G.R. No. 223477 . February 14, 2018.
CELSO M.F.L. MELGAR, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Celso Melgar was charged with violating Section 5(e) of Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act) for economic abuse. The Information alleged that from August 2001 onwards, Melgar, with deliberate intent and having the means, deprived AAA and their minor son BBB of financial support, causing them mental anguish and public ridicule. AAA and Melgar had a romantic relationship resulting in BBB’s birth, with Melgar acknowledging paternity. When BBB was about a year old, Melgar ceased providing support. AAA secured a favorable judgment in a separate support case, but Melgar still refused to comply.
The criminal case was initially provisionally dismissed after the parties entered into a compromise agreement on the civil aspect, wherein Melgar undertook to provide support. However, the prosecution moved to revive the criminal action one year later, alleging Melgar sold a property that was supposed to answer for his support arrears under the agreement. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the revival. During trial, AAA testified that Melgar led a lavish lifestyle but refused to provide the requested support, forcing her to shoulder their son’s expenses alone. Melgar was deemed to have waived his right to present evidence due to repeated non-appearance at hearings.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly upheld Melgar’s conviction for violation of Section 5(e) of RA 9262.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The legal logic centers on the elements of economic abuse under RA 9262. The law defines economic abuse to include the withdrawal of financial support, making a woman or her child financially dependent. The Court found all elements present: (1) Melgar had a dating relationship with AAA, and they have a common child, BBB, placing him under the law’s coverage; (2) He had a legal obligation to support his illegitimate child under the Family Code; (3) He deliberately, and in evident bad faith, deprived BBB of that support despite having the financial capacity, as shown by his lifestyle; and (4) This deprivation caused mental and emotional anguish to AAA and BBB.
The Court emphasized that the act of depriving a common child of support constitutes economic abuse against the mother. Melgar’s bad faith was further demonstrated by his sale of the property designated for support arrears, violating the compromise agreement and justifying the revival of the criminal case. His waiver of the right to present evidence sealed the case against him, as the prosecution’s evidence remained uncontroverted. The penalty imposed by the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, was within the range prescribed by law. Thus, his guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.