In a recent ruling that clarified the limits of criminal liability under the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 (RA 9262), the Supreme Court held that paternity or filiation must first be established before a person may be convicted for economic abuse arising from the refusal to provide financial support to a child.

In XXX v. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 262419, 3 November 2025), the Supreme Court’s Third Division acquitted a man charged with economic abuse under Section 5(i) of RA 9262 after finding that the prosecution failed to prove the child involved was his. 

Penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, the Decision reversed the rulings of both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals, which had convicted the accused for allegedly refusing to provide financial support to his former girlfriend and her child.

The case stemmed from a complaint filed in 2016. The complainant alleged that she and the accused rekindled their relationship during a high school reunion and thereafter engaged in sexual relations. She became pregnant and informed the accused, who denied fathering the child. According to the complainant, despite repeated demands, the accused continuously refused to provide financial support.

During the trial, the complainant testified that she requested a DNA test to establish paternity. The accused allegedly agreed, provided that both parties would share the expenses. However, the complainant and her father refused to shoulder part of the cost. For his part, the accused categorically denied being the child’s father and argued that the circumstances surrounding the pregnancy cast doubt on his paternity.

Despite these uncertainties, the RTC convicted the accused for economic abuse under Section 5(i) of RA 9262. The CA affirmed the conviction and even increased the penalty. The appellate court ruled that proof of paternity was not an essential element of the offense.

The Supreme Court disagreed.

The Court emphasized that before criminal liability for economic abuse may arise, the prosecution must first establish that financial support is legally due. That obligation, the Court stressed, necessarily presupposes proof of filiation. As the Decision succinctly put it, “support follows as a matter of obligation when filiation is beyond question.”

The Court explained that under the Family Code, filiation of an illegitimate child may be established through the child’s record of birth, a final judgment, or an admission in a public document or private handwritten instrument signed by the parent concerned. 

In this case, however, the birth certificate could not establish paternity because the portion pertaining to the father’s information was marked “N/A” and was unsigned.

Equally significant was the Court’s pronouncement that the mere failure to provide support does not automatically amount to a criminal liability under RA 9262. The prosecution must likewise prove that the refusal to provide support was willful and intended to inflict mental or emotional anguish. 

Here the complainant herself admitted that the accused refused to provide support because of the child’s “uncertain lineage” and had even agreed to undergo a DNA test under certain conditions. These circumstances, according to the Court, negated any finding that the accused deliberately withheld support simply to inflict psychological violence.

The ruling is significant because it draws the line between moral expectation and criminal culpability. RA 9262 is a powerful social justice legislation intended to protect women and children from abuse. Yet, as this case reminds us, criminal conviction still requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. Compassion cannot replace evidence, and suspicion cannot substitute for legal certainty.

In the end, the Court affirmed a basic but enduring principle: before the law compels support through the force of criminal sanction, paternity itself must first be proven.