G.R. No. 193707, December 10, 2014
NORMA A. DEL SOCORRO, for and in behalf of her minor child RODERIGO NORJO VAN WILSEM, Petitioner, vs. ERNST JOHAN BRINKMAN VAN WILSEM, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Norma A. Del Socorro and respondent Ernst Johan Brinkman Van Wilsem, a Dutch citizen, were married in Holland in 1990 and had a son, Roderigo, in 1994. Their marriage ended by a Divorce Decree issued in Holland in 1995. Petitioner and her son returned to the Philippines. Respondent later came to the Philippines, remarried, and established a business in Cebu. Petitioner alleged that respondent promised but failed to provide monthly support for their son. After a demand letter was refused, petitioner filed a complaint affidavit leading to the filing of an Information against respondent for violation of Section 5(e)(2) of Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004) for unjust refusal to support his minor child. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City dismissed the criminal case, ruling that the facts charged did not constitute an offense against respondent, an alien, as he was not bound by Philippine law (the Family Code) regarding a parent’s duty to support. The RTC denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. Petitioner elevated the case directly to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

ISSUE

1. Whether a foreign national has an obligation to support his minor child under Philippine law.
2. Whether a foreign national can be held criminally liable under R.A. No. 9262 for his unjustified failure to support his minor child.

RULING

1. On the obligation to support: The Supreme Court ruled that a foreign national is not governed by Philippine law on family rights and duties, such as the obligation to support under Article 195 of the Family Code. Applying Article 15 of the Civil Code, which states that laws relating to family rights and duties are binding upon Filipino citizens even abroad, the Court held that, by analogy, foreigners in the Philippines are governed by their national law on such matters. Since respondent is a Dutch citizen, his obligation to support his child is determined by Dutch law, not Philippine law.
2. On criminal liability under R.A. No. 9262: The Supreme Court ruled that a foreign national can be held criminally liable under R.A. No. 9262 for economic abuse, specifically deprivation of financial support, provided a legal obligation to support exists under the applicable law. The Court found that the RTC erred in dismissing the case solely because respondent was a foreigner. The Information sufficiently alleged that respondent willfully deprived his son of financial support, resulting in economic abuse. The existence of a legal obligation to support is a factual matter that must be proven during trial. Since the Information alleged facts that, if proven, would constitute a violation of R.A. No. 9262, the case should proceed to trial. The Court emphasized that R.A. No. 9262 applies to all persons in the Philippines, and its provisions on economic abuse do not distinguish between Filipino and foreign offenders. The trial court must determine, based on evidence, whether Dutch law imposes a support obligation on respondent and whether he unjustifiably failed to fulfill it, constituting a crime under Philippine law. The Orders of the RTC were reversed and set aside, and the criminal case was reinstated for further proceedings.