TO: Atty.

Lyan Juanico

FROM; Cruz, Lawrence, Lagura John Rhey, Santos Mark Roland, Velarde Jericho

RE: VAWC Case

DATE: May 5, 2023

QUESTION PRESENTED:

1. What constitutes a support?

2. Can the Court take judicial notice that a person needs to eat, drink, go to school, without
the need of proof?
3. Element of control and restriction of movement under Section 5 (e) (2) of RA No. 9262.

DISCUSSION

1. What constitutes a support?

Support in general

Support is crucial to maintaining solid ties to family in a nation which cherishes familial
relationships. According to the Family Code, providing financial support to children and
eligible family members is not just a choice but also an obligation. There are actually legal
repercussions for breaching this obligation, and therefore liability extends to both civil and
criminal offenses.  According to Republic Act 9262 or also known as the Anti-Violence Against
Women and Children Act, specifies that withholding financial support from a woman or her
children constitutes one form of violence against them whenever necessary.
 
According to Article 194 of the Family Code, Support, also known as Family Support is that
which comprises everything indispensable for sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical
attendance, education and transportation, in keeping with the financial capacity of the family.
 
It also includes everything necessary to proper maintenance. As held in Gould v. City of
Lawrence, a foreign jurisprudence, the word support is often used in their statutes, and in its
ordinary signification it includes not merely board, but everything necessary to proper
maintenance.
 
In the same article, it is also stated that support should include schooling or training for some
profession, even when the child is older than eighteen (18) years old or beyond the age of
majority. It also includes expenses in going to and from school, or to and from place of work.

Family support
With regards to support between spouses, our jurisprudence also extends even to an alien. As
held in the case of Del Socorro vs. Van Wilsem, the Supreme Court ruled that under RA No.
9262, even an alien may be found criminally accountable for willfully failing to provide for his
minor child. Regardless of the fact that the petitioner and the respondent, a foreigner, exhibit a
divorce decree, the latter is still required to pay child support for his minor child with the
petitioner.
 
The court acknowledged that as provisions of the Family Code apply to Filipino citizens, in the
same principle, it also applies to foreigners, who are, with regard to family rights and
obligations, subject to the laws of their respective countries. This does not, however, imply that
he is exempt from maintaining support because the burden of proof is with the party seeking to
apply a foreign law to a controversy or case.
 
There is no evidence to suggest that the respondent is exempt from supporting his child under
the laws of the Netherlands, of which he is a national. Due to this, our courts will assume that
international law is equivalent to our local, internal, or domestic law. It will also be assumed
that foreign law is equivalent to Philippine law, which upholds parents' obligations to provide
for their children.
 
The respondent is covered by our criminal laws including Sections 5(e) and (i) of R.A. 9262
because he lives in the Philippines. The Anti VAWC law, which classifies refusal to provide
financial assistance for a child as a form of abuse against women and children, deems such
behavior to be unlawful. As a result, despite being a foreigner, the respondent is subject to the
statute and is required to furnish support in accordance with the said law.

Child support

With regards to child support, the court ruled in Quimiguing v. Icao, a conceived child, although
as yet unborn, is given by law a provisional personality of its own for all purposes favorable to
it, as explicitly provided in Article 40 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. The unborn child,
therefore, has a right to support from it progenitors, particularly of the defendant-appellee
(whose paternity is deemed admitted for the purpose of the motion to dismiss), even if the said
child is only "en ventre de sa mere;" just as a conceived child, even if as yet unborn, may
receive donations as prescribed by Article 742 of the same Code, and it is being ignored by the
parent in his testament may result in preterition of a forced heir that annuls the institution of the
testamentary heir, even if such child should be born after the death of the testator.
 
It is true that Article 40 prescribing that "the conceived child shall be considered born for ail
purposes that are favorable to it" adds further "provided it be born later with the conditions
specified in the following article" (i.e., that the fetus be alive at the time it is completely
delivered from the mother's womb). This proviso, however, is not a condition precedent to the
right of the conceived child; for if it were, the first part of Article 40 would become entirely
useless and ineffective. Plaintiff had a cause of action for damages under the terms of the
complaint; and the order dismissing it for failure to state a cause of action was doubly in error.

