The Supreme Court acquitted Cesar Calingasan of violating Section 5(i) of the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act (VAWC Law), clarifying that the mere failure to provide financial support is not a criminal act unless it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that the denial was willful and intended to inflict mental or emotional anguish. This decision emphasizes that R.A. 9262 aims to penalize psychological violence through the denial of financial support, not simply the lack of it due to circumstances beyond one’s control. The ruling serves as a crucial reminder that proving intent is paramount in cases involving alleged economic abuse under the VAWC Law.
When Economic Hardship Meets Legal Obligation: Did This Father Intend to Harm?
Cesar M. Calingasan faced charges of economic abuse under Republic Act No. 9262, the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 (VAWC Law), for allegedly failing to provide financial support to his wife, AAA, and their son, BBB. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) both convicted Calingasan, but the Supreme Court reversed these decisions. The central legal question revolved around whether Calingasan’s failure to provide support constituted a willful act of causing mental or emotional anguish, as required by Section 5(i) of the VAWC Law.
The prosecution argued that Calingasan abandoned his family and failed to provide financial support, thereby causing mental and emotional anguish to his wife and child. Private complainant AAA testified that Calingasan left the conjugal home in 1998 and never provided financial assistance, leading to significant financial strain and emotional distress. The defense countered that Calingasan’s failure was not intentional but due to circumstances beyond his control, specifically his imprisonment in Canada following a conviction for sexual assault. Calingasan claimed that after his release, he struggled to find employment and relied on his family for support.
The Supreme Court, in its analysis, focused on the interpretation of Section 5(i) of R.A. 9262, which defines violence against women and their children as:
SEC. 5. Acts of Violence Against Women and Their Children. — The crime of violence against women and their children is committed through any of the following acts:
x x x x
(i) Causing 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.
Building on this provision, the Court referenced its recent decision in Acharon v. People, which clarified that the denial of financial support, to be considered a criminal act under Section 5(i), must involve a willful or conscious withholding of support with the intent to cause mental or emotional anguish.
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” or “the act of not allowing someone to do or have something.” 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 [which one] should have done,” 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, in order to consummate the crime.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had the specific intent to inflict mental or emotional anguish through the denial of financial support. The Court found that the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that Calingasan deliberately and willfully refused to provide financial support, or that his failure was intended to cause mental or emotional anguish to his wife and child.
The Court gave credence to Calingasan’s testimony and documentary evidence indicating that his failure to provide support was due to his imprisonment in Canada and subsequent difficulty in finding employment. This evidence, unrebutted by the prosecution, undermined the claim that Calingasan acted with the deliberate intent to cause harm. This approach contrasts with the earlier rulings in Melgar v. People and Reyes v. People, which suggested that mere deprivation of financial support could warrant conviction under Section 5(e) of R.A. 9262.
The Supreme Court, however, clarified that Section 5(e) and Section 5(i) penalize distinct crimes. Section 5(i) addresses psychological violence through the denial of financial support, while Section 5(e) targets the deprivation of financial support for the purpose of controlling or restricting the woman’s or child’s movement or conduct. The Court underscored the importance of proving the specific intent required under each provision, thus abandoning the earlier application of the variance doctrine in these cases. In the absence of proof that Calingasan intended to control or restrict his wife and child through the deprivation of financial support, he could not be held liable under Section 5(e) either.
The ruling underscores the importance of distinguishing between mere failure to provide support and the willful denial of support with the intent to cause psychological harm. To secure a conviction under Section 5(i) of R.A. 9262, the prosecution must establish not only the lack of financial support but also the deliberate intent of the accused to inflict mental or emotional anguish through this denial. This requirement aligns with the broader purpose of the VAWC Law, which seeks to protect women and children from violence, including psychological violence manifested through economic abuse.
FAQs
| What was the key issue in this case? | The key issue was whether Cesar Calingasan’s failure to provide financial support to his wife and child constituted a violation of Section 5(i) of the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act (VAWC Law), specifically, whether it was a willful act intended to cause mental or emotional anguish. |
| What is Section 5(i) of the VAWC Law? | Section 5(i) of the VAWC Law penalizes acts causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule, or humiliation to a woman or her child, including the denial of financial support or custody of minor children. The denial must be proven to be intentional and aimed at causing psychological harm. |
| What did the Supreme Court rule in this case? | The Supreme Court ruled that Cesar Calingasan was not guilty of violating Section 5(i) of the VAWC Law because the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that his failure to provide financial support was a deliberate act intended to cause mental or emotional anguish to his wife and child. |
| What is the significance of the Acharon v. People case in relation to this ruling? | The Supreme Court in Acharon v. People clarified that the denial of financial support, to be considered a criminal act under Section 5(i), must involve a willful or conscious withholding of support with the intent to cause mental or emotional anguish. This case served as the legal basis for the acquittal. |
| What is the difference between Section 5(e) and Section 5(i) of the VAWC Law? | Section 5(i) penalizes psychological violence inflicted through the denial of financial support, while Section 5(e) penalizes the deprivation of financial support for the purpose of controlling or restricting the woman’s or child’s movement or conduct. They are distinct crimes with different intent requirements. |
| Why were the previous cases of Melgar v. People and Reyes v. People mentioned? | The Supreme Court clarified that the previous application of the variance doctrine used in the cases of Melgar v. People and Reyes v. People is now abandoned, as the prosecution must prove the specific intent required under each provision separately. |
| What evidence did the defense present in this case? | The defense presented evidence that Cesar Calingasan’s failure to provide support was due to his imprisonment in Canada and subsequent difficulty in finding employment, suggesting that his actions were not intentional. |
| What does this ruling mean for future VAWC cases involving financial support? | This ruling emphasizes the need for prosecutors to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the denial of financial support was a willful act intended to cause mental or emotional anguish, not simply a failure to provide support due to circumstances beyond the accused’s control. |
This case highlights the nuanced interpretation of the VAWC Law, particularly regarding economic abuse. While the law aims to protect women and children from violence, including psychological harm, it also requires a clear demonstration of intent to cause such harm through the denial of financial support. The acquittal of Cesar Calingasan underscores the importance of proving willful intent in cases involving alleged economic abuse under the VAWC Law.
For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.
Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Cesar M. Calingasan v. People, G.R. No. 239313, February 15, 2022