128 - de Guzman, Perez, GR 156013, July 25, 2006

SECOND DIVISION
ROBERTO P. DE GUZMAN, G.R. No. 156013

Petitioner,
Present:
PUNO, J., Chairperson,

SANDOVALGUTIERREZ,
v e r s u s CORONA,
AZCUNA and
GARCIA, JJ.
HERNANDO B. PEREZ, in his

capacity as Secretary of Justice,
and SHIRLEY F. ABERDE,
Respondents. Promulgated:
July 25, 2006
xx
DECISION
CORONA, J.:
May a parent who fails or refuses to do his part in providing his child the
education his station in life and financial condition permit, be charged for
[1]
[2]
neglect of child under Article 59(4)
of PD 603?
[3]
In this petition for certiorari,
petitioner Roberto P. de Guzman
assails the January 3, 2002 resolution of public respondent, then Justice
Secretary Hernando B. Perez, dismissing de Guzmans petition for review of
the City Prosecutor of Lipa Citys resolution in I.S. No. 20002111. Likewise
questioned is public respondents September 24, 2002 resolution denying
reconsideration.
Petitioner and private respondent Shirley F. Aberde became sweethearts

while studying law in the University of Sto. Tomas. Their studies were
interrupted when private respondent became pregnant. She gave birth to
petitioners child, Robby Aberde de Guzman, on October 2, 1987.
Private respondent and petitioner never got married. In 1991,

petitioner married another woman with whom he begot two children.
Petitioner sent money for Robbys schooling only twice the first in 1992 and
the second in 1993. In 1994, when Robby fell seriously ill, petitioner gave
private respondent P7,000
hospitalization
and
medical
to
help
defray
expenses.
the
Other
cost
than
of
these
the
childs
instances,
petitioner never provided any other financial support for his son.
In 1994, in order to make ends meet and to provide for Robbys needs,
private respondent accepted a job as a factory worker in Taiwan where she
worked for two years. It was only because of her short stint overseas that
she was able to support Robby and send him to school. However, she
reached the point where she had just about spent all her savings to provide
for her and Robbys needs. The childs continued education thus became
uncertain.
On the other hand, petitioner managed the de Guzman family

corporations. He apparently did well as he led a luxurious lifestyle. He
owned at least five luxury cars, lived in a palatial home in the exclusive
enclave of Ayala Heights Subdivision, Quezon City, built a bigger and more
extravagant house in the same private community, and sent his children
(by his wife) to expensive schools in Metro Manila. He also regularly traveled
abroad with his family. Despite his fabulous wealth, however, petitioner
failed to provide support to Robby.
In a letter dated February 21, 2000, private respondent demanded support

for Robby who was entering high school that coming schoolyear (June
2000). She explained that, given her financial problems, it was extremely
difficult for her to send him to a good school.
Petitioner ignored private respondents demand. The latter was thus forced
to rely on the charity of her relatives so that she could enroll her son in De
La Salle high school in Lipa City.
[4]
On June 15, 2000, private respondent filed a criminal complaint
for
abandonment and neglect of child under Article 59(2) and (4) of PD 603
with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Lipa City. It was docketed as I.S.
No. 20002111.
[5]
In his counteraffidavit,
petitioner averred that he never abandoned
nor intended to abandon Robby whom he readily acknowledged as his son.
He claimed that he discharged his responsibilities as a father and said that
he paid P7,000 for his sons hospitalization and medical needs. He also
shouldered the expenses of Robbys birth and sent money to help out when
Robby was sick or was in need of money. Claiming financial incapacity, he
insisted that the acts attributed to him did not constitute abandonment or
neglect.
Petitioner pointed out that private respondent was the financially capable
parent while he had no fixed job and merely depended on the charity of his
father. He asserted that the five luxury cars belonged not to him but to
Balintawak Cloverleaf Market Corporation. He denied ownership of the big
house in Ayala Heights Subdivision, Quezon City. He lived there with his
family only by tolerance of his father. He also disclaimed ownership of the
newly constructed house and again pointed to his father as the owner. Even
the schooling of his two children (by his wife) was shouldered by his father.
On August 1, 2000, private respondent submitted her replyaffidavit.
[6]
To prove petitioners financial capacity to support Robbys education, she
attached a notarized copy of the General Information Sheet (GIS) of the

RNCD Development Corporation. It showed that petitioner owned P750,000
worth of paidup corporate shares.
[7]
In his rejoinderaffidavit,
petitioner maintained that his equity in the
RNCD Development Corporation belonged in reality to his father. The
shares were placed in his name only because he had no means to invest in
the corporation. He could not use, withdraw, assign or alienate his shares.
Moreover, the corporation was virtually dormant and petitioner did not
receive any compensation as its secretary.
On August 15, 2000, the City Prosecutor of Lipa City issued his
[8]
resolution
dismissing the complaint for abandonment but finding
probable cause to charge petitioner with neglect of child punishable under
[9]
[10]
Article 59(4) of PD 603 in relation to Section 10(a)
of RA 7610.
On August 25, 2000, an information was filed before Branch 85 of the

Regional Trial Court of Lipa City for the crime of neglecting a minor child. It
was docketed as Criminal Case No. 043100.
Before petitioner could be arraigned, however, he filed a petition for review

of the City Prosecutors resolution with the Secretary of Justice.
On January 3, 2002, public respondent dismissed the petition for

[11]
review and affirmed the City Prosecutors resolution.
He found that
petitioners ostentatious and luxurious lifestyle constituted circumstantial
evidence of his ample financial resources and high station in life. Petitioner
did not deny allegations that he failed to send a single centavo for the
education of his son. All the elements of the offense were therefore
sufficiently established. Petitioners claim that everything he had belonged to
his father was a defense which should properly be raised only during trial.
[12]
[13]
Petitioner sought reconsideration but the same was denied.
Hence, this
petition.
Petitioner contends that public respondent acted with grave abuse of

discretion in sustaining the City Prosecutors resolution. He insists that
there is no probable cause to justify his prosecution for neglect of a minor
child. First, he is financially incapable to give support. One can only be
charged with neglect if he has the means but refuses to give it. Second,
Robby is not a neglected child. He has been given, albeit by private
respondent who is the financially capable parent, the requisite education he
is entitled to.
The petition is without merit.
The rule is that judicial review of the resolution of the Secretary of

Justice is limited to a determination of whether it is tainted with grave
[14]
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Courts
are without power to substitute their judgment for that of the executive
[15]
branch.
They may only look into the question of whether such exercise
[16]
has been made in grave abuse of discretion.
Grave abuse of discretion is such capricious and whimsical exercise of

[17]
judgment which amounts to an excess or lack of jurisdiction.
Where it is
not shown that the findings complained of are wholly devoid of evidentiary
support or that they are patently erroneous as to constitute serious abuse
[18]
of discretion, the findings must be sustained.
The assailed resolutions of public respondent were supported by
evidence on record and grounded in law. They were not issued in a
capricious, whimsical or arbitrary manner. There is therefore no reason to
countermand them.
Petitioner is charged with neglect of child punishable under Article 59(4) of

PD 603 which provides that:
Art.59.Crimes.Criminalliabilityshallattachtoanyparentwho:
xxxxxxxxx
(4)Neglectsthechildbynotgivinghimtheeducationwhichthefamilysstationinlife
andfinancialconditionspermit.
xxxxxxxxx
The crime has the following elements:

(1)the offender is a parent
(2)he or she neglects his or her own child
(3)the neglect consists in not giving education to the child and
(4) the offenders station in life and financial condition permit him to
give an appropriate education to the child.
Here, petitioner acknowledged Robby as his son. He has not denied

that he never contributed for his education except in two instances (1992
and 1993). He admitted that the boys education was being financed by
private respondent and her relatives. He stated under oath that the last
time he sent material support to his son was in 1994 when he gave P7,000
for the latters hospitalization and medical expenses.
There is a prima facie showing from the evidence that petitioner is in fact
financially capable of supporting Robbys education. The notarized GIS of
the
RNCD
Development
Corporation
indicates
that
petitioner
owns
P750,000 worth of paidup shares in the company.
Petitioners assertion that the GIS is not evidence of his financial

capability (since the shares are allegedly owned by his father) is of no
moment. The claim is factual and evidentiary, and therefore a defense
which should be interposed during the trial.
The argument that criminal liability for neglect of child under Article
59(4) of PD 603 attaches only if both parents are guilty of neglecting the
childs education does not hold water.
The law is clear. The crime may be committed by any parent. Liability
for the crime does not depend on whether the other parent is also guilty of
neglect. The law intends to punish the neglect of any parent, which neglect
corresponds to the failure to give the child the education which the familys
station in life and financial condition permit. The irresponsible parent
cannot exculpate himself from the consequences of his neglect by invoking
the other parents faithful compliance with his or her own parental duties.
Petitioners position goes against the intent of the law. To allow the
neglectful parent to shield himself from criminal liability defeats the

prescription that in all questions regarding the care, custody, education and
[19]
property of the child, his welfare shall be the paramount consideration.
However, while petitioner can be indicted for violation of Article 59(4)

of PD 603, the charge against him cannot be made in relation to Section
10(a) of RA 7610 which provides:
SEC. 10. Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty or Exploitation and Other
ConditionsPrejudicialtotheChildsDevelopment.
(a) Any person who shall commit any other acts of child abuse, cruelty or
exploitation or be responsible for other conditions prejudicial to the childs
developmentincludingthosecoveredbyArticle59ofPDNo.603,asamended,but
notcoveredbytheRevisedPenalCode,asamended,shallsufferthepenaltyof
prisionmayorinitsminimumperiod.(emphasissupplied)
xxxxxxxxx
The law expressly penalizes any person who commits other acts of
neglect, child abuse, cruelty or exploitation or be responsible for other
conditions prejudicial to the childs development including those covered by
Article 59 of PD 603 but not covered by the Revised Penal Code.
The neglect of child punished under Article 59(4) of PD 603 is also a