In addition, in the case of Abella vs. Cabanero regarding child support, the Court held that even
an illegitimate child is entitled to support. To claim it, however, a child should have first been
acknowledged by the putative parent or must have otherwise previously established his or her
filiation with the putative parent. The judicial remedy to enable this is an action for compulsory
recognition, with the burden of proof upon the “person who alleges that the putative father is the
biological father of the child.” While an action for compulsory recognition may be filed ahead
of an action for support, the direct filing of an action for support, “where the issue of
compulsory recognition may be integrated and resolved,” is an equally valid alternative.

Action for support

In Acharon v. People, the Court established the rules for evaluating how a spouse might be held
guilty of economic abuse in connection with the denial of financial support.
 
The phrase "denial of financial support" is used to define the criminal offense in Section 5 (i) of
RA 9262. Denial is described as “refusal to satisfy a request or desire” or “the act of not
allowing someone to do or have something.”
 
The aforementioned definitions imply willfulness or a deliberate effort to prevent one from
having or doing something. The word "failure," which is defined as "the fact of not doing
something should have done," can be contrasted with this and implies passiveness. The act
prohibited by Section 5(i) must be intentional based on the words' plain sense.
 
According to the SC, it is insufficient for a woman to go through mental or emotional suffering
or for her partner to refuse to give her the financial support that is lawfully owed to her. In order
for Section 5 (i) of RA 9262, which addresses "denial of financial support," to result in criminal
culpability, there must be proof that the accused intentionally or knowingly withheld financial
support as a result of the woman suffering mental or emotional pain. In other words, the
purposeful withholding of financial support constitutes the physical element of the crime under
Section 5(i), whereas the intention to cause the woman mental or emotional suffering constitutes
the mental element. Both must exist and be proven in court before a person may be convicted of
violating Section 5 (i) of RA 9262.
 
It must ultimately be established that the accused intended to cause the woman mental or
emotional suffering, thereby subjecting her to psychological violence, with the willful denial of
financial support being the means chosen by the accused to achieve the said purpose in order for
the offense to be punishable under Section 5(i) of RA 9262. This indicates that even if a person
cannot sustain himself financially and suffers mental or emotional pain as a result, this does not
constitute criminal behavior under Section 5(i).
 
In a nutshell, even if the woman had mental or emotional suffering as a result of the absence of
financial support, criminal liability would not emerge if the accused simply failed or was unable
to offer that support.
Finally, in the recent case of Edward Cumigad v. AAA, the Supreme Court made it clear that
economic abuse includes not only a purposeful failure to give financial support for the woman's
children but also insufficient financial support.
 
Thus, even if someone is already providing financial support, they may still be guilty of
economic abuse if the amount given is insufficient to cover the requirements of the woman and
her kid while taking into account their own resources and means.
 
Even if the person who commits the crime is not related to the victim by marriage or a previous
relationship, he or she may still be guilty of economic abuse if they share a child or have only
ever had a sexual or romantic relationship.
 
Victims of economic abuse may get a protection order as a remedy. The provision of spousal
and child support, which will be taken out of the offender's pay or earnings, is one of the
remedies that a court may award.
 
The Court in the aforementioned case, rejected his argument that his allowances shouldn't be
counted as financial support. According to Section 8(g) of the VAWC, the offender's employer
must withhold an appropriate portion of his or her income or pay. The phrase "or" indicates that
the courts may decide between the offender's wage and the income that should be used to
calculate child support.

2. Can the Court take judicial notice that a person needs to eat, drink, go to school,
without the need of proof?

A Judicial notice means that the court accepts the existence of a matter of law or fact
without the necessary evidence of the matter. Under the Philippine jurisdiction, the Section 3 of
the Rule 129 of the Revised Rules on Evidence provides that, “Judicial notice, when hearing
necessary. — During the trial, the court, on its own initiative, or on request of a party, may
announce its intention to take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard
thereon.

