one [AAA,  

] and her minor son, [BBB] (12 years old), by depriving them of
6

financial support, which caused mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or

humiliation, to AAA and her son.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 7

After arraignment wherein Melgar pleaded not guilty to the charge against him,
he and AAA entered into a compromise agreement  on the civil aspect of the
8

case. After the RTC's approval of the compromise agreement on June 24,
2010, the criminal aspect of the case was provisionally dismissed with Melgar's
conformity. However, one (1) year later, or on June 24, 2011, the prosecution
SECOND DIVISION moved to set aside the compromise agreement and to revive the criminal
action, on the ground that Melgar sold the property, which was supposed to,
among others, answer for the support-in-arrears of his son, BBB, from 2001 to
February 14, 2018
2010 pursuant to their compromise agreement. Consequently, the RTC revived
the criminal aspect of the case and allowed the prosecution to present its
G.R. No. 223477 evidence.9

CELSO M.F.L. MELGAR, Petitioner  The prosecution alleged that in 1995, AAA had a romantic relationship with
vs. Melgar, which resulted in the birth of BBB, an illegitimate child. Melgar freely
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent acknowledged the paternity of BBB as evidenced by the latter's Certificate of
Live Birth, as well as numerous photographs showing Melgar with BBB.
DECISION However, AAA's relationship with Melgar turned sour as the latter had an affair
with a younger woman. When BBB was just about one (1) year old, Melgar
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: stopped giving support, prompting AAA to file a case for support, which was
eventually granted. This notwithstanding, Melgar still refused to give support
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari  assailing the
1 for her and BBB. As such, AAA was constrained to file the instant criminal case
Decision  dated August 28, 2015 and the Resolution  dated February 10, 2016
2 3 against Melgar. 10

of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB-CR No. 02211, which affirmed
the Judgment  dated September 10, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu
4
To substantiate her claims, AAA averred that Melgar could afford to provide
City, Branch 6 (RTC) in Crim. Case No. CBU-87386 finding petitioner Celso support of ₱5,000.00 per month because he has a lavish lifestyle with his
M.F.L. Melgar (Melgar) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5 family. He owns a Toyota Avanza and his children are enrolled in ██████.
(e) of Republic Act No. (RA) 9262,  otherwise known as the "Anti-Violence
5
On the other hand, her son, BBB, is a scholar at ████████████████ and
Against Women and their Children Act of 2004." she spends the amount of ₱20,000.00 a month for his needs, of which she
asked Melgar for ₱8,000.00 as support. 11

An Information was filed before the RTC charging Melgar with violation Section
5 of RA 9262, the accusatory portion of which reads: For his part, Melgar was deemed to have waived his right to adduce evidence
due to his repeated failure to appear during trial.
12

That on or about the month of August, 2001 and subsequent thereto, in the
City of Cebu, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the The RTC Ruling
said accused, having the means and capacity to give financial support, with
deliberate intent, did then and there commit acts of economic abuse against
In a Judgment  dated September 10, 2012, the RTC found Melgar guilty
13
perpetrated by women's intimate partners, i.e., husband, former husband, or
beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5 (e) of RA 9262 and, any person who has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom the
accordingly, sentenced him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an woman has a common child, or against her child whether legitimate or
indeterminate period of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four illegitimate, within or without the family abode, which result in or is likely to
(4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional,as maximum. 14
result in, inter alia,economic abuse.  The said law defines "economic abuse as
25

follows:
The RTC found Melgar to have committed economic abuse against AAA and
their son, BBB, when he stopped supporting them. Worse, he sold the property Section 3. Definition of Terms. - xx x.
which was supposed to answer for his support-in-arrears from 2001 to 2010. 15

xx xx
Melgar moved for reconsideration,  which was, however, denied in an
16

Order  dated May 9, 2013 of the RTC. Aggrieved, Melgar appealed  to the CA.
17 18
D. "Economic abuse" refers to acts that make or attempt to make a woman
financially dependent which includes, but is not limited to the following:
The CA Ruling
1. withdrawal of financial support or preventing the victim from engaging in any
In a Decision  dated August 28, 2015, the CA affirmed Melgar's conviction. It
19
legitimate profession, occupation, business or activity, except in cases wherein
held that Melgar is legally obliged to support BBB.  As such, when he
20
the other spouse/partner objects on valid, serious and moral grounds as
deliberately and with evident bad faith deprived BBB of support, he committed defined in Article 73 of the Family Code;
economic abuse under Section 5 (e) of RA 9262. In this regard, the CA
observed that the reinstatement of the criminal case was prompted by Melgar's 2. deprivation or threat of deprivation of financial resources and the right to the
evident refusal to comply with the judgment based on compromise agreement, use and enjoyment of the conjugal, community or property owned in common;
particularly, in providing support to his son; and worse, in conveying to another
person the parcel of land which was supposed to, among others, answer for 3. destroying household property;
the support-in-arrears of his son from 2001 to 2010.  Lastly, the CA ruled that
21

Melgar's acts "has clearly caused mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule
4. controlling the victim's own money or properties or solely controlling the
or humiliation to [AAA] and her child[, BBB]." 22

conjugal money or properties.

