G.R. No. 261459 - XXXvs. The Court of Appeals, People, and AAA

Petitioner, referred to as XXX, was charged with violation of Section 5(e)(2) of Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004) for economic abuse against his legal wife (AAA) and their minor child (BBB).
The charge stemmed from petitioner allegedly depriving his wife and child of financial support from March 2013 up to the present, compelling his wife to allow visitation rights as a condition for granting support.

On October 28, 2019, the Regional Trial Court, Branch xxxx, Quezon City, found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to imprisonment ranging from two months and one day of arresto mayor to two years and four months and one day of prision correccional.
Petitioner was ordered (a) to pay a fine of PHP 100,000, (b) undergo mandatory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment, and (c) to pay monthly support of PHP 15,000 to private respondent (AAA) and child (BBB) including unpaid accumulated support since March 2013.

Petitioner applied for probation and filed a motion for partial reconsideration to delete the order of monthly support on grounds of financial incapacity during part of the case.
The RTC denied the motion citing prior resolution of such issues in the initial Decision.
Petitioner appealed the civil liability aspect to the Court of Appeals (CA).
Meanwhile, private respondent filed a Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution Pending Appeal for the monthly and accumulated support.

In the first Resolution dated May 31, 2021, the CA partially granted the motion, allowing execution pending appeal for future monthly support (PHP 15,000) but denied execution for arrears, finding dire financial need insufficient reason for execution pending appeal.
The CA clarified two types of support: future support and arrears.
The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in the second Resolution dated April 18, 2022.

Petitioner filed a petition contesting the CA’s partial grant of writ of execution pending appeal, alleging grave abuse of discretion.
Arguments included inapplicability of Rule 39, Section 4 (Rules of Court) as RA 9262 civil liabilities are criminal in nature, claim of support based on contractual agreement, diminished financial capacity, and that execution pending appeal may pre-empt CA’s decision.
Private respondent and Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) opposed, citing legal provisions requiring support during pendency of criminal case.

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it granted the writ of execution pending appeal ordering petitioner to pay future monthly support to the private respondent and child.