Economic Abuse and Deprivation of Support as a Continuing Offense Under RA 9262

The Supreme Court has clarified an important point in the prosecution of violence against women and their children (VAWC) cases: the act of depriving a child of financial support is a continuing offense and constitutes economic abuse under Republic Act No. 9262. The ruling in Melgar v. People (G.R. No. 223477, February 14, 2018) provides guidance on how courts treat support deprivation cases and the penalties that follow.

The Case: A Father Who Stopped Providing Support

The case involved a father who had a romantic relationship with a woman in 1995, resulting in the birth of their son. The father freely acknowledged paternity, as shown in the child's Certificate of Live Birth and photographs. However, when the child was about one year old, the father stopped giving support, prompting the mother to file a civil case for support, which was granted. Despite this, the father still refused to provide support.

The mother then filed a criminal case under Section 5(e) of RA 9262, alleging economic abuse. During the proceedings, the parties entered into a compromise agreement on the civil aspect. The criminal case was provisionally dismissed, but later revived when the father sold the property that was supposed to answer for his support-in-arrears from 2001 to 2010.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether the father could be convicted of violating Section 5(e) of RA 9262 for depriving his child of financial support. The father argued that the information charged him under Section 5(i)—which requires proof of mental or emotional anguish—and that he could not be convicted under a different provision.

The Ruling: Deprivation of Support Is Economic Abuse

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that deprivation or denial of financial support to a child is an act of violence against women and children under Section 5(e) of RA 9262. The Court emphasized that this offense is a continuing offense, meaning the crime continues as long as the deprivation persists.

The Court explained that economic abuse includes "withdrawal of financial support" and "deprivation or threat of deprivation of financial resources." Under Section 5(e)(2), depriving or threatening to deprive the woman or her children of financial support legally due to her or her family, or deliberately providing insufficient financial support, is specifically penalized.

Distinguishing Economic Abuse from Psychological Violence

The Court carefully distinguished between Section 5(e) (economic abuse) and Section 5(i) (psychological violence). While Section 5(i) requires proof that the victim suffered mental or emotional anguish, Section 5(e) does not require this additional element. The deprivation of support, by itself, is already a form of economic abuse.

In this case, although the prosecution failed to prove mental or emotional anguish, the father could still be convicted under Section 5(e). The Court applied the variance doctrine, which allows conviction for a crime proved that is different from but necessarily included in the crime charged.

The Penalty

The Court also clarified how penalties are computed when a special law like RA 9262 adopts the nomenclature of penalties from the Revised Penal Code. The father was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six months of arresto mayor (as minimum) to four years and two months of prision correccional (as maximum), plus a fine of P300,000.00 and mandatory psychological counseling.

Practical Takeaways

• Deprivation of child support is a crime. A parent who has the means but deliberately refuses to support a child can face criminal liability under RA 9262, not just civil liability.
• The offense is continuing. Each day the support remains unpaid continues the crime, which affects how the offense is charged and prosecuted.
• Economic abuse does not require proof of emotional anguish. While psychological violence under Section 5(i) requires evidence of mental suffering, economic abuse under Section 5(e) stands on its own.
• The variance doctrine applies. An accused may be convicted of a lesser included offense even if the information charges a different provision, as long as the elements of the proved offense are present.
• Penalties follow RPC rules. When a special law adopts RPC penalty nomenclature, the Indeterminate Sentence Law applies in computing the sentence.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.