After Donato filed a motion to quash an information charging him with violation of Sec. 5(e) of RA 9262, an amended information was filed against him for violation of Sec. 5(i) of the said law, alleging that he caused emotional and mental anguish to AAA, his wife, for his refusal to provide financial support to AAA starting June, 2005.
The prosecution alleged that Donato and AAA were married in 1969; their marriage produced four children, three of whom were living. In 2005, AAA learned that Donato married another woman. Donato stopped giving them financial support in July, 2005, coupled with the fact that she incurred sickness necessitating her medical expenses.
In his defense, Donato maintained that he should not be held liable for the crime charged. His marriage to AAA was void as he never attended the marriage ceremony of their wedding, plus there were defects in the certificate of marriage itself with his age, as well as the signature therein which was not his. He gave her financial support, to the contrary, and paid for their children’s tuition, their vacation, her denture. He stopped giving financial support to AAA because he felt the filing of a case against him for bigamy by AAA was an act of ingratitude, and anyway, he was not able to fly a plane anymore when a hold departure order was issued against him.
The RTC convicted Donato, which the Court of Appeals affirmed.
The Issue:
Whether or not Donato should be held liable for violation of Sec. 5(i) of Republic Act 9262.
The Ruling.
The Court denied Donato’s appeal and affirmed his conviction. It also held that Donato, if properly charged could also be held liable for violation of Section 5 (e) of Republic Act 9262. His defense that he cannot be held liable for the crime since his marriage with AAA suffered from infirmities making it void were also not given due consideration by the court.
“The petition is devoid of merit.”
XXXX
“Xxx. To establish psychological violence, it is necessary to adduce proof of the commission of the any of the acts enumerated in Section 5(i) or similar of such acts. We concur with the similar findings of the courts a quo that the prosecution had duly proved, through the clear and convincing testimonies of AAA and her daughter, that Reyes committed psychological violence against AAA when he deprived her of financial support beginning July 2005 and onwards which caused her to experience mental and emotional suffering to the point that even her health condition was adversely affected.
Reyes argues that he cannot be held liable for violation of R.A No. 9262 because he has no obligation to financially support AAA since he never contracted marriage with her. Petitioner is mistaken.
We find that the National Statistics Office certified copy of a marriage certificate presented by the prosecution serves as positive evidence of the existence of the marriage between Reyes and AAA. The certified copy of the marriage contract, issued by a public officer in custody thereof, is admissible as the best evidence of its contents. The marriage contract plainly indicates that a marriage was celebrated between Reyes and AAA on May 15, 1969, and it should be accorded the full faith and credence given to public documents. As correctly pointed out by the CA, their marriage is deemed valid until declared otherwise in a judicial proceeding. Hence, Reyes is obliged to support his wife, AAA, the amount of which shall be in proportion to the resources or means of the said petitioner and to the needs of the latter.
Reyes will not be exonerated even assuming that his marriage is declared void ab initio by the court. R.A. No. 9262 defines and criminalizes violence against women and their children perpetrated by the woman’s husband, former husband or any person against whom the woman has or had a sexual or dating relationship with, or with whom the woman has a common child, or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the family abode, which result in or likely to result in, inter alia, economic abuse or psychological harm or suffering. Thus, the offender need not be related or connected to the victim by marriage or former marriage, as he could be someone who has or had a sexual or dating relationship only or has a common child with the victim. In the case at bench, it is undisputed that AAA had borne Reyes four children out of their relationship.
The Court agrees with the observation of the CA that if properly indicted, Reyes can also be convicted of violation of Section 5(e), par. 2 for having committed economic abuse against AAA. Section 5(e), par. 2 identifies the act or acts that constitute the violence of economic abuse, the pertinent portions of which states:
(e) Attempting to compel or compelling the woman or her child to engage in conduct which the woman or her child has the right to desist from or desist from conduct which the woman or her child has the right to engage in, or attempting to restrict or restricting the woman’s or her child’s freedom of movement or conduct by force or threat of force, physically or other harm or threat of physical or other harm, or intimidation directed against the woman or child. This shall include, but not limited to, the following acts committed with the purpose or effect of controlling or restricting the woman’s or her child’s movement or conduct:
x x x x
(2) Depriving or threatening to deprive the woman or her children of financial support legally due her or her family, x x x;
(3) Depriving or threatening to deprive the woman or her child of a legal right;
x x x x
Indeed, criminal liability for violation of Section 5(e) of R.A. No. 9262 attaches when the accused deprives the woman of financial support which she is legally entitled to. Deprivation or denial of support, by itself, is already specifically penalized therein.[24]
Here, we note that Reyes, although gainfully employed after June 2005, deliberately refused to provide financial support to AAA. According to Reyes, he stopped giving monetary support to AAA because she filed a Bigamy case against him. The Court finds his excuse unacceptable and will not at all exculpate him from criminal liability under the VAWC. It is noteworthy that AAA charged Reyes with Bigamy not merely to torment or harass him but to enforce her right and protect her interest as petitioner’s legal wife considering that he contracted a second marriage with one Marilou Osias Ramboanga during the subsistence of his marriage with AAA. Evidently, the denial of financial support is designed to subjugate AAA’s will and control her conduct, either to pressure her to withdraw said criminal case for Bigamy or dissuade her from pursuing it, or at least, to discourage her from filing additional cases against him.
There is nothing in the definition nor in the enumeration of the acts constituting psychological violence and economic abuse that is vague and ambiguous that will confuse Reyes as what conducts are penalized under the VAWC. They are worded with sufficient definiteness and clarity that persons of ordinary intelligence can understand what act is prohibited, and need not guess as to its meaning nor differ in its application. The express language of R.A. No. 9262 reflects the intent of the legislature for liberal construction as will best ensure the attainment of the object of the law according to its true intent, meaning and spirit – to promote the protection and safety of victims of violence against women and children.
Lastly, the Court finds that Reyes should be compelled to comply with the directive under the TPO pertaining to the resumption of providing monthly financial support to AAA. It bears stressing that not an iota of evidence was adduced by him to show that he is no longer employed and/or he failed to obtain another gainful employment and/or that he has no resources or means to provide the same.”
XXX
Citations omitted.
G.R. No. 232678, July 3, 2019ESTEBAN DONATO REYES, PETITIONER, V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
See also:
1 thought on “A void marriage is not a valid defense under RA 9262 to excuse him from financial support…”