FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 222632. June 30, 2021.]
ZZZ, 1petitioner, vs.AAA and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 30, 2021which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 222632 (ZZZ v. AAA and People of the Philippines). — This Petition for Review on Certiorari seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision 2 dated August 26, 2015 and Resolution 3 dated January 19, 2016 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 35629. The CA Decision and Resolution affirmed the Decision 4 dated March 1, 2013 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 94, in Criminal Case No. 08-150783 convicting ZZZ of violation of Section 5 (i) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9262, otherwise known as the "Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004."
The Facts
An Information dated December 17, 2007 was filed charging ZZZ with violation of R.A. No. 9262 against his wife, private complainant AAA, the accusatory portion of which provides:
That on or about the month of April 2004, and continuously up to the present, the said accused, did then and there, wilfully and unlawfully and feloniously commit an act of economic abuse against his wife AAA and minor child BBB by then and there abandoning and depriving them of financial support legally due them to their damage and prejudice.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
ZZZ was arraigned on October 23, 2008 and entered a plea of not guilty.
Evidence of the Prosecution
AAA and ZZZ were married on March 19, 1988. They had a child out of their union, BBB, born on July 25, 1988.
During their first years of marriage, AAA and ZZZ were both unemployed and lived in the house or AAA's father, CCC, who supported them. They moved to an apartment in _______, Quezon City, but afterwards returned to a place near CCC's house in Cubao.
ZZZ found work in Taiwan as a factory worker under a two-year contract from 1995 to 1996. He gave financial support for their family in 1995. However, when he went back to the Philippines for a short vacation, he told AAA that he would stop giving support when he returns to Taiwan for the remainder of his contract because he was having a financial problem. He cut off all communications with AAA and BBB. AAA tried to reach him through letters and by talking to his family but to no avail. After the contract period, he returned to the Philippines but no longer lived with AAA and BBB. This forced AAA and BBB to move back to CCC's house in 1997 and have since relied on him for support.
In 1998, AAA filed a case for support against ZZZ which was heard by the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 107. The case was settled through a compromise agreement executed by the parties and approved by the RTC. Under the compromise agreement, ZZZ was obligated to give financial support of P4,000.00 monthly. The RTC issued an Order of Execution dated May 21, 1999 directing ZZZ to settle his arrears in support.
ZZZ gave the financial support required under the compromise agreement for only three to four months. He stopped complying with his obligation afterwards which forced AAA to take on three jobs at one time and even work abroad to support BBB.
In 2006, AAA learned that ZZZ was able to work in Saudi Arabia and thus, assisted by counsel, sent him a Demand Letter dated August 10, 2006 to remind him of his obligation to give support. Upon inquiry with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration and Bureau of Immigration, AAA learned that he left the country in 2004 to work in Saudi Arabia as an autocad operator until 2006. He returned to Saudi Arabia to work there again in 2007 and 2008. However, despite being gainfully employed abroad, he still did not give financial support. This constrained AAA to file the instant criminal case against him.
Evidence of the Defense
For his defense, ZZZ testified that during his work stint in Taiwan in 1995, he sent support of USD800.00 a month for their family. He stopped giving support when he returned to Taiwan in 1996 only because his salary was allegedly no longer enough to cover his own expenses.
In 1998, after the settlement of the case for support filed against him, ZZZ claimed he complied with the compromise agreement by issuing post-dated checks in the amount of P2,500.00 a month. He only stopped giving support when he resigned from work in July 1999. He remained unemployed from 1999 to 2004 and was financially dependent on his mother and siblings. Since he could not find work, his mother used him as an errand boy in her placement agency. His pay was minimal and he had nothing to spare for BBB. He tried to give some support to BBB but it was irregular.
From 2004 to 2006 when he was employed in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, ZZZ claimed he gave support to BBB indirectly through his brother, YYY. YYY would give support to BBB in advance, whom he would then reimburse.
From February 2007 until July 2008 when he was employed in Jubail, Saudi Arabia, ZZZ admitted that he did not give support to BBB. His excuse was that he was paying off many debts and because he learned that a warrant of arrest was issued against him in the instant criminal case.
The defense also presented the testimony of ZZZ's sister, VVV, who claimed that she and her other siblings extended BBB support before ZZZ worked abroad. She also testified that ZZZ supported BBB through remittances to their mother, who would then give it to BBB. However, this support was irregular because of ZZZ's financial problems.
RTC Ruling
The RTC rendered its Decision 6 dated March 1, 2013 convicting ZZZ of violation of Section 5 (i) of R.A. No. 9262:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused [ZZZ] GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5(i), Republic Act 9262, otherwise known as the "Anti-Violence against Women and Their Children Act of 2004" and is hereby ordered to suffer an indeterminate penalty of TWO (2) YEARS and FOUR (4) MONTHS OF PRISION CORRECCIONAL AS MINIMUM TO EIGHT (8) YEARS OF PRISION MAYOR as MAXIMUM, to pay a fine of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P100,000.00) plus costs.
SO ORDERED. 7
The RTC convicted ZZZ for his abandonment and failure to give support to AAA and BBB. ZZZ failed to provide evidence to substantiate his claims that his mother gave support to BBB from his monthly remittances, or that his brother YYY gave it in advance on his behalf.
ZZZ appealed the RTC Decision on the grounds that (1) the prosecution did not establish that he failed to provide support deliberately, and (2) he could not be held liable for violation of R.A. No. 9262 considering his marriage with AAA was declared void in 2013.
CA Ruling
The CA denied ZZZ's appeal and rendered its Decision 8 dated August 26, 2015 affirming his conviction:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated March 1, 2013 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 94 in Criminal Case No. 08-1507133 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
The CA affirmed that ZZZ's neglect and failure to support AAA and BBB was deliberate and because he knew that a warrant of arrest was issued against him. ZZZ's failure persisted despite his gainful employment in Saudi Arabia where he admittedly earned a monthly salary of P50,000.00 to P60,000.00. ZZZ offered the bare excuse that his money was insufficient to cover his own expenses and debts. The CA stressed that insufficiency of salary is not a valid reason to stop giving support. If his income were truly not enough, he should have asked the court to reduce the amount of support due from him.
The CA also rejected ZZZ's argument that he could not be held liable for violating R.A. No. 9262 since his marriage with AAA was declared void in 2013. Section 3 (a) of R.A. No. 9262 provides that a violation may be committed against a woman who is accused's wife, former wife, or against a woman with whom he has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a common child, or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate. Moreover, ZZZ's failure to provide support dated as early as 2004 before their marriage was declared void. ZZZ's acts caused AAA psychological harm and emotional suffering, and was detrimental to BBB during his formative years.
ZZZ moved for a reconsideration of the Decision but was denied by the CA in its Resolution dated January 19, 2016. 9
Hence, the instant petition.
Issue
The issue in this case is whether or not the CA committed reversible error in affirming ZZZ's conviction for violation of Section 5 (i) of R.A. No. 9262.
Ruling of the Court
The instant petition for review on certiorari10 merely reiterated grounds already passed upon and resolved by the lower courts. ZZZ claimed that the prosecution failed to prove that his failure to give support was deliberate. He also argued that his conviction for acts done in 2007 was beyond the scope of the Information and that the nullification of his marriage with AAA removed the latter's entitlement to receive support.
ZZZ raised a new argument before this Court that AAA is now deceased and that their son BBB, and his fiancée and three kids, are all dependent on him for support. An Affidavit 11 executed by BBB was submitted where the latter claimed that ZZZ continuously gave him financial support as he was growing up.
The State, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a Comment (on Petition for Review on Certiorari dated February 15, 2016) dated July 18, 2019. 12 ZZZ filed a Reply dated January 14, 2020 to the Comment. The case was thereafter submitted for resolution.
The petition is denied.
At the outset, it is well-settled that only questions of law should be raised in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. This Court is not a trier of facts. It will not entertain questions of fact considering that the factual findings of lower courts are deemed final, binding, and conclusive when supported by substantial evidence. Questions of fact include the review of the truthfulness or falsity of the parties' allegations, or the correctness of the lower courts' appreciation of the evidence presented. 13
The instant petition primarily questions the lower court's appreciation of the prosecution and defense witnesses' testimonies on ZZZ's failure to give support. Issues on whether ZZZ gave the support legally required from him, the amount of support given directly or indirectly, and whether or not his failure to give support was deliberate and caused mental and emotional anguish, involve factual matters already resolved by the lower courts. These factual matters should no longer be disturbed and are outside the province of a petition for review on certiorari under the Rules of Court.
Nevertheless, after reviewing the records of the case, the Court finds no reason to deviate from the factual findings of the lower courts which were duly substantiated by evidence. The CA thus committed no reversible error in affirming ZZZ's conviction for violating Section 5 (i) of R.A. No. 9262.
Section 5 (i) of R.A. No. 9262 penalizes some forms of psychological violence against women and their children committed as follows:
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:
xxx xxx xxx
(i) 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 of access to the woman's child/children. (Emphasis supplied)
The elements of violation of Section 5 (i) of R.A. No. 9262 are as follows:
1. The offended party is a woman and/or her child or children;
2. The woman is either the wife or former wife of the offender, or is a woman with whom the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or is a woman with whom such offender has a common child. As for the woman's child or children, they may be legitimate or illegitimate, or living within or without the family abode;
3. The offender causes on the woman and/or child mental or emotional anguish; and
4. The anguish is caused through acts of public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, denial of financial support or custody of minor children or access to the children or similar such acts or omissions. 14 (Citations omitted)
The Court in Reyes v. People15 elucidated that conviction under Section 5 (i) of R.A. No. 9262 requires proof of the indispensable elements of (1) psychological violence as the means employed by the perpetrator consisting of any acts enumerated in Section 5 (i) or similar acts, and (2) the mental or emotional suffering or damage sustained by the offended party. 16
It bears stressing that "[t]he law does not require proof that the victim become psychologically ill due to the psychological violence done by her abuser. Rather, the law only requires emotional anguish and mental suffering to be proven. To establish emotional anguish or mental suffering, jurisprudence only requires that the testimony of the victim to be presented in court, as such experiences are personal to this party." 17
In this case, the CA correctly held that all the elements of violation of Section 5 (i) of R.A. No. 9262 are present.
The first and second elements are present since the offended parties are AAA and her child BBB. It is undisputed that AAA is ZZZ's wife, or at the very least a woman with whom he has a common child with. The nullification of ZZZ's marriage with AAA in 2013 is inconsequential since the law does not require that the offended party be the offender's wife. 18
The third element is present that ZZZ's actions caused AAA mental and/or emotional anguish. AAA testified that ZZZ's acts caused her psychological harm and emotional suffering, and was especially detrimental to BBB during his formative years. 19 The RTC noted during trial when AAA was asked if she could put a monetary value for her sufferings, she replied that "it cannot be quantified, even if you win the lotto." 20 This is further supported by the fact that AAA was forced to sacrifice and take on three jobs at a time, and even leave the country, just to support BBB. AAA suffered great psychological and emotional suffering from the hardships she had to endure because of ZZZ's abandonment and failure to give support.
The fourth element is present that ZZZ committed psychological violence through acts enumerated under Section 5 (i) of R.A. No. 9262 by denying AAA and BBB financial support. It should be stressed that such denial to support a child is a continuing offense. 21 The question of whether or not AAA and BBB were entitled to support is irrefutable considering there was a compromise agreement executed by ZZZ obligating himself to provide support. This is consistent with Article 194 of the Family Code providing that spouses, as well as parents and their legitimate children, are obliged to support each other. This support shall consist of everything indispensable for sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical attendance, education, and transportation, in keeping with the financial capacity of the family. 22
AAA testified that ZZZ abandoned them and no longer gave support after he returned to Taiwan in 1996. This constrained her to file a case for support against him. However, despite the case for support and the resulting compromise agreement, he still neglected them and failed to comply with his obligation to give support. This was corroborated by AAA's father, CCC who testified that after ZZZ abandoned them, AAA and BBB lived in his house and he provided financial assistance to them.
Notably, ZZZ admitted that he stopped complying with his obligation to give the support required under the compromise agreement. He merely alleged that he tried his best to give BBB support, albeit irregularly and indirectly through his mother and siblings.
The CA correctly denied ZZZ's defenses for being self-serving and utterly unsubstantiated. ZZZ alleged that his mother and brother gave support to BBB on his behalf, but he could not present any proof of how much support was given or even present them as witnesses to corroborate his claims. He also gave an excuse that he did not give support because he was having financial difficulties and that his salary in Saudi Arabia was insufficient to pay his own expenses and debts. However, he again did not present any evidence whatsoever to support these claims. The Court concurs with the following observations of the CA:
In denying the allegations of [AAA], [ZZZ] asserted that he complied with his obligation by asking his brother to advance the financial support to his son, and telling his mother to give his son a portion of his money remittances, However, when he was asked how he knew that his brother was actually giving support to his son, [ZZZ] answered, "I trusted him." When [ZZZ] was also asked if he confirmed from his mother whether she was actually giving support to his son, [ZZZ] merely replied "She was giving, sir," but he failed to ask her mother how much she was giving to his son. Such act on the part of [ZZZ] shows that he was neglectful of his obligation. He knows for a fact that he is obligated to give financial support to his family, yet [ZZZ] did not exert effort to confirm from his brother or his mother whether his family actually received the support they needed.
Moreover, [ZZZ] did not present the testimonies of his brother and mother to corroborate his claims. Their testimonies could have been material proof that [ZZZ] fulfilled his obligation to support his family. They had personal knowledge since they were allegedly the ones giving support to [ZZZ's] son. Although the defense presented the testimony of [ZZZ's] sister, [VVV], her testimony failed to sufficiently prove [ZZZ's] assertions. [VVV's] testimony that [ZZZ] was remitting money to their mother did not establish with certainty that a part of such money was really allocated for the support or [ZZZ's] son.
