Case Digest: Melgar v. People, G.R. No. 223477, February 14, 2018

    Section 5(e) of RA 9262 | Criminal Law

Facts:

Celso Melgar was charged with violation of Section 5(e) of RA 9262 for committing acts of economic abuse against AAA and her illegitimate 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 agreement 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 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 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.

To substantiate her claims, AAA averred that Melgar could afford to provide support of ₱5,000.00 per month because he has a lavish lifestyle with his family. 

For his part, Melgar was deemed to have waived his right to adduce evidence due to his repeated failure to appear during trial.

RTC & CA: Guilty of economic abuse under Section 5 (e) of RA 9262.

Issue:

I. WoN the CA correctly upheld Melgar's conviction for violation of Section 5 (e) of RA 9262.

II. WoN the accused was charged of violation of Section 5 (i) of RA 9262 as the Information alleged that the acts complained of "caused mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation."

Held:

Guilty of violation of Section 5 (e) of RA 9262.

I. The deprivation or denial of financial support to the child is considered an act of violence against women and children. Notably, case law instructs that the act of denying support to a child is a continuing offense.

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. 

II. While the prosecution had established that Melgar indeed deprived AAA and BBB of support, no evidence was presented to show that such deprivation caused either AAA or BBB any mental or emotional anguish. Therefore, Melgar cannot be convicted of violation of Section 5 (i) of RA 9262. This notwithstanding - and taking into consideration the variance doctrine which allows the conviction of an accused for a crime proved which is different from but necessarily included in the crime charged - the courts a quo correctly convicted Melgar of violation of Section 5 (e) of RA 9262 as the deprivation or denial of support, by itself and even without the additional element of psychological violence, is already specifically penalized therein.

Penalty:

a) to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as maximum; 

(b) to pay a fine in the amount of ₱300,000.00; and 

(c) to undergo a mandatory psychological counselling or psychiatric treatment and report compliance

Crime Committed by the Appellant:

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.

Section 3. Definition of Terms. - xx x.

xx xx

D. "Economic abuse" refers to acts that make or attempt to make a woman financially dependent which includes, but is not limited to the following:

1. withdrawal of financial support or preventing the victim from engaging in any legitimate profession, occupation, business or activity, except in cases wherein the other spouse/partner objects on valid, serious and moral grounds as defined in Article 73 of the Family Code;

2. deprivation or threat of deprivation of financial resources and the right to the use and enjoyment of the conjugal, community or property owned in common;

3. destroying household property;

4. controlling the victim's own money or properties or solely controlling the conjugal money or properties.

xx xx

Section 5. Acts of Violence Against Women and Their Children. - The crime of violence against women and their children is committed through any of the following acts:

xx xx

(e) Attempting to compel or compelling the woman or her child to engage in conduct which the woman or her child has the right to desist from or to desist from conduct which the woman or her child has the right to engage in, or attempting to restrict or restricting the woman's or her child's freedom of movement or conduct by force or threat of force, physical or other harm or threat of physical or other harm, or intimidation directed against the woman or child. This shall include, but not limited to, the following acts committed with the purpose or effect of controlling or restricting the woman's or her child's movement or conduct:

xx xx

(2) Depriving or threatening to deprive the woman or her children of financial support legally due her or her family, or deliberately providing the woman's children insufficient financial support;

(3) Depriving or threatening to deprive the woman or her child of a legal right;

xx xx

Section 5 (i) of RA 9262, a form of psychological violence, punishes the act of "causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to the woman or her child, including, but not limited to, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, and denial of financial support or custody of minor children or denial of access to the woman's child/children." 

Notably, psychological violence is an element of violation of Section 5 (i). Psychological violence is the means employed by the perpetrator, while mental or emotional anguish is the effect caused to or the damage sustained by the offended party. 

To establish psychological violence as an element of the crime, it is necessary to show proof of commission of any of the acts enumerated in Section 5 (i) or similar acts. And to establish mental or emotional anguish, it is necessary to present the testimony of the victim as such experiences are personal to this party.

Thus, in cases of support, it must be first shown that the accused's denial thereof - which is, by itself, already a form of economic abuse - further caused mental or emotional anguish to the woman-victim and/or to their common child.

Recit Version:

Facts:

Celso Melgar was charged with violating Section 5(e) of RA 9262 for committing economic abuse against his AAA and their illegitimate son, BBB, by depriving them of financial support, causing mental or emotional anguish. 

Melgar pleaded not guilty, but he and AAA entered into a compromise agreement on the civil aspect of the case, which was approved by the RTC. However, a year later, the prosecution moved to set aside the compromise agreement and revive the criminal action, alleging that Melgar sold the property that was supposed to answer for support. The RTC revived the criminal aspect of the case and allowed the prosecution to present its evidence. 

AAA claimed that Melgar could afford to provide support, while Melgar was deemed to have waived his right to adduce evidence due to his repeated failure to appear during trial.

RTC & CA: Guilty of economic abuse under Section 5 (e) of RA 9262.

Issue:

I. WoN the CA correctly upheld Melgar's conviction for violation of Section 5 (e) of RA 9262.

II. WoN the accused was charged of violation of Section 5 (i) of RA 9262 as the Information alleged that the acts complained of "caused mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation."

Held:

Guilty of violation of Section 5 (e) of RA 9262.

I. 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.  

The deprivation or denial of financial support to the child is considered an act of violence against women and children. Notably, case law instructs that the act of denying support to a child is a continuing offense.

II. While the prosecution had established that Melgar indeed deprived AAA and BBB of support, no evidence was presented to show that such deprivation caused either AAA or BBB any mental or emotional anguish. Therefore, Melgar cannot be convicted of violation of Section 5 (i) of RA 9262. The courts a quo correctly convicted Melgar of violation of Section 5 (e) of RA 9262 as the deprivation or denial of support, by itself and even without the additional element of psychological violence, is already specifically penalized therein.

Penalty:

a) to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as maximum; 

(b) to pay a fine in the amount of ₱300,000.00; and 

(c) to undergo a mandatory psychological counselling or psychiatric treatment and report compliance