After the trial, and before judgment or on appeal, the proper court, on its own initiative or on
request of a party, may take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard
thereon if such matter is decisive of a material issue in the case. (n)” 1 This provision does not
mean that the acceptance by the court of a matter of law or fact equates that the court already
accepted the proposition of a party and equates to a conclusion. In Post v. Prati, which was
decided by a Court of Appeals of California, a judicial notice can be used as an exchange for a
formal proof to establish the relevance of the matter of law or fact in a particular case. 2

Under the RA 9262 also known as the VAWC law, Economic abuse involves deprivation
of financial resources to a spouse. 3 When there is a deprivation of financial resources, the right
of a person to eat, drink, go to school, and all other family rights and duties are affected. Under
the Article 194 of the Family Code, “support comprises everything indispensable for
sustenance.” Furthermore, as provided in Article 195 of the same code, parents are “obliged” to
provide support for sustenance of their family. This means that the law already presumed that a
parent is giving such support to his or her spouse and child as this is a mandatory obligation
upon him or her. In XXX vs People of the Philippines, the Supreme Court decided that to
constitute economic abuse, it is immaterial whether malice or intent is present. The RA 9262 is
a special law, thus an act of depriving a spouse or child of support is considered a malum
prohibitum. The only inquiry for the court is to decide whether the committed act is true or not. 4
This decision by the court implies that if a spouse and a child is being deprived of support, the
court may take judicial notice provided that the adverse party may be given legal representation
thereafter to determine whether or not the committed act is true or not. Furthermore, in Melgar
vs. People, and in Reyes vs. People of the Philippines, the Supreme Court also decided that
mere denial of support already suffices for psychological abuse against women and children.5
These decisions promulgated by the Supreme Court implies that there is already a presumption
as to the obligation of an individual to his or her family, if support is being deprived the court
may take judicial notice. This shows that the court may take judicial notice if the matter
involves family rights and duties. Our legal system gives such importance to the institution of
the family as the basic unit of society. The same goes with foreign jurisdiction. In Michel v.
Graydon, which was decided by the Supreme Court of Canada, a support given to a family is a
right of both spouse and a child in which an individual “cannot negotiate it away.” 6 That is why

1
Executive Order No. 209, s. 1987 | Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines visited May 5, 2023

2
Post v. Prati, 90 Cal.App.3d 626 | Casetext Search + Citator visited May 5, 2023
3
Republic Act No. 9262 (lawphil.net) visited May 5, 2023
4
XXX vs. People of the Philippines, (2021)
5
Melgar vs. People (2018)
6
Michel vs. Graydon (2019)
the court may take judicial notice without the necessary proof when it comes to support such as
the right to eat, drink, go to school etc. for these are obligations for an individual to provide as
these are considered basic human rights and cannot be negotiated. When the Supreme Court of
Canada states that “support cannot be negotiated,” it means that it is already presumed to every
individual that family support must be given, and what the courts will only look into is whether
or not there is a deprivation when it comes to it. The phrase “support cannot be negotiated”
given by the Supreme Court of Canada was also inclined to its decision in Colucci vs. Colucci,
where the same court rejected a parent’s petition to reduce child support based on his decreased
income.7 

The jurisprudence presented whether local or foreign shows that economic rights of a
family is so important that it cannot just be negotiated like a business trade. These decisions
implies that courts may take judicial notice when these economic rights are being deprived of.
This does not mean that the court already sided with the deprived spouse and children, for the
court still provides legal representation to the adverse party. In cases involving family support,
the courts only inquire as to whether there is deprivation of family support or not. Our legal
system gives such importance to these rights as these are basic to human rights. 8

3. Element of Control and restriction of movement under Section 5 (e) (2) of RA. No.
9262.

7
Colucci vs Colucci (2021)
8