Republic of the Philippines

Court of Appeals
Manila

SPECIAL ELEVENTH (11th) DIVISION

*

PEOPLE OF THE CA G.R. CR NO. 39451

PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

Members:

BALTAZAR-PADILLA, P. J.,
Chairperson,
-versus- DIY, M.E. S., &
*
MARTIN, R.R. B., JJ.

Promulgated:
OCT. 14, 2019
XXX,1 ___________________
Accused-Appellant.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

DIY, J:

This is an appeal under Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil

Procedure which assails the Decision 2 dated
November 11, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
* Acting Junior Member per Office Order No. 459-19-RSF dated September 25, 2019.
1 In this version of the Decision, the real names of the accused-appellant, the victim, the latter's personal
circumstances and other information which tend to establish or compromise the victim's identity, as well as those of
her immediate family or household members, shall not be disclosed to protect her privacy and fictitious initials shall,
instead, be used, in accordance with Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 (Subject: Protocols and Procedures in the
Promulgation, Publication, and Posting on the Websites of Decisions, Final Resolutions, and Final Orders Using
Fictitious Names/Personal Circumstances) (People of the Philippines vs. Manuel Basa, Jr., a.k.a. "Jun" , G.R. No.
237349, February 27, 2019; Erlinda Escolano y Ignacio vs. People of the Philippines , G.R. No. 226991, December 10,
2018).
2 Penned by Judge Roslyn M. Rabara-Tria, Rollo, pp. 49-54.
CA-G.R. CR No. 39451 Page 2 of 12
Decision

Quezon City in Criminal Case Nos. R-QZN-14-00309-CR, R-

QZN-14-00310-CR and R-QZN-14-00311-CR (assailed
Decision), finding accused-appellant XXX (accused-appellant)
guilty of violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9262
or the “Anti-Violence against Women and Their Children Act of
2004”.

The Antecedents

The three (3) Informations all dated June 6, 2012

charged accused-appellant with violation of Sections 5(a), 5(b)
and 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262, respectively. The accusatory portions
of the Informations read:

Criminal Case No. R-QZN-14-00309-CR

That on or about March , 2011, in Quezon City,

Philippines, the said accused, did then and there, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously commit physical violence against
his common-law wife, AAA, by then and there pushing her
while being pregnant, to the damage and prejudice of the said
offended party.

CONTRARY TO LAW.3

Criminal Case No. R-QZN-14-00310-CR

That on or about the 18 th day of August, 2011, in

Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, did then and
there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously threatened to
commit physical harm against his common-law wife, AAA, by
then and there threatening to punch her in front of their
eldest child, BBB, to the damage and prejudice of the said
AAA and BBB.

CONTRARY TO LAW.4

Criminal Case No. R-QZN-14-00311-CR

That on or about the year 2011 and persisting up to

the present time, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said
accused, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously commit economic abuse upon his common-law

3 Record, pp. 1-2.

4 Ibid., pp. 6-7.
CA-G.R. CR No. 39451 Page 3 of 12
Decision

wife, AAA, by then and there failing to provide financial

support, thereby depriving them [of] their basic needs and
inflicting upon them psychological and emotional suffering, to
the damage and prejudice of the said offended parties.

CONTRARY TO LAW.5

Upon the prosecution's motion, the three cases were

consolidated and tried jointly.6

During his arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not

guilty to the charges.7

The Case for the Prosecution

The prosecution presented the sole testimony of private

complainant AAA (private complainant) to support the
allegations set forth in the foregoing Informations. Her
testimony tended to establish the following:

Private complainant and accused-appellant met and

became friends while they were in college. Eventually, their
friendship developed into a romantic relationship. In 2009,
they decided to live together in Pampanga, and later, in
Quezon City. Their union produced three (3) children namely,
BBB,8 CCC,9 and DDD.10

Sometime in April 2011, private complainant found out

that accused-appellant was having a relationship with a
woman from his office. Accused-appellant admitted to the
relationship but asked for private complainant's forgiveness.
They continued to live together until DDD was born. Private
complainant later on learned that accused-appellant was still
maintaining the relationship with his officemate.

On August 18, 2011, private complainant decided to

5 Record, pp. 12-13.
6 Ibid., pp. 63.
7 Ibid., p. 80.
8 Ibid., p. 85.
9 Ibid., p. 87.
10 Ibid., p. 93.
CA-G.R. CR No. 39451 Page 4 of 12
Decision

leave accused-appellant. However, she was eventually

persuaded to stay with him.

Due to their insistent quarrels and accused-appellant's

affair with his officemate, private complainant brought their
case to the barangay.

On November 3, 2011, private complainant and accused-

appellant appeared before the Barangay and executed a
“Kasunduan”, which provides that:

KASUNDUAN

Ang dalawang panig na sina AAA 23y/o at XXX, 23 y/o nag

usap at nagkasundo dito sa Brgy. YYY ng mga sumusunod.

1. Na pansamantala muna sila maghihiwalay upang

makapag isip

2. Na ang ATM ni XXX ay si AