Case Digest (G.R. No. 223477)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 223477)
Facts:
Celso M.F.L. Melgar v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 223477, February 14, 2018, the Supreme Court Second Division, Perlas‑Bernabe, J., writing for the Court.The complainant, identified in the record as AAA, alleged that petitioner Celso M.F.L. Melgar (Melgar) committed economic abuse under Republic Act No. 9262 by deliberately depriving her and their common son BBB of financial support. The Information charged Melgar with violating Section 5 of RA 9262 for depriving AAA and her minor son of financial support, which allegedly caused mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation.
The factual background adduced at trial was that AAA and Melgar had a romantic relationship in 1995 which resulted in the birth of BBB; Melgar acknowledged paternity. When BBB was about one year old, Melgar stopped providing support despite a court‑ordered support award, and thereafter sold a parcel of land that had been intended to answer for his arrearages for support from 2001 to 2010. AAA alleged Melgar lived a relatively comfortable life (including ownership of a Toyota Avanza) and could have provided monthly support of P8,000.
After arraignment Melgar pleaded not guilty; he and AAA entered into a compromise agreement covering the civil aspect, approved by the trial court on June 24, 2010, and the criminal aspect was provisionally dismissed with Melgar’s conformity. On June 24, 2011 the prosecution moved to set aside the compromise and to revive the criminal action on the ground that Melgar sold the property intended to secure arrearages; the trial court granted the motion and allowed the prosecution to present evidence. Melgar was deemed to have waived his right to present evidence due to repeated nonappearance at trial.
In a Judgment dated September 10, 2012, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, Cebu City convicted Melgar of violating Section 5(e) of RA 9262 and imposed an indeterminate prison term. Melgar’s motion for reconsideration was denied on May 9, 2013. He appealed to the Court of Appeals. In a Decision dated August 28, 2015, the Court of Appeals in CA‑G.R. CEB‑CR No. 02211 affirmed the RTC, finding Melgar legally obliged to support BBB, that he deliberately deprived BBB of support and sold the property meant to satisfy his arrears, and that these acts caused mental or emotional anguish to AAA and BBB. The CA denied reconsideration in a Resolution dated February 10, 2016. Melgar then filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, which the Supreme Court resolved in this decision.
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals correctly uphold Melgar’s conviction for violation of Section 5(e) of RA 9262?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)