Undaunted, Melgar moved for reconsideration,  which was, however, denied in
23

xx xx
a Resolution  dated February 10, 2016; hence, this petition.
24

As may be gathered from the foregoing, "economic abuse" may include the
The Issue Before the Court
deprivation of support of a common child of the man-accused and the woman-
victim, whether such common child is legitimate or not.  This specific act is
26

The issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA correctly upheld penalized by Section 5 (e) of RA 9262, pertinent portions of which read:
Melgar's conviction for violation of Section 5 (e) of RA 9262.
Section 5. Acts of Violence Against Women and Their Children. - The crime of
The Court's Ruling violence against women and their children is committed through any of the
following acts:
The petition is bereft of merit.
xx xx
Enacted in 2004, RA 9262 is a landmark legislation that defines and
criminalizes acts of violence against women and their children (VAWC)
(e) Attempting to compel or compelling the woman or her child to engage in Melgar's contention is untenable.
conduct which the woman or her child has the right to desist from or to desist
from conduct which the woman or her child has the right to engage in, or Section 5 (i) of RA 9262, a form of psychological violence,  punishes the act
31

attempting to restrict or restricting the woman's or her child's freedom of of "causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to
movement or conduct by force or threat of force, physical or other harm or the woman or her child, including, but not limited to, repeated verbal and
threat of physical or other harm, or intimidation directed against the woman or emotional abuse, and denial of financial support or custody of minor children
child.  This shall include, but not limited to, the following acts committed with
1âшphi1
or denial of access to the woman's child/children." Notably, "[p]sychological
the purpose or effect of controlling or restricting the woman's or her child's violence is an element of violation of Section 5 (i) just like the mental or
movement or conduct: emotional anguish caused on the victim. Psychological violence is the means
employed by the perpetrator, while mental or emotional anguish is the effect
xx xx caused to or the damage sustained by the offended party. To establish
psychological violence as an element of the crime, it is necessary to show
(2) Depriving or threatening to deprive the woman or her children of financial proof of commission of any of the acts enumerated in Section 5 (i) or similar
support legally due her or her family, or deliberately providing the woman's acts. And to establish mental or emotional anguish, it is necessary to present
children insufficient financial support; the testimony of the victim as such experiences are personal to this
party."  Thus, in cases of support, it must be first shown that the accused's
32

(3) Depriving or threatening to deprive the woman or her child of a legal right; denial thereof - which is, by itself, already a form of economic abuse - further
caused mental or emotional anguish to the woman-victim and/or to their
common child.
Under this provision, the deprivation or denial of financial support to the child is
considered an act of violence against women and children.  Notably, case law
27

instructs that the act of denying support to a child is a continuing offense. 28 In this case, while the prosecution had established that Melgar indeed deprived
AAA and BBB of support, no evidence was presented to show that such
deprivation caused either AAA or BBB any mental or emotional anguish.
In this case, the courts a quo correctly found that all the elements of violation
Therefore, Melgar cannot be convicted of violation of Section 5 (i) of RA 9262.
of Section 5 (e) of RA 9262 are present, as it was established that: (a) Melgar
This notwithstanding - and taking into consideration the variance doctrine
and AAA had a romantic relationship, resulting in BBB's birth; (b)Melgar freely
which allows the conviction of an accused for a crime proved which is different
acknowledged his paternity over BBB; (c) Melgar had failed to provide BBB
from but necessarily included in the crime charged  - the courts a quo correctly
33

support ever since the latter was just a year old; and (d) his intent of not
convicted Melgar of violation of Section 5 (e) of RA 9262 as the deprivation or
supporting BBB was made more apparent when he sold to a third party his
denial of support, by itself and even without the additional element of
property which was supposed to answer for, among others, his support-in-
psychological violence, is already specifically penalized therein.
arrears to BBB. Thus, the Court finds no reason to deviate from the factual
findings of the trial court, as affirmed by the CA, as there is no indication that it
overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied the surrounding facts and As to the proper penalty to be imposed on Melgar, Section 6 of RA 9262
circumstances of the case. In fact, the trial court was in the best position to provides that violations of Section 5 (e) shall be punished by, inter alia, prision
assess and determine the credibility of the witnesses presented by both parties correccional. Notably, while such crime is punishable by a special penal law,
and, hence, due deference should be accorded to the same. 29 the penalty provided therein is taken from the technical nomenclature in the
Revised Penal Code (RPC). In Quimvel v. People,  the Court succinctly
34

