Case Digest (G.R. No. 193707)
Facts:
Norma A. Del Socorro, for and in behalf of her minor child Roderigo Norjo Van Wilsem v. Ernst Johan Brinkman Van Wilsem, G.R. No. 193707, December 10, 2014, Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Norma A. Del Socorro (for and in behalf of her minor son Roderigo Norjo Van Wilsem) and respondent Ernst Johan Brinkman Van Wilsem were married in Holland on September 25, 1990; their son Roderigo was born January 19, 1994. The marriage was dissolved by a Divorce Decree issued in Holland on July 19, 1995, after which petitioner and the child returned to the Philippines while respondent later remarried and resided in Cebu. Petitioner alleges that respondent promised monthly support (250 Guildene, about Php17,500) but never provided support.
On August 28, 2009 petitioner’s counsel sent a demand for support which respondent refused to receive. Petitioner filed a complaint-affidavit with the Provincial Prosecutor of Cebu charging respondent with violation of Section 5(e)(2) of R.A. No. 9262 (depriving a child of financial support); the prosecutor recommended filing information. The information, filed in the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City (RTC-Cebu), Branch 20, charged respondent with willfully and unlawfully depriving his then-minor son of financial support, resulting in economic abuse.
RTC-Cebu issued a Hold Departure Order; respondent was arrested and posted bail. Petitioner applied for a Permanent Protection Order; respondent was arraigned and moved to dismiss on grounds of lack of jurisdiction (respondent an alien) and prescription. On February 19, 2010 the RTC (Judge Bienvenido R. Saniel, Jr.) dismissed the criminal case, ruling that the facts charged did not constitute an offense with respect to the accused “he being an alien.” Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration invoking Article 195 of the Family Code; on September 1, 2010 the RTC denied reconsideration, reiterating that a foreign national is not subject to Philippine family law and thus cannot be charged under R.A. No. 9262 for failure to support.
Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 directly with the Supreme Court seeking reversal of the February 19 and September 1, 2010 RTC ord...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Under Philippine law, does a foreign national have an obligation to support his minor child?
- Can a foreign national be held criminally liable under R.A. No. 9262 for unjustified failure to support hi...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)