Crime mala prohibita vs. Crime mala in se; Sec. 5, par. (e)(2) of RA 9262

 

Crime mala prohibita vs. Crime mala in se; Sec. 5, par. (e)(2) of RA 9262

RE: Sec. 5, par. (e)(2) of RA 9262 crime mala prohibita; [ G.R. No. 221370, June 28, 2021 ]

RE: Sec. 5, par. (e)(2) of RA 9262 is crime a mala in se; CONCURRING OPINION, [ G.R. No. 224946. November 09, 2021 ]

Economic abuse is one of the acts of violence punished by RA 9262:

"Economic abuse" refers to acts that make or attempt to make a woman financially dependent which includes, but is not limited to the following:

1. withdrawal of financial support or preventing the victim from engaging in any legitimate profession, occupation, business or activity, except in cases wherein the other spouse/partner objects on valid, serious and moral grounds as defined in Article 73 of the Family Code;

2. deprivation or threat of deprivation of financial resources and the right to the use and enjoyment of the conjugal, community or property owned in common;

3. destroying household property;

4. controlling the victim's own money or properties or solely controlling the conjugal money or properties.

Specifically, Sec. 5, par. (e)(2) of RA 9262 penalizes the deprivation of financial support legally due the woman or child, which is a continuing offense:¹

“(e) Attempting to compel or compelling the woman or her child to engage in conduct which the woman or her child has the right to desist from or desist from conduct which the woman or her child has the right to engage in, or attempting to restrict or restricting the woman's or her child's freedom of movement or conduct by force or threat of force, physical or other harm or threat of physical or other harm, or intimidation directed against the woman or child. This shall include, but not limited to, the following acts committed with the purpose or effect of controlling or restricting the woman's or her child's movement or conduct:

x x x x

(2) Depriving or threatening in deprive the woman or her children of financial support legally due her or her family, x x x;

x x x x[.]”

[Here], As correctly found by the courts a quo, all the elements of a violation of Section 5 (e)(2) of RA 9262 are present, as it was established that: (a) XXX and AAA were married after being pregnant with BBB; (b) XXX acknowledged BBB as his child; (c) he failed to provide sufficient support for BBB; (d) he withheld financial support for BBB due to the ire he felt towards his wife; (e) he only provided financial support after the complaint against him in the Prosecutor's Office was filed.

Under Article 195 (4) of the Family Code, a parent is obliged to support his child, comprising everything indispensable for sustenance, dwelling clothing, medical attendance, education, and transportation, in keeping with the financial capacity of the family.

The amount of support shall be in proportion to the necessity of the recipient and the means of the person obliged to give support.

In the case at bar, XXX deliberately deprived his son BBB of financial support for the latter's sustenance, clothing, medical, and educational expenses. From the moment the child was born until the case was filed, petitioner was only able to give a total of about P10,000.00 in a span of five years.

RE: There is also no merit in petitioner's argument that the absence of malice on his part should warrant his acquittal. 

Crimes mala in se vs. Crimes mala prohibita 

Crimes mala in se are those "so serious in their effects to society as to call for almost unanimous condemnation of its members." On the other hand, crimes mala prohibita are "violations of mere rules of convenience designed to secure a more orderly regulation of the affairs of society."

 [Generally], the term mala in se pertains to felonies defined and penalized by the RPC while mala prohibita refers generally to acts made criminal by special laws. 

In acts which are declared to be [mala prohibita], malice or intent is immaterial. Since RA 9262 or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 is a special law, the act of deprivation of financial support is considered malum prohibitum. 

(Accused) Petitioner's [argument] of absence of malice or intent is immaterial and the only inquiry to be made is whether or not XXX committed the act.

[ G.R. No. 221370, June 28, 2021 ]

XXX, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

D E C I S I O N

HERNANDO, J.

FOOTNOTES

 1 Del Socorro v. Van Wilsem, 749 Phil. 823, 840 (2014)

Read full text @

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/jun2021/gr_221370_2021.html

TAKE NOTE:

CONCURRING OPINION

RE: Sec. 5, par. (e)(2) of RA 9262 is a mala in se

To begin, the study of Criminal Law has long divided crimes into acts wrong in themselves called acts mala in se; and acts which would not be wrong but for the fact that positive law forbids them, called acts mala prohibita. This distinction is important with reference to the intent with which a wrongful act is done. The rule is that in acts mala in se, the intent governs; but in acts mala prohibita, the only inquiry is whether the law was violated. A common misconception is that all mala in se crimes are found in the Revised Penal Code (RPC), while all mala prohibita crimes are provided by special penal laws. In reality, however, there may be mala in se crimes under special laws,⁶ and mala prohibita crimes defined in the RPC.

In Dungo v. People, the Court explained that:

“Xxx  the better approach to distinguish between mala in se and mala prohibita crimes is the determination of the inherent immorality or vileness of the penalized act. If the punishable act or omission is immoral in itself, then it is a crime mala in se; on the contrary, if it is not immoral in itself, but there is a statute prohibiting its commission by reasons of public policy, then it is mala prohibita[.]”

Applying this approach, it becomes clear that Section 5(e) or "acts committed with the purpose or effect of controlling or restricting the woman's or her child's movement or conduct" and Section 5(i) or acts "causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to the woman or her child", are inherently depraved and immoral, hence, proof of the accused's criminal intent is required. On this note, I suggest to adopt a framework in better understanding the anatomy of RA 9262's penal provisions.

Section 5 of RA 9262 refers to the specific acts of violence committed against women and children.

[ G.R. No. 224946. November 09, 2021 ]

CHRISTIAN PANTONIAL ACHARON, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

CONCURRING OPINION

Read full text @

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/nov2021/gr_224946_m-lopez.html