A man charged with violence against women and their children (VAWC) was acquitted by the Supreme Court (SC) Third Division after his former girlfriend failed to prove that he is the legitimate father of her child.
In a decision penned by Associate Justice Japar Dimaampao, the court reversed the rulings of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) which found the man guilty of economic abuse under Republic Act No. 9262, or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2024.
During trial, the complainant presented the child’s birth certificate as evidence that the accused, her former boyfriend, was the legitimate father. However, the portion indicating the father’s name was marked “N/A” and left unsigned. The woman also said in court that the accused refused to give financial support because he doubted that he was the child’s father.
The accused consistently denied he was the father and claimed that the child was born only eight months after they last had sexual relations. Although they decided to settle the issue of paternity through DNA testing, no test was conducted because they could not agree on who would pay for it.
The RTC gave more weight to the woman’s testimony and convicted the accused. The CA affirmed the conviction, ruling that proof of paternity is not an element of the crime.
However, the SC disagreed with the decision and 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 ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the accused and the woman share a common child, and that the refusal to provide support was done to inflict psychological harm. The high court also emphasized that a legal duty to provide financial support arises only after filiation or paternity has been established.
It added that when a birth certificate is used to prove filiation, it must be signed by both the mother and the father. Since the paternity of the accused was not proven in the document, he has no legal obligation to provide support.
The SC further ruled that even if paternity had been established, criminal liability would still require evidence that the accused deliberately withheld support to make the woman suffer, which was not proved in this case.