discussed the proper treatment of prescribed penalties found in special penal

In an attempt to absolve himself from criminal liability, Melgar argues, inter
laws vis-a-vis Act No. 4103,  otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence
35

alia, that he was charged of violation of Section 5 (i) of RA 9262 as the

Law, viz.:
Information alleged that the acts complained of "caused mental or emotional
anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to [AAA] and her son[, BBB]." As such,
he contends that he cannot be convicted of violation of Section 5 (e) of RA Meanwhile, Sec. 1 of Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate
9262. 30 Sentence Law (ISL), provides that if the offense is ostensibly punished under a
special law, the minimum and maximum prison term of the indeterminate ANTONIO T. CARPIO
sentence shall not be beyond what the special law prescribed. Be that as it Associate Justice
may, the Court had clarified in the landmark ruling of People v. Simon [(G.R. Chairperson
No. 93028, July 29, 1994, 239 SCRA 555)] that the situation is different where
although the offense is defined in a special law, the penalty therefor is taken
from the technical nomenclature in the RPC. Under such circumstance, the ALFREDO BENJAMIN S.
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
legal effects under the system of penalties native to the Code would also CAGUIOA *

Associate Justice
necessarily apply to the special law.
36
Associate Justice

Otherwise stated, if the special penal law adopts the nomenclature of the
penalties under the RPC, the ascertainment of the indeterminate sentence will ANDRES B. REYES, JR.
be based on the rules applied for those crimes punishable under the RPC. 37 Associate Justice

Applying the foregoing to this case, the courts a quo correctly imposed on ATTESTATION
Melgar the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of six (6)
months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months I attest that the conclusions in the above Decisionhad been reached in
of prision correccional, as maximum. In addition, Melgar is also ordered to pay consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
a fine in the amount of ₱300,000.00, to undergo a mandatory psychological Court’s Division.
counselling or psychiatric treatment, and report compliance to the court.
38

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Accordingly, the Decision dated August Associate Justice
28, 2015 and the Resolution dated February 10, 2016 of the Court of Appeals Chairperson, Second Division
in CA-G.R. CEB-CR No. 02211 finding petitioner Celso M.F .L.
Melgar GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5 (e) of Republic CERTIFICATION
Act No. 9262, otherwise known as the "Anti-Violence Against Women and
Their Children Act of 2004," are Pursuant to the Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division
hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, sentencing petitioner Celso M.F.L. Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision
Melgar: (a) to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) the opinion of the Court’s Division.
months of prision correccional, as maximum; (b) to pay a fine in the amount of
₱300,000.00; and (c) to undergo a mandatory psychological counselling or
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO
psychiatric treatment and report compliance to the Regional Trial Court of
Chief Justice
Cebu City, Branch 6.

SO ORDERED.

ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice Footnotes

WE CONCUR:
*
 On official business.

1
 Rollo, pp. 12-43.
 Id. at 50-61. Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo L. Delos Santos
2 10
 See id. at 89-90.
with Associate Justices Renato C. Francisco and Edward B. Contreras
concurring. 11
 See id. at 90-91.

 Id. at 64-65. Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo L. Delos Santos

3 12
 Id. at 52. See also id. at 92.
with Associate Justices Edward B. Contreras and Germano Francisco
D. Legaspi concurring. 13
 Id. at 88-93.
4
 Id. at 88-93. Penned by Presiding Judge Ester M. Veloso. 14
 Id. at 93.

 Entitled "AN ACT DEFINING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND

5
15
 See id. at 92-93.
THEIR CHILDREN, PROVIDING FOR PROTECTIVE MEASURES
FOR VICTIMS, PRESCRIBING PENAL TIES THEREFORE, AND FOR 16
 See motion for reconsideration dated February 4, 2013; id. at 94-98.
OTHER PURPOSES," approved on March 8, 2004.
17
 Id. at 99-101.
6
 The identity of the victim or any information which could establish or
compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family or
household members, shall be withheld pursuant to RA 7610, entitled
18
 Not attached to the rollo.
"AN ACT PROVIDING FOR STRONGER DETERRENCE AND
SPECIAL PROTECTION AGAINST CHILD ABUSE, EXPLOITATION
19
 Rollo, pp. 50-61.
AND DISCRIMINATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved
on June 17, 1992; RA 9262, entitled "AN ACT DEFINING VIOLENCE 20
 Id. at 60.
AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN, PROVIDING FOR
PROTECTIVE MEASURES FOR VICTIMS, PRESCRIBING 21
 See id. at 55-60.
PENALTIES THEREFORE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,"
approved on March 8, 2004; and Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-1 l-SC, 22
 Id. at 60.
otherwise known as the "Rule on Violence against Women and Their
Children" (November 15, 2004). (See footnote 4 in People v. Cadano, 23
 See motion for reconsideration dated October 7, 2015; id. at 66-78.
Jr., 729 Phil. 576, 578 [2014], citing People v. Lomaque, 710 Phil. 338,
342 [2013]. See also Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015,
entitled "PROTOCOLS AND PROCEDURES IN THE
24
 Id. at 64-65.
PROMULGATION, PUBLICATION, AND POSTING ON THE
WEBSITES OF DECISIONS, FINAL RESOLUTIONS, AND FINAL  See Section 3 (a) of RA 9262. See also Garcia v. Drilon, 712 Phil. 44,
25

ORDERS USINU FICTITIOUS NAMES/PERSONAL 66 (2013).

CIRCUMSTANCES," dated September 5, 2017.)
 Under the Family Code, parents are obliged to provide for their
26

7
 Rollo, pp. 50-51 and 88. children, whether legitimate or illegitimate, support which comprises
everything indispensable for sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical
8
 Dated June 23, 2010. Id. at 85-87. attendance, education and transportation, in keeping with the financial
capacity of the family. This obligation to give support is demandable
from the time the person who is entitled thereto needs it, and such
9
 See id. at 51-52.
obligation may be enforced through a civil action for this purpose. (See the latter. And an offense charged is necessarily included in the
Articles 194, 195, and 203 of the Family Code.) offense proved, when the essential ingredients of the former
constitute or form part of those constituting the latter.
 Del Socorro v. Van Wilsem, 749 Phil. 823, 839 (2014).
27

34
 See G.R. No. 214497, April 18, 2017.
 Id. at 840.
28

 Entitled "AN ACT TO PROVIDE AN INDETERMINATE SENTENCE

35

 See Peralta v. People, G.R. No. 221991, August 30, 2017,

29 AND PAROLE FOR ALL PERSONS CONVICTED OF CERTAIN
citing People v. Matibag, 757 Phil. 286, 293 (2015). CRIMES BY THE COURTS OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS; TO
CREATE A BOARD OF INDETERMINATE SENTENCE AND TO
 See rollo, pp. 21-34.
30 PROVIDE FUNDS THEREFOR; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,"
approved on December 5, 1933.
 Under Section 3 (a) (C) of RA 9262, '" [p]sychological violence' refers
31

to acts or omissions causing or likely to cause mental or emotional

36
 See Quimvel v. People, supra note 34.
suffering of the victim such as but not limited to intimidation,
harassment, stalking, damage to property, public ridicule or humiliation,  See Peralta v. People, supra note 29, citing Mabunot v. People, G.R.
37

repeated verbal abuse and marital infidelity. It includes causing or No. 204659, September 19, 2016, 803 SCRA 349, 364.
allowing the victim to witness the physical, sexual or psychological
abuse of a member of the family to which the victim belongs, or to 38
 Pertinent portions of Section 6 of RA 9262 read:
witness pornography in any form or to witness abusive injury to pets or
to unlawful or unwanted deprivation of the right to custody and/or Section 6. Penalties. - The crime of violence against women
visitation of common children." and their children, under Section 5 hereof shall be punished
according to the following rules:
 Dinamling v. People, 761 Phil. 356, 376(2015).
32

xx xx
 See People v. Caoili, G .R. Nos. 196342 and 196848, August 8,
33

2017. See also Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 120 of the 2000 Revised In addition to imprisonment, the perpetrator shall (a) pay a fine
Rules of Criminal Procedure, which read: in the amount of not less than One hundred thousand pesos
(₱100,000.00) but not more than Three hundred thousand
Section 4. Judgment in case of variance between allegation pesos (₱300,000.00); (b) undergo mandatory psychological
and proof - When there is variance between the offense counseling or psychiatric treatment and shall report compliance
charged in the complaint or information and that proved, and to the court.
the offense as charged is included in or necessarily includes
the offense proved, the accused shall be convicted of the
offense proved which is included in the offense charged, or of
the offense charged which is included in the offense proved.

Section 5. When an offense includes or is included in another. -

An offense charged necessarily includes the offense proved
when some of the essential elements or ingredients of the
former, as alleged in the complaint or information, constitute