XXX v. People

 

XXX v. People

G.R. No. 255877

March 29, 2023

 

FACTS:

                AAA testified that she and XXX were married on October 14, 2002. They rented a house and lived together until 2004 when XXX left the country to work as a seafarer, after which she transferred to her parents' house. He initially remitted part of his monthly salary to her but stopped after a few months. They last spoke to each other sometime in 2004 when he called and told her to live in the province of Antique with his parents but she refused. For the next 13 years, he failed to communicate with her and send her support which caused her extreme pain and humiliation. She had a sari-sari store but it eventually became bankrupt so she was forced to support herself by earning a living as a freelance massage therapist. In 2013, CCC saw that XXX was back in the country while standing outside a car wash station. However, despite returning, he did not ask about AAA and never reached out to her. On the other hand, XXX testified that he was only forced to marry AAA on October 14, 2002. He was employed as a seafarer from 2004 to 2007 and initially sent remittances to her. However, he had to request his employer to stop making the remittances in 2004 because his parents became sick with cancer. He did not inform AAA that he would stop the remittances because he was traumatized from their frequent fights. He returned to the country in 2007 and worked as an instructor at the Southern Institute of Maritime in the Philippines. Nevertheless, he did not contact AAA or send her support because he was only forced to marry her. The RTC convicted XXX for violation of Section 5 (i) or R.A. No. 9262 due to his denial of financial support to AAA. XXX sought for reconsideration but the same was denied by the RTC. On appeal, the CA denied the appeal and sustained XXX’s conviction. Hence, the instant petition.

 

ISSUE:

                Whether or not XXX is guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 5 (i) of R.A. No. 9262 due to his denial of financial support to AAA.

 

HELD:

                No. The mere fact that the accused failed to provide financial support due from him is not punishable under R.A. No. 9262. The normal remedy of a person deprived of financial support is to file a civil case for support against the delinquent person consistent with the provisions of the New Civil Code and the Family Code. However, for criminal liability to arise out of such failure to give support, the facts qualifying the delinquent person's act of denial or deprivation of financial support must be proven. The Court gave merit in XXX's claim that he could not have known that AAA needed financial support. Although a formal extrajudicial demand for support is not required under the law, it must be proven that he at least knew that AAA was in need or dependent on him for financial support. This is necessary to prove the prevailing circumstances behind the denial of financial support to bolster the serious accusation that this was utilized as a tool to commit psychological violence against the victim. In this case, AAA never even tried to reach out to XXX or asked him to provide her financial support. She did not try to communicate with him despite learning from CCC that he was already back in the country. If she truly needed financial support, it is only expected based on human experience that she would have at least exerted efforts to obtain it. The fact that she did not do anything whatsoever to get support prior to filing this criminal case casts serious doubt on her claim that she needed it. This Court also notes that there can be no presumption for the need for support based on the circumstances of this case. When XXX left to work as a seafarer, he did not have any children with AAA to rear and support. As a couple they also did not have a conjugal house to maintain since AAA returned to live with her parents. They had no standing obligations to pay off. On the contrary, AAA even had a sari-sari store which generated her income. Consequently, XXX cannot be considered in bad faith for presuming that AAA did not need him for support.

                It bears stressing that the 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. The 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. 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. AAA 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 gravely erroneous to interpret and apply the law in a manner that will perpetuate gender disparities that should not exist.