People v. Melgar
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Celso M.F.L. Melgar (Melgar) and AAA had a romantic relationship resulting in the birth of their illegitimate son, BBB. Melgar acknowledged BBB's paternity. However, their relationship soured, and Melgar stopped providing financial support when BBB was one year old. AAA filed a support case, which was granted, but Melgar continued to refuse support. Procedural History: Melgar was charged with violation of Section 5(e) of RA 9262. He and AAA entered into a compromise agreement on the civil aspect, which was provisionally dismissed. However, Melgar sold a property meant to answer for his support-in-arrears, prompting the prosecution to move for the revival of the criminal case. The RTC found Melgar guilty, sentencing him to imprisonment and ordering him to pay a fine, undergo counseling, and report compliance. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction. Melgar's motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to the present petition. The Petition: Melgar assails the CA's decision, arguing that he cannot be convicted of Section 5(e) of RA 9262 because the Information alleged acts causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule, or humiliation, which are elements of Section 5(i) (psychological violence), not Section 5(e) (economic abuse).
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly upheld Melgar's conviction for violation of Section 5(e) of RA 9262, considering the evidence presented regarding the elements of the offense and the continuing nature of the act of denying support. Whether the Information, despite alleging acts causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule, or humiliation (elements of psychological violence under Section 5(i)), precludes a conviction for violation of Section 5(e) of RA 9262, and what is the proper penalty to be imposed.
Ruling
The petition is bereft of merit. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Melgar for violation of Section 5(e) of RA 9262, with modifications to the penalty and additional orders. The Court ruled that the deprivation of financial support is itself an act of economic abuse under Section 5(e) and is a continuing offense, regardless of whether psychological violence was proven.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of conviction for violation of Section 5(e) of RA 9262: The Court held that all elements of Section 5(e) were present. It was established that Melgar and AAA had a relationship, Melgar acknowledged paternity of BBB, and Melgar failed to provide support since BBB was one year old. This intent was further evidenced by his sale of property meant to cover his support-in-arrears. The Court reiterated that the deprivation or denial of financial support to a child is considered an act of violence against women and children under Section 5(e) of RA 9262. Furthermore, case law instructs that the act of denying support to a child is a continuing offense. The trial court's factual findings, affirmed by the CA, were given due deference as they were in the best position to assess witness credibility. On the argument regarding the Information alleging psychological violence and the proper penalty: The Court found Melgar's contention untenable. While the Information mentioned acts causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule, or humiliation, which are elements of psychological violence under Section 5(i), the Court clarified that the prosecution failed to present evidence of such anguish. However, the Court invoked the variance doctrine, which allows conviction for a crime proved that is necessarily included in the crime charged. The deprivation or denial of support, by itself, is a form of economic abuse and is specifically penalized under Section 5(e) of RA 9262, even without the additional element of psychological violence. Therefore, the conviction for Section 5(e) was proper. The Court affirmed the imposition of an indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as maximum, as provided by Section 6 of RA 9262. The Court clarified that when a special penal law adopts the nomenclature of penalties under the Revised Penal Code, the legal effects under the system of penalties native to the Code, including the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, would necessarily apply. In addition to imprisonment, Melgar was ordered to pay a fine of ₱300,000.00 and undergo mandatory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment.
Main Doctrine
The deprivation or denial of financial support to a child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, constitutes economic abuse and is a continuing offense under Section 5(e) of Republic Act No. 9262, even without the additional element of psychological violence.