G.R. No.
223477
February 14, 2018
Celso M.F.L. Melgar vs. People of the Philippines
Facts:
That on or about the month of August, 2001 and subsequent thereto, in the City of Cebu,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, having the
means and capacity to give financial support, with deliberate intent, did then and there commit
acts of economic abuse against one [AAA,6 ] and her minor son, [BBB] (12 years old), by
depriving them of financial support, which caused mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule
or humiliation, to AAA and her son.
After arraignment wherein Melgar pleaded not guilty to the charge against him, he and
AAA entered into a compromise agreement8 on the civil aspect of the case. After the RTC's
approval of the compromise agreement on June 24, 2010, the criminal aspect of the case was
provisionally dismissed with Melgar's conformity. However, one (1) year later, or on June 24,
2011, the prosecution moved to set aside the compromise agreement and to revive the criminal
action, on the ground that Melgar sold the property, which was supposed to, among others,
answer for the support-in-arrears of his son, BBB, from 2001 to 2010 pursuant to their
compromise agreement. Consequently, the RTC revived the criminal aspect of the case and
allowed the prosecution to present its evidence
The prosecution alleged that in 1995, AAA had a romantic relationship with Melgar,
which resulted in the birth of BBB, an illegitimate child. Melgar freely acknowledged the
paternity of BBB as evidenced by the latter's Certificate of Live Birth, as well as numerous
photographs showing Melgar with BBB. However, AAA's relationship with Melgar turned sour
as the latter had an affair with a younger woman. When BBB was just about one (1) year old,
Melgar stopped giving support, prompting AAA to file a case for support, which was eventually
granted. This notwithstanding, Melgar still refused to give support for her and BBB. As such,
AAA was constrained to file the instant criminal case against Melgar.
the RTC found Melgar guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5 (e) of RA
9262
Issue:
Whether or not the CA correctly upheld Melgar's conviction for violation of Section 5 (e)
of RA 9262.
Ruling:
Yes. RA 9262 is a landmark legislation that defines and criminalizes acts of violence
against women and their children (VAWC) perpetrated by women's intimate partners, i.e.,
husband, former husband, or any person who has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with
whom the woman has a common child, or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate,
within or without the family abode, which result in or is likely to result in, inter alia, economic
abuse.
In this case, the courts a quo correctly found that all the elements of violation of Section 5
(e) of RA 9262 are present, as it was established that: (a) Melgar and AAA had a romantic
relationship, resulting in BBB's birth; (b) Melgar freely acknowledged his paternity over BBB;
(c) Melgar had failed to provide BBB support ever since the latter was just a year old; and (d) his
intent of not supporting BBB was made more apparent when he sold to a third party his property
which was supposed to answer for, among others, his support-in-arrears to BBB. Thus, the Court
finds no reason to deviate from the factual findings of the trial court, as affirmed by the CA, as
there is no indication that it overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied the surrounding facts and
circumstances of the case. In fact, the trial court was in the best position to assess and determine
the credibility of the witnesses presented by both parties and, hence, due deference should be
accorded to the same.
