SC rules paternity must be proven to convict person of economic abuse under Anti-VAWC
Paternity must be proven to convict a person of economic abuse under the Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act, the Supreme Court ruled.
The high court, in a decision written by Associate Justice Japar Dimaampao, has acquitted a man charged with VAWC for refusing to provide financial support to a child not proven to be his.
In the case, a woman filed a complaint against her ex-boyfriend, accusing him of refusing child support. The man repeatedly denied that he was the father, claiming that the child was born only eight months after their last sexual relations. No DNA test was conducted, as the parties couldn't agree on who would pay for it.
During the trial, the woman presented as evidence the child's birth certificate, which had the father's name marked N/A. She also said that the man refused to give financial support because of doubts surrounding the child's paternity.
The Regional Trial Court convicted the man, with the Court of Appeals affirming the decision, as "proof of paternity is not an element of the crime."
The SC disagreed with this, saying that the Anti-VAWC law states that to convict a person of economic abuse under the said act, the following are a must: the victim is a woman and/or her child; the woman is the offender's wife or partner, or someone with whom the offender has a common child; the offender refused to give financial support due; and the refusal was intended to cause mental or emotional suffering.
The high court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused and the woman share a child and that the refusal to provide support was done to inflict harm.
"In the instant case, apart from AAA's testimony, BBB's Certificate of Live Birth was adduced as evidence. However, it is readily apparent that the space for the father's information indicates 'N/A' or 'not applicable' and was left unsigned. There is also a dearth of evidence to establish that XXX acknowledged the child as his own. With XXX's liberty at stake, the birth certificate cannot be given weight as proof of paternity. It bears stressing that support follows as a matter of obligation when filiation is without question," the decision read.
"With the prosecution's failure to prove the second element that AAA and XXX share a common child, there is serious doubt on whether financial support is legally due AAA or her child."
