07/08/2026
SUPREME COURT: INTENT TO CAUSE EMOTIONAL SUFFERING REQUIRED IN VAWC FINANCIAL ABUSE CASES
The Supreme Court (SC) has acquitted a husband charged with financial abuse under the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children (VAWC) Act, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove he intended to cause his wife mental or emotional anguish by withholding financial support.
In an 18-page ruling written by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa, the SC’s Third Division reversed the rulings of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA), which found the husband guilty of economic abuse under Section 5(i) Republic Act No. 9262, or the Anti-VAWC Act.
The case stemmed from a complaint filed by the husband's lawful wife, who alleged that he denied her regular and sufficient financial support while providing financial assistance to another woman claiming that his actions caused her mental and emotional anguish.
The wife alleged that sometime in 2013, they separated after she learned that the accused was living with another woman. She learned of this fact because the woman went to their house and said that she was looking for the accused as she needed money to buy milk for their child.
The complainant further claimed that she discovered an invitation with respect to the christening of the child of her husband with the other woman.
Meanwhile, the accused narrated that he is a former member of the Philippine National Police (PNP) and provided for the needs of his family while he and the complainant were together as the latter had no employment.
He admitted that they broke up in 2013 when complainant learned that he was having a mistress. After they separated, they met once again to talk before their barangay officials. During that meeting, the complainant said that she does not want the accused anymore. Thus, they came to an agreement to live separately.
Aside from their agreement to live separately, the accused contended that he also gave the complainant PHP 600,000.00 on the condition that she would not file any civil or criminal case against him.
In 2016, the accused started receiving a monthly pension of PHP 28,000.00 and uses the same to pay his loans. He further testified that he "did not give support" to the complainant.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted the accused, giving more weight to the woman’s testimony than the accused’s denial. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. This prompted the accused to elevate the case before the Supreme Court.
In reversing the rulings of the lower courts, the high court held that the prosecution failed to prove all the elements of economic abuse.
It explained that to convict a person for economic abuse under Section 5(i) of the Anti-VAWC Act, the prosecution must show that: (1) the victim is a woman and/or her child; (2) the woman is the offender’s wife or partner, or someone with whom the offender has a common child; (3) the offender refused to give financial support due; and (4) the refusal was intended to cause mental or emotional suffering.
The SC emphasized that the complainant did not categorically testify that the accused' act of abandoning her for another woman and his failure to provide financial support caused her mental and emotional anguish.
It underscored that Section 5 (i) of the Anti-VAWC Act 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" or "the act of not allowing someone to do or have something."
The high court noted that since economic abuse is an intentional crime, there must be a concurrence between intent, freedom, and intelligence in order to consummate the crime.
"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." the Supreme Court said.
"In order for criminal liability to arise under Section 5 (i) of R.A. No.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." it added.