crime (known as indifference of parents) penalized under the second
[20]
paragraph of Article 277 of the Revised Penal Code.
Hence, it is
excluded from the coverage of RA 7610.
We make no determination of petitioners guilt or innocence of the
crime charged. The presumption of innocence in his favor still stands. What
has been ascertained is simply the existence of probable cause for
petitioners indictment for the charge against him, that is, whether there is
sufficient ground to engender a wellfounded belief that a crime has been
committed and that petitioner is probably guilty thereof, and should thus
be held for trial. Petitioners guilt should still be proven beyond reasonable
doubt in Criminal Case No. 043100.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED.
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ANGELINA SANDOVALGUTIERREZ ADOLFO S. AZCUNA

Associate Justice Associate Justice
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached
in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of
the Courts Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the

Division Chairpersons Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the
above decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
[1]
Itattachescriminalliabilitytoanyparentwhoneglectshischildbynotgivingthelattertheeducationwhichthefamilys
stationinlifeandfinancialconditionpermit.
[2]
ChildandYouthWelfareCode.
[3]
UnderRule65oftheRulesofCourt.
[4]
ComplaintaffidavitdatedJune15,2000rollo,pp.3739.
[5]
DatedJuly27,2000id.,pp.4046.
[6]
Id.,pp.4756.
[7]
DatedAugust9,2000id.,pp.5761.
[8]
Id.,pp.6266.
[9]
Itpenalizesanypersonwhocommitsotheractsofneglect,childabuse,crueltyorexploitationorberesponsibleforother
conditionsprejudicialtothechildsdevelopmentincludingthosecoveredbyArticle59ofPD603,asamended,butnot
coveredbytheRevisedPenalCode.
[10]
SpecialProtectionofChildrenAgainstChildAbuse,ExploitationandDiscriminationAct.
[11]
ResolutiondatedJanuary3,2002rollo,pp.2326.
[12]
Id.
[13]
ResolutiondatedSeptember24,2002id.,pp.2728.
[14]
MetropolitanBank&TrustCo.v.Tonda,392Phil.797(2000).
[15]
Id.
[16]
Id.
[17]
Corpuzv.Sandiganbayan,G.R.No.162214,11November2004,442SCRA294.
[18]
EstrellaRealEstateCorporationv.CourtofAppeals,374Phil.261(1999).
[19]
Article8,PD603.
[20]
Thecrimeofindifferenceofparents,theessenceofwhichisthefailuretoprovidethechildwitheducation,ispunished
underArticle277andisalsopenalizedbyArticle59(4)ofPD603.(Regalado,CRIMINALLAWCONSPECTUS,1st
Edition[2000],NationalBookstore,Inc.,p.502)

128 - de Guzman, Perez, GR 156013, July 25, 2006

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

128 - de Guzman, Perez, GR 156013, July 25, 2006

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

128 - de Guzman, Perez, GR 156013, July 25, 2006

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SECOND DIVISION

ROBERTO P. DE GUZMAN, G.R. No. 156013

PUNO, J., Chairperson,

HERNANDO B. PEREZ, in his

Petitioner and private respondent Shirley F. Aberde became sweethearts

Private respondent and petitioner never got married. In 1991,

On the other hand, petitioner managed the de Guzman family

failed to provide support to Robby.

In a letter dated February 21, 2000, private respondent demanded support

To prove petitioners financial capacity to support Robbys education, she

attached a notarized copy of the General Information Sheet (GIS) of the

On August 25, 2000, an information was filed before Branch 85 of the

Before petitioner could be arraigned, however, he filed a petition for review

On January 3, 2002, public respondent dismissed the petition for

Petitioner contends that public respondent acted with grave abuse of

The petition is without merit.

The rule is that judicial review of the resolution of the Secretary of

Grave abuse of discretion is such capricious and whimsical exercise of

Petitioner is charged with neglect of child punishable under Article 59(4) of

The crime has the following elements:

Here, petitioner acknowledged Robby as his son. He has not denied

P750,000 worth of paidup shares in the company.

Petitioners assertion that the GIS is not evidence of his financial

neglectful parent to shield himself from criminal liability defeats the

However, while petitioner can be indicted for violation of Article 59(4)

The neglect of child punished under Article 59(4) of PD 603 is also a

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED.

Costs against petitioner.

ANGELINA SANDOVALGUTIERREZ ADOLFO S. AZCUNA

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the

You might also like