Case Digest (G.R. No. 256759)
Facts:
XXX v. People, G.R. No. 256759, November 13, 2023, Supreme Court Second Division, Kho, Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioner XXX was charged by Information before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 94, with violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004) for allegedly causing mental and emotional anguish to his wife, AAA256759, by forcing her to obtain a bank loan and to turn over loan proceeds which he purportedly failed to account for and by denying financial support for the children. The Information alleged that from about June 2014 onward petitioner forced AAA256759 to contract a Php1,000,000 loan from Metrobank and to issue checks and cash withdrawals amounting to several tranches, portions of which petitioner allegedly appropriated and failed to use for the van purchase or tuition, then refused to remit or account for the funds.
At trial, AAA256759 testified and was corroborated by their two children, a psychiatrist (Dr. Josephine I. Gatdula), and an NBI psychologist. Petitioner denied coercion, maintained that the loan initiative was AAA256759’s, admitted receiving Php630,000 in tranches which he said were used in a microlending business (supported by a ledger/notebook and deposit entries), and asserted he provided monthly support averaging Php14,500 and payments toward tuition though sometimes delayed.
The RTC, in a Decision dated October 30, 2018, found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Section 5(i) RA 9262, sentenced him to an indeterminate term (two years, four months + one day prision correccional as minimum to six years + one day prision mayor as maximum), imposed a Php100,000 fine, and ordered psychological counseling. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
The CA, in a Decision dated November 9, 2020 (CA-G.R. CR No. 42777), affirmed with modification the RTC conviction, increased the maximum term of the indeterminate penalty to eight years and one day of prision mayor, cancelled petitioner’s cash bond for provisional liberty, ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt the elements of violation of Section 5(i) of RA 9262, specifically the willful denial of financial support and the requisite intent to inflict mental or emotional anguish?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming and modifying the RTC’s conviction of petitioner for violation o...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)