IS A MAN guilty of a crime if he is unable to give financial support to his estranged wife?
Republic Act No. 9262 protects women and their children by criminalizing certain acts or omissions of men that result in physical or mental suffering.
For example, it is a crime under this law for a man to cause emotional anguish to his wife by denying her financial support. If found guilty, the accused may be sentenced with imprisonment ranging from six months to twelve years.
Some lawyers claim that applying this law indiscriminately can lead to unlawful or even unconstitutional convictions.
***
In November last year the Supreme Court decided the case of a woman who charged her husband for violating RA 9262 because he failed to extend financial support.
The woman complained that her husband went to Brunei to work as a driver but he left a debt of more than eighty thousand pesos back in the Philippines.
The husband initially sent his wife money for periodic installments on the indebtedness. Eventually, he stopped sending money, so the woman had to bear the embarrassment of having to settle an outstanding debt.
The woman also claimed that her husband maintained a romantic relationship with a new girlfriend in Brunei.
***
The husband’s defense is that his failure to send enough money was not deliberate.
While in Brunei he met an accident that required medical attention and expense.
Also, he was not able to receive the salary that was agreed upon. When he arrived in Brunei, he was made to sign another contract that provided a lower salary than he had expected. His salary also had several deductions that severely reduced the pay that he could send home.
***
The trial court nonetheless convicted the man and sentenced him with imprisonment because he failed to maintain communication with his wife, he had a paramour while he was in Brunei, and he neglected his obligation to provide financial support.
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the trial court. It acquitted the man because he could only be tried and convicted based on the allegations contained in the Information (this is the document that is filed in court in support of a criminal case).
Since the charge contained only his failure to provide financial support, evidence of his alleged womanizing and ghosting were irrelevant and immaterial to the case.
***
The Supreme Court acquitted the man because there was no evidence that he had willfully declined to send money to his wife.
To sustain a conviction, it must be clear that the man “consciously withheld” financial support for the purpose of inflicting mental anguish upon his partner.
In other words, failure to extend financial support is not enough. There must be intent to cause mental or emotional anguish upon the woman.
It must be shown that the man abused the woman by consciously resorting to the denial of financial support as his means to inflict injury.
One comparison comes to mind. A man who earns ten thousand pesos per month is not as free to inflict psychic harm by withholding money as a man who earns one million pesos for the same month.
***
This decision clarifies previous rulings that had judges and lawyers confused.
Under the Family Code, the duty to render support is a mutual obligation between husband and wife. The obligation to pay debts is also a shared obligation.
A woman who fails to extend financial support to her husband does not face a potential criminal suit.
We are a poor country. Men who are themselves struggling financially should not be sent to prison solely on account of their pitiable wages./PN
