MELGAR v.
PEOPLE
G.R. No. 223477; February 14, 2018
Perlas-Bernabe, J.
Keywords: Economic abuse as defined in R.A. No. 9262
DOCTRINE: Under Section 5(e) of the law, the deprivation or denial of financial
support to the child is considered an act of violence against women and children.
The act of denying support to a child is a continuing offense.
FACTS: In 1995, Melgar and AAA had a romantic relationship which resulted in the
birth of BBB, an illegitimate child. Melgar freely acknowledged BBB as evidenced by
the latter’s Certificate of Live Birth. Their relationship turned sour when Melgar
had an affair with a younger woman. When BBB was just about 1 year old, Melgar
stopped giving support which prompted AAA to file a case for support.
In August 2001, Celso Melgar was charged with violation of Section 5 of R.A. No.
9262 alleging that he committed acts of economic abuse against AAA and her
minor son BBB (12 years old), by depriving them of financial support, which caused
the victims mental or emotional anguish, and public humiliation. After
arraignment, he pleaded not guilty to the charge against him. He and AAA entered
into a compromise agreement on the civil aspect of the case.
However, 1 year later, the prosecution moved to set aside the said agreement and
moved to revive the criminal action on the ground that Melgar sold the property
(land) which was supposed to answer for the support-in-arrears of his son, BBB
pursuant to their compromise agreement.
RTC Ruling: Found Melgar guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.
CA Ruling: Affirmed Melgar’s conviction. He moved for reconsideration and such
was denied. Hence, this petition.
ISSUES:
1) Whether or not the CA correctly upheld Melgar’s conviction for violation of
Sec. 5(e) of R.A. No. 9262; and
2) Whether or not Melgar can be convicted of violation of Section 5(e) of RA
9262 (when allegedly, according to Melgar, the act complained of is actually a
violation of Section 5(i) of the same law).
HELD:
1) Yes. R.A. No. 9262 defines and criminalizes acts of violence against women
and their children (VAWC) perpetrated by women's intimate partners which
result in or is likely to result in, inter alia, economic abuse.. The said law
defines “economic abuse” as follows:
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.
“Economic abuse” may include the deprivation of support of a common child of
the man-accused and the woman-victim, whether such common child is
legitimate or not. Under Section 5(e) of the law, 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 lower courts correctly found that all the elements of the said violation of law
are present, viz:
1) Melgar and AAA had a romantic relationship, resulting in BBB's birth;
2) Melgar freely acknowledged his paternity over BBB;
3) Melgar had failed to provide BBB support ever since the latter was just a
year old; and
4) 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.
2) Yes. Melgar argues that he was charged with 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 to [AAA] and her son
[BBB]." As such, he contends that he cannot be convicted of violating Section 5(e)
of RA 9262. The Supreme Court ruled that such contention is untenable.
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, which includes denial of financial support or custody of
minor children. Notably, “psychological violence is an element of violation of
Section 5(i) just like the mental or emotional anguish caused on the victim.
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. 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.
In this case, 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. Thus, 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. PETITION DENIED.
