Case Summary (G.R. No. 250219)
Factual Background
The Information charged XXX with willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously depriving his minor child of financial support legally due to the complainant and to her minor child and abandoning them totally, causing psychological and emotional anguish, from October 2015 up to the present, within the jurisdiction of the RTC. The complainant, referred to as AAA, and petitioner were married on December 29, 2006, and had one daughter, BBB. AAA left for Singapore to work. In May 2015, AAA learned of petitioner’s romantic involvement with another woman, CCC, and in July 2015 learned that CCC was pregnant with petitioner’s child. Text messages exchanged among the parties and testimony showed petitioner’s cohabitation with CCC and that petitioner brought CCC to the family hometown, prompting AAA to return and to seek the Department of Social Welfare and Development’s assistance to obtain custody of BBB.
Trial Evidence for the Prosecution
The prosecution presented AAA’s testimony and documentary proof of marriage and of BBB’s birth. The prosecution offered text messages exchanged between petitioner and CCC and between CCC and AAA. BBB, nine years old at trial, testified and wept while describing her father’s infidelity and expressing a desire for her parents to reconcile. The prosecution relied on these factual and testimonial materials to establish that petitioner’s acts caused psychological and emotional anguish to AAA and to BBB and that petitioner had abandoned them. The prosecution later admitted it could not satisfactorily establish denial of financial support but maintained that abandonment and marital infidelity produced the requisite emotional anguish under Section 5(i) of RA 9262.
Trial Evidence for the Defense
Petitioner acknowledged paternity of BBB and asserted that he had custody and primarily cared for BBB after AAA left for work abroad until October 2015 when AAA allegedly took the child away. Petitioner initially denied knowing CCC but later conceded a prior school acquaintance. Petitioner alleged that he stopped providing support after AAA prevented him from seeing or having access to BBB. Petitioner also filed pretrial motions, including an Omnibus Motion to Quash the Information, claiming deprivation of due process and seeking a preliminary investigation; the trial court granted the motion and directed the prosecutor to conduct further inquiry.
Trial Court Proceedings and Ruling
The RTC, after re-investigation by the prosecutor and trial on the merits, denied petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss on Demurrer to Evidence. The RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5(i) of RA 9262 by inflicting psychological violence through emotional and psychological abandonment. The RTC observed that emotional abandonment and the distress caused by petitioner’s indiscretion were sufficiently grave. The RTC sentenced petitioner to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of two years, four months, and one day of prision correccional as minimum to six years and one day of prision mayor as maximum, imposed a fine of PHP 100,000, and ordered mandatory psychological counseling.
Appeal to the Court of Appeals
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals raising five principal errors, including that the RTC considered psychological violence although the Information alleged only economic abuse; that AAA alienated the child; that petitioner had custody and was the primary caregiver until October 2015; that petitioner’s custody petition bore legal significance; and that the prosecution’s evidence was insufficient. The Office of the Solicitor General represented the People and argued that the Information charged abandonment and deprivation of support causing psychological and emotional anguish.
Court of Appeals Decision
In its January 31, 2019 Decision, the CA affirmed the RTC with modification of the penalty. The CA held that the Information charged not only denial of financial support but also abandonment causing psychological and emotional anguish, and that abandonment is a species of the acts or omissions subsumed under Section 5(i) of RA 9262. The CA found proof of petitioner’s marital infidelity, cohabitation with CCC who bore him a child, and abandonment of AAA and BBB. The CA accepted the victims’ testimonies, the text messages, and BBB’s emotional response in court as proof of mental or emotional anguish. The CA modified the indeterminate penalty to a minimum of two years, four months, and one day of prision correccional and a maximum of eight years and one day of prision mayor, maintained the fine of PHP 100,000, and affirmed the psychological counseling requirement. The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in its October 18, 2019 Resolution.
Issue before the Supreme Court
The sole issue presented to the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s conviction of petitioner for violating Section 5(i) of RA 9262.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
The Supreme Court, through a decision penned by Hernando, J., denied the petition and affirmed the CA Decision and Resolution. The Court held that the elements of Section 5(i) were proven beyond reasonable doubt and that the CA and RTC correctly applied the law and the evidence to convict petitioner of psychological violence under Section 5(i) of RA 9262.
Legal Basis and Reasoning
The Court identified the elements required for a conviction under Section 5(i) of RA 9262: the offended party must be a woman and/or her child; the relationship element (wife, former wife, a woman with whom the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or a woman with whom he has a common child); the offender causes mental or emotional anguish; and the anguish is caused through acts such as public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, denial of financial support or custody or access to children, or similar acts or omissions. The Court cited Dinamling v. People for this elemental formulation and reiterated that psychological violence is the means while mental or emotional anguish is the effect. The Court explained that proof of emotional anguish requires the testimony of the victim because such experi
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 250219)
Parties and Posture
- Petitioner appealed from the Court of Appeals decision affirming with modification the Regional Trial Court conviction for violation of Section 5(i) of RA 9262.
- People of the Philippines prosecuted the case by Information dated January 29, 2016 for deprivation of financial support and abandonment under RA 9262.
- The appeal to the Supreme Court was filed as a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, Rules of Court, assailing the CA Decision dated January 31, 2019 and CA Resolution dated October 18, 2019 in CA-G.R. CR No. 40971.
- The RTC rendered the judgment of conviction in Criminal Case No. 194-V-16 by Decision dated November 10, 2017.
Key Factual Allegations
- Petitioner and AAA were married on December 29, 2006, and they had a daughter, BBB, whose birth was established by a Certificate of Live Birth.
- AAA left for Singapore in 2108 and later learned in May 2015 that Petitioner had a romantic relationship with CCC who became pregnant by him.
- Text message exchanges between Petitioner, CCC, and AAA were introduced to prove emotional spurning, cohabitation, and admissions of infidelity.
- AAA returned to the Philippines upon learning of Petitioner's cohabitation with CCC and sought Department of Social Welfare and Development assistance to secure custody of BBB.
- BBB testified on the emotional impact of her father's infidelity and wept repeatedly on the stand, stating she no longer loved her father and that she wanted her parents to reconcile.
Procedural History
- Petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion to Quash the Information and Warrant of Arrest claiming due process violations, which the RTC granted and remanded for preliminary investigation.
- After re-investigation, the prosecutor found probable cause and the case proceeded to arraignment where Petitioner pleaded not guilty.
- The RTC denied Petitioner's Motion to Dismiss on Demurrer to Evidence and thereafter convicted Petitioner of violating Section 5(i) of RA 9262.
- The Court of Appeals denied the appeal but modified the penalty, and the CA denied Petitioner's motion for reconsideration in its October 18, 2019 Resolution.
Issue
- The sole issue was whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC finding that Petitioner was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5(i) of RA 9262.
Contentions of the Parties
- Petitioner contended that psychological violence was not alleged in the Information and that an accused cannot be convicted for an act not charged, thus violating the constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.
- The prosecution, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, argued that the Information charged both deprivation of financial support and abandonment causing psychological and emotional anguish within the ambit of Section 5(i).