The Supreme Court has ruled that paternity must be established before a person can be charged for refusing to provide financial support to a child. In a decision penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, the Court's Third Division acquitted an accused of violating Republic Act No. 9262, also known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2024.
Case Background
The case stemmed from a complaint filed by a woman against her former boyfriend, who allegedly refused to provide financial support for their child. The accused denied paternity, claiming that the child was born eight months after their last sexual encounter. The parties discussed undergoing DNA testing to determine paternity, but no test was conducted due to a disagreement on who should pay for it.
During the trial, the mother presented the child's birth certificate as evidence. However, the portion indicating the father's name was marked as "N/A" and was not signed by the alleged father. The woman admitted that the accused refused to provide support because he doubted whether he was the biological father.
Lower Courts' Rulings
The Regional Trial Court convicted the accused, giving more weight to the woman's testimony than to the accused's denial. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, stating that proof of paternity is not an element of the crime. The Supreme Court disagreed.
Supreme Court's Decision
To convict a person of economic abuse under Section 5(i) of the Anti-VAWC Act, the prosecution must prove the following elements:
- The victim is a woman or her child;
- The woman is the wife or partner of the accused, or they have a common child;
- The accused refuses to provide financial support; and
- The refusal is intended to cause mental or emotional suffering.
The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish two elements: that the accused and the woman had a common child, and that the accused's refusal to provide support was intended to cause psychological harm.
The Court clarified that the duty to provide financial support arises only when it is proven that the man is the father of the child. When presenting a birth certificate to prove paternity, it must be signed by both the mother and the father.
Since the accused was not proven to be the father, he had no legal obligation to support the child. Even if paternity were established, the Court noted that the accused would not be criminally liable for refusing support unless the refusal was intended to cause the mother to suffer.
