Practice question
A worker loses income after an accident and cannot provide full support despite documented genuine efforts. The prosecution proves the recipient's distress but not willful denial intended to cause anguish or control conduct. It asks for conviction under Section 5(i), or automatic substitution of Section 5(e) if needed. Under Acharon, which is correct?
- Distress alone conclusively establishes Section 5(i).
- Mere inability is enough under Section 5(e).
- The missing criminal intent cannot be replaced by distress alone, and Sections 5(i) and 5(e) are distinct financial-denial offenses rather than automatic substitutes.
- Every support obligation is extinguished by acquittal.
- The accident itself proves malicious deprivation.
Legal references
- RA 9262, Sections 3–6 and 24–27: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2004/ra_9262_2004.html
- Acharon v People, G.R. No. 224946, November 9, 2021, en banc main decision, willful financial denial and distinct Sections 5(e) and 5(i): https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/nov2021/gr_224946_2021.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.