Notably, [ZZZ] himself admitted that when he was employed in Saudi Arabia in 2004, the financial support he was giving to his son was irregular because he suffered problems regarding his salary. [ZZZ's] allegation, however, is unsubstantiated as he failed to present any evidence to support his claim. Besides, if he really suffered problems regarding his work abroad, he could not have stayed there and worked in Saudi Arabia until 2006.
[ZZZ's] deliberate failure to fulfill his obligation was further revealed when he admitted that he stopped giving financial support to his son when he went to work in Saudi Arabia for the second time. [ZZZ's] reasons for his failure to provide financial assistance were allegedly because his salary was inadequate to pay for his debts, and that a warrant of arrest was already issued against him for Violation of R.A. No. 9262. However, the alleged insufficiency of [ZZZ's] salary was not a valid reason for him to stop giving support to his family. According to [ZZZ] himself, his gross salary when he worked in Jubail, Saudi Arabia was Php50,000.00 to Php60,000.00 a month. Out of these monthly earnings, [ZZZ] could have easily allocated a portion to his son. 23
Based on the foregoing, the prosecution sufficiently established the elements of the crime of violation of Section 5 (i) of R.A. No. 9262 to justify ZZZ's conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
Section 6 of R.A. No. 9262 governs the penalty for violation of Section 5 (i), to wit:
SECTION 6. Penalties. — The crime of violence against women and their children, under Section 5 hereof shall be punished according to the following rules:
xxx xxx xxx
(f) Acts falling under Section 5(h) and Section 5(i) shall be punished by prision mayor.
If the acts are committed while the woman or child is pregnant or committed in the presence of her child, the penalty to be applied shall be the maximum period of penalty prescribed in the section.
In addition to imprisonment, the perpetrator shall (a) pay a fine in the amount of not less than One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) but not more than three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00); (b) undergo mandatory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment and shall report compliance to the court.
The Court affirms the penalties imposed on ZZZ sentencing him to imprisonment of two (2) years and four (4) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum, and ordering him to pay a fine of P100,000.00. This is compliant with Section 6 of R.A. No. 9262 and the Indeterminate Sentence Law, there being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance present.
The Court modifies the penalty imposed by additionally directing ZZZ to undergo mandatory psychological counselling or psychiatric treatment as required under Section 6 of R.A. No. 9262.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated August 26, 2015 and Resolution dated January 19, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 35629 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION:
1. ZZZ is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5 (i) of Republic Act No. 9262 and is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment for two (2) years and four (4) months of prision correctional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum;
2. He is ORDERED to PAY a fine of P100,000.00; and
3. He is DIRECTED to undergo mandatory psychological counselling or psychiatric treatment and to report compliance with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 94, within fifteen (15) days from completion.
The filing of the private respondent's comment is considered WAIVED. A fine of P1,000.00 is IMPOSED upon Atty. Allan R. Cabaero for his failure to comply with the Resolution dated March 9, 2016, payable within ten (10) days from notice hereof. aScITE
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. The identity and personal information that can establish the identity of the victim, as well as her immediate family members, shall be withheld pursuant to R.A. No. 7610, entitled "AN ACT PROVIDING FOR STRONGER DETERRENCE AND SPECIAL PROTECTION AGAINST CHILD ABUSE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on June 17, 1992; R.A. No. 9262, entitled "AN ACT DEFINING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN, PROVIDING FOR PROTECTIVE MEASURES FOR VICTIMS, PRESCRIBING PENALTIES THEREFORE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES" approved on March 8, 2004; and amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015, entitled "PROTOCOLS AND PROCEDURES IN THE PROMULGATION, PUBLICATION AND POSTING ON THE WEBSITES OF DECISIONS, FINAL RESOLUTIONS, AND FINAL ORDERS USING FICTITIOUS NAMES/PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES" dated September 5, 2017.
2.Rollo, pp. 23-35.
3.Id. at 21; penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios and Associate Justice Maria Elisa Sempio Diy.
4.Id. at 37-47; penned by Presiding Judge Roslyn M. Rabara-Tria.
5.Rollo, p. 37.
6.Id. at 37-47.
7.Id. at 47.
8.Id. at 23-35.
9.Id. at 21.
10.Id. at 3-16.
11.Id. at 48-49.
12.Id. at 97-112.
13.Cu v. Ventura, G.R. No. 224567, September 26, 2018.
14.Dinamling v. People, 761 Phil. 356, 373 (2015).
15. G.R. No. 232678, July 3, 2019.
16.AAA v. BBB, 823 Phil. 607, 620 (2018).
17.Araza v. People, G.R. No. 247429, September 8, 2020.
18.Reyes v. People, supra.
19.Rollo, p. 31.
20.Id. at 43.
21.Melgar v. People, 826 Phil. 177, 185-186 (2018).
22. FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Article 194.
23.Rollo, pp. 31-32.