THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RUFINO R. GETUEZA, JR., ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
CAMELLO, J.:
In an Information[2] dated 29 December 2010, accused-appellant was charged as follows:
That sometime in the month of July 2007 up to present at Sitio Kiongkog, Barangay Palabucan, Municipality of Libona, Province of Bukidnon, Philippines, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused who sired a child with the complainant, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously commit an act of abuse against women and their children by then and there failing and depriving to provide financial support to LILYBETH B. PANIZALES and their children (sic) which financial support is legally due them, thereby causing them financial, emotional and psychological distress.
CONTRARY to and in violation of Republic Act No. 9262.
On arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty. Trial then ensued.
The following is the version of the prosecution.
Private complainant Lilybeth B. Panizales had an extra-marital affair with accused-apellant Rufino R. Getueza, Jr. since February 2006. In October 2006, she discovered that he was married, but admitted that she knew from the start of their relationship that he had four (4) children. In January the following year, she found out that she was pregnant. She told accused-appellant a month later. He pleaded her not to tell anybody that he was the father of the child. In May 2007, he gave her P4,000.00 to be used for the child’s needs.
On 16 June 2007, she gave birth to AAA. Accused-appellant did not attend to her anymore. Neither did he give her any financial support until nine months later when he gave her P1,000.00 in March 2008. Later, he would give her P1,000.00 or P2,000.00 when they see each other, which was not very often, mostly at one or two months interval. The last time he gave her financial support was in December 2010 in the amount of P5,000.00. In the meantime, complainant filed her affidavit-complaint in October 2010 against accused-appellant.
On 02 February 2011, an Information was filed charging accused-appellant with Violation of R.A. 9262, on the ground of economic abuse.
Accused-appellant then timely filed his Motion to Quash the Information, alleging that before he can be tried for economic abuse, it must first be established a priori that he has an obligation to the child. In other words, the filiation of the child must first be judicially declared, otherwise there could not be a crime of economic abuse. The motion was denied.[3]
After the prosecution formally rested its case, accused-appellant filed a demurrer to evidence, with leave of court, alleging that based on complainant’s testimony, what she was actually demanding from accused-appellant is for him to recognize her child. There was actually no demand for financial support. Worse, there was no allegation that accused-appellant refused to give support. Instead, what he vehemently denies is the child’s filiation. The trial court again denied the demurrer to evidence.[4]
For his defense, accused-appellant denied that he was the father of the child. He also denied having had relationship with private complainant.
On 16 May 2013, the trial court[5] rendered its Decision[6] convicting accused-appellant of the crime charged. The fallo reads:
WHEREFORE, finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt for committing Violence Against Women and their Children and for failing and depriving to provide financial support to PC and their children and without any mitigating circumstance and only the presence of the aggravating circumstance of fraud and abuse of confidence, and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the court hereby sentences Rufino R. Getueza, Jr., to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day, as minimum to six (6) years, as maximum and to pay the fine of Php100,000.00. The accused is further ordered to give support in arrears to “AAA”, (through “PC”), in the amount of Php2,000.00 per month starting July 2007 until January 2011. The accused is further ordered to pay the additional current monthly support to AAA (through PC) in the amount of Php4,000.00, starting February 2011 (date of filing) and monthly thereafter, unless revoked, revised or modified, through proper motion. AAA shall continue to be under the parental authority of PC but accused is ordered to recognize AAA.
The accused is further ordered to pay PC the amount of Php50,000.00 as moral damages and the additional amount of Php25,000.00 as exemplary damages.
Finally, the accused is ordered to undergo mandatory psychological counselling or psychiatric treatment before a competent and recognized psychiatrist or psychologist or psychiatric counsellor and to report his compliance thereof within thirty (30) days from promulgation of the Judgment and every quarter thereafter.
Costs against the accused.
SO ORDERED.
Consequently, accused-appellant filed this appeal and assigned the following errors, to wit:
The lower court erred –
1. IN TAKING SCANT CONSIDERATION OF THE DEFENSES OF THE ACCUSED; AND
2. IN CONVICTING ACCUSED DESPITE THE LACK OF A PRIOR JUDGMENT DECLARING HIM AS THE FATHER OF THE CHILD.[7]
In essence, accused-appellant argues that the alleged legal basis of the criminal charge against him is the economic abuse as defined in R.A. No. 9262, which refers to acts that make or attempt to make a woman financially dependent which includes but is not limited to the withdrawal of financial support. The act thus complained of is the deprivation or threat to deprive the woman or her children of financial support legally due her or her family, or deliberately providing the woman’s children insufficient financial support. The provision is unambiguous that before the accused can be tried for such violation, it must be established a priori that he has a legal obligation to the child and by extension, to the mother herself. Verily, a separate proceeding must be had to establish beforehand the paternity of the child. Accused-appellant adds that in all pleadings, there is no admission by the accused that the child was his. The Certificate of Live Birth bears no signature of the supposed father. In short, there was no acknowledgment that the child is accused-appellant’s.
The appeal is impressed with merit.
A careful review of the records shows that private complainant’s aim in filing her affidavit-complaint is mainly to seek accused-appellant’s acknowledgment of her child and financial support. Of course, in alleging accused-appellant’s failure to give support, the prosecution based accused-appellant’s charge on economic abuse. But the object of R.A. 9262 is the protection and safety of women and children who are victims of abuse or violence. Legal support is ancillary to the issuance of a protection order under R.A. 9262, but this should not be the main case filed under this special law. Moreover, under R.A. 9262, a protection order against a respondent in the case can include the grant of legal support for the wife and the child, but this again assumes that both are entitled to a protection order and to legal support.
Unfortunately, in this case, it is apparent that the true object of her action was to claim financial support from accused-appellant for her child, her basis being that he is the supposed father. Which he vehemently denies.
To be entitled to legal support, private complainant must, in a proper action, first establish the filiation of the child, if this is not admitted or acknowledged. The child’s remedy, on the other hand, is to file through his mother, a judicial action for compulsory recognition. If filiation is beyond question, support follows as a matter of obligation. Alternatively, private complainant may directly file an action for support, where the issue of compulsory recognition may be integrated and resolved. In other words, illegitimate children are entitled to support and successional rights but their filiation must be duly proved.[8]
It must be emphasized, however, that in the present adjudication, this court is not making any conclusion as to paternity and filiation. While the trial court is correct in ruling that intent is not an essential element in crimes punishable by special law, still, the Constitutional right of an accused to be presumed innocent unless proven otherwise should not be discounted. Moreover, to convict an accused of the crime charged, his guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, unlike in civil cases where the proof needed is only a preponderance of evidence. Proof beyond reasonable doubt requires moral certainty, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.[9] In this case, the trial court committed a reversible error in concluding accused-appellant’s paternity in a criminal case through the pictures submitted by the prosecution. The pictures, by themselves, are not conclusive about accused-appellant’s paternity in the criminal case. We reiterate that in a criminal case, as compared in a civil case, an accused’s conviction must be based on proof beyond reasonable doubt, not preponderance of evidence.
Assuming for the sake of argument that the prosecution has duly proven the child’s filiation, this does not however automatically mean that accused-appellant’s failure to provide financial support constitutes economic abuse punishable under R.A. 9262. Section 5 of R.A. 9262 provides the acts constituting violence against women and children under this law, to wit:
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:
(a) Causing physical harm to the woman or her child;
(b) Threatening to cause the woman or her child physical harm;
(c) Attempting to cause the woman or her child physical harm;
(d) Placing the woman or her child in fear of imminent physical harm;
(e) Attempting to compel or compelling the woman or her child to engage in conduct which the woman or her child has the right to desist from or desist from conduct which the woman or her child has the right to engage in, or attempting to restrict or restricting the woman’s or her child’s freedom of movement or conduct by force or threat of force, physical or other harm or threat of physical or other harm, or intimidation directed against the woman or child. This shall include, but not limited to, the following acts committed with the purpose or effect of controlling or restricting the woman’s or her child’s movement or conduct:
(1) Threatening to deprive or actually depriving the woman or her child of custody to her/his family;
(2) Depriving or threatening to deprive the woman or her children of financial support legally due her or her family, or deliberately providing the woman’s children insufficient financial support;
(3) Depriving or threatening to deprive the woman or her child of a legal right;
(4) Preventing the woman in engaging in any legitimate profession, occupation, business or activity or controlling the victim’s own money or properties, or solely controlling the conjugal or common money, or properties;
(f) Inflicting or threatening to inflict physical harm on oneself for the purpose of controlling her actions or decisions;
(g) Causing or attempting to cause the woman or her child to engage in any sexual activity which does not constitute rape, by force or threat of force, physical harm, or through intimidation directed against the woman or her child or her/his immediate family;
(h) Engaging in purposeful, knowing, or reckless conduct, personally or through another, that alarms or causes substantial emotional or psychological distress to the woman or her child. This shall include, but not be limited to, the following acts:
(1) Stalking or following the woman or her child in public or private places;
(2) Peering in the window or lingering outside the residence of the woman or her child;
(3) Entering or remaining in the dwelling or on the property of the woman or her child against her/his will;
(4) Destroying the property and personal belongings or inflicting harm to animals or pets of the woman or her child; and
(5) Engaging in any form of harassment or violence;
(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.[10]
Economic abuse, as defined under R.A. 9262, refers to acts that make or attempt to make a woman financially dependent. This includes the withdrawal of financial support or preventing the woman from engaging in any legitimate profession, occupation, business or activity, the deprivation or threat to deprive of financial resources, or controlling the woman’s own money or properties or solely controlling the conjugal money or properties.[11]
In this case, facts show that while accused-appellant may have failed to provide financial support for his supposed child, there is no evidence that private complainant was financially dependent upon him. They are not living together. The financial support was not regular such that its deprivation has caused significant harm, intimidation or harassment. There was even no clear demand for it. Accused may really have refused to give the child the support due him, if indeed accused-appellant is the father, but the deprivation per se does not constitute a criminal act as defined in R.A. 9262. Under this special law, the deprivation or threat to deprive financial support is but a means by which the perpetrator (a) attempts to compel or compels the woman or her child to engage in conduct which the latter has the right to desist from or, its opposite, that is, to desist from conduct which the woman and her child has the right to engage in; or (b) attempts to restrict or restricts the woman’s or her child’s freedom of movement or conduct by force or threat of force, physical or other harm (including economic abuse), or threat of physical or other harm (including economic abuse), or intimidation directed against the woman and her child; or (c) causes mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to the woman or her child. Regrettably, the prosecution failed to prove these acts.
In passing, while this Court is ever mindful of the best interests of the child in cases involving filiation and support, it is just as equally aware of the Constitutional right of an accused to be presumed innocent unless proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. We are also wary of the potential abuse or misuse of this special law to pressure, if not intimidate, putative fathers to give financial support to their supposed children, instead of going through the ordinary civil procedure to claim support and compulsory recognition.
FOR THESE REASONS, the appeal is GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated 16 May 2013 is REVERSED, and accused-appellant RUFINO R. GETUEZA, JR. is ACQUITTED of the crime charged on reasonable doubt, without prejudice to the filing of an appropriate civil action, if warranted.
In accordance with Section 1(a), Rule VII of the 2009 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals (IRCA), the Division Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to immediately make an Entry of Judgment.
SO ORDERED.
Inting, and Perez, JJ., concur.
[1] Under Rule 122, Rules of Court.
[2] Records, p. 2.
[3] Resolution dated 18 August 2011, Records, pp. 52-54.
[4] Resolution/Order dated 27 September 2012, Records, pp. 144-148.
[5] Hon. Jose U. Yamut, Sr., Presiding.
[6] Records, pp. 203-212.
[7] Rollo, p. 12.
[8] Dolina v. Vallecera, G.R. No. 182367, December 15, 2010.
[9] Section 2, Rule 133, Rules of Court.
[10] Italics supplied.
[11] SECTION 3. Definition of Terms. Xxx
A. XXX
B XXX
C. XXX
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:
1. withdrawal of financial support or preventing the victim from engaging in any legitimate profession, occupation, business or activity, except in cases wherein the other spouse/partner objects on valid, serious and moral grounds as defined in Article 73 of the Family Code;
2. deprivation or threat of deprivation of financial resources and the right to the use and enjoyment of the conjugal, community or property owned in common;
3. destroying household property;
4. controlling the victims’ own money or properties or solely controlling the conjugal money or properties.