When separation is not abandonment
The wife did not categorically testify that her husband’s abandonment and failure to provide financial support caused her mental or emotional anguish.
Text size
The wife did not categorically testify that her husband’s abandonment and failure to provide financial support caused her mental or emotional anguish.
Marriage may end in separation, but separation does not necessarily mean abandonment. Neither does every failure to provide financial support automatically amount to violence against women.
The Supreme Court clarified this in XXX256676 v. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 256676, 4 June 2026), where it ruled that there was no abandonment when the spouses agreed that the husband would live separately with his mistress.
The accused was charged with violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act 9262, or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act. He was alleged to have unlawfully abandoned his legal spouse in favor of another woman and denied her sufficient financial support, thereby causing her mental and emotional anguish.
In 2013, the spouses separated after the wife learned that her husband was living with another woman with whom he had a child. The wife kicked him out of their home. The spouses later entered into a written agreement that they would live separately, on the condition that the wife would receive a share of the husband’s retirement benefits and pension.
The wife subsequently received P600,000 as her share of the retirement benefits, although she did not receive any amount from his pension.
Jurisprudence has established the elements of a violation of Section 5(i) involving denial of financial support as economic abuse: first, the offended party is a woman and/or her child; second, the woman is the wife, former wife, or a woman with whom the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a child; third, the offender willfully refuses to provide the financial support legally due; and fourth, such denial causes mental or emotional anguish.
The law also includes mental or emotional suffering caused by marital infidelity within the definition of psychological violence.
To warrant a finding of guilt, however, the prosecution must prove all the elements of the offense beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to do so.
The wife did not categorically testify that her husband’s abandonment and failure to provide financial support caused her mental or emotional anguish. Although she described the discovery of his mistress as “painful,” the evidence showed that this feeling did not persist. She eventually accepted their situation and acknowledged that theirs was a peaceful separation.
The Court thus declared that there was no abandonment when the idea of living separately came from, or was at least with the acquiescence of, the complaining spouse. Her own testimony likewise failed to establish the mental or emotional anguish alleged.
Neither was it shown that the husband willfully withheld financial support. He had already given his wife P600,000, and there was no sufficient evidence that his refusal to give more was intended to cause her mental or emotional anguish.
The decision does not diminish the protection that the VAWC law extends to women and children. Rather, it reinforces an equally fundamental principle of our justice system: even laws enacted for the noblest purposes must be applied according to their terms, and criminal liability must always rest on proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Protection and due process are not opposing ideals. When faithfully observed, they are both indispensable to justice.
For more of Dean Nilo Divina’s legal tidbits, please visit www.divinalaw.com. For comments and questions, please send an email to cad@divinalaw.com.
