De Guzman v. Perez
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Roberto P. de Guzman and private respondent Shirley F. Aberde had a child, Robby Aberde de Guzman, born in 1987. They never married. Petitioner married another woman in 1991 and had two children with her. Petitioner provided minimal financial support for Robby, only sending money for schooling twice in 1992 and 1993, and giving P7,000 in 1994 for medical expenses. Private respondent worked abroad for two years to support Robby and her own needs. Petitioner, meanwhile, managed family corporations, lived a luxurious lifestyle with multiple cars and expensive homes, and sent his other children to exclusive schools, despite which he failed to provide consistent support for Robby. Procedural History: Private respondent filed a criminal complaint for abandonment and neglect of child against petitioner on June 15, 2000. The City Prosecutor of Lipa City, on August 15, 2000, dismissed the abandonment charge but found probable cause to charge petitioner with neglect of child under Article 59(4) of PD 603. An information was filed on August 25, 2000. Before arraignment, petitioner filed a petition for review with the Secretary of Justice. On January 3, 2002, the Secretary of Justice dismissed the petition for review, affirming the City Prosecutor's resolution. A motion for reconsideration was denied on September 24, 2002. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assailing the resolutions of the Secretary of Justice. He contends that the Secretary of Justice acted with grave abuse of discretion in sustaining the City Prosecutor's resolution, arguing there is no probable cause to prosecute him for neglect of a minor child. Petitioner claims financial incapacity and asserts that his son is not neglected as he has received the education his mother, the financially capable parent, provided. He argues that criminal liability for neglect only attaches if both parents are guilty, and that his alleged luxurious lifestyle is not indicative of his personal financial capacity, as his assets allegedly belong to his father.
Issue(s)
Whether public respondent acted with grave abuse of discretion in sustaining the City Prosecutor's resolution finding probable cause for neglect of child. Whether petitioner is financially incapable of providing support for his son's education; and whether the neglect of child under Article 59(4) of PD 603 can be prosecuted in relation to Section 10(a) of RA 7610. Whether there exists probable cause for petitioner's indictment for neglect of child under Article 59(4) of PD 603; and on the argument that both parents must be guilty.
Ruling
The petition is without merit and is hereby DISMISSED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion: The rule is that judicial review of the Secretary of Justice's resolution is limited to determining if it is tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Courts cannot substitute their judgment for that of the executive branch. The assailed resolutions were supported by evidence on record and grounded in law, not issued in a capricious, whimsical, or arbitrary manner, thus warranting no countermand. On the elements of neglect of child under Article 59(4) of PD 603 & On the applicability of Section 10(a) of RA 7610: The crime requires that the offender is a parent, neglects his or her own child, the neglect consists in not giving education, and the offender's station in life and financial condition permit an appropriate education. Petitioner acknowledged Robby as his son and did not deny failing to contribute to his education except for two instances and a P7,000 medical expense in 1994. The child's education was financed by the private respondent and her relatives. There is a prima facie showing of petitioner's financial capability, evidenced by his P750,000 worth of paid-up shares in RNCD Development Corporation, as indicated in the General Information Sheet. Petitioner's claim that the shares belonged to his father is a factual and evidentiary defense to be raised during trial. The charge against petitioner cannot be made in relation to Section 10(a) of RA 7610 because the "neglect of child" under Article 59(4) of PD 603 is also penalized under Article 277 of the Revised Penal Code (indifference of parents). RA 7610 expressly excludes acts covered by the Revised Penal Code. Therefore, the prosecution should proceed solely under Article 59(4) of PD 603. On the existence of probable cause & On the argument that both parents must be guilty: The Court ascertained the existence of probable cause for petitioner's indictment for neglect of child under Article 59(4) of PD 603. This means there is sufficient ground to believe that a crime has been committed and that petitioner is probably guilty thereof, warranting a trial. Petitioner's guilt or innocence will still be determined beyond reasonable doubt in the criminal case. The law is clear that any parent can be charged with neglect of child. Liability does not depend on whether the other parent is also guilty. The law aims to punish the neglect of any parent who fails to provide education commensurate with the family's station in life and financial condition. An irresponsible parent cannot escape liability by invoking the other parent's compliance with their duties. This interpretation aligns with the law's intent to prioritize the child's welfare.
Main Doctrine
A parent may be charged with neglect of child under Article 59(4) of PD 603 for failing to provide education that the family's station in life and financial condition permit, even if the other parent is providing support. The criminal liability for neglect of child under Article 59(4) of PD 603 is excluded from the coverage of RA 7610 if it is also penalized under the Revised Penal Code.