the court
distinguished between the “willful denial” and mere “inability” to provide such support,
underlining that criminal liability under R.A. 9262 demands evidence of willful refusal for the
purpose of inflicting emotional anguish.
Doctrine – The Supreme Court highlighted that not all failures or incapacities to provide
financial support are punishable under R.A. 9262. To invoke criminal liability, there must be
concrete evidence of a willful intent to cause emotional anguish, thereby inflicting
psychological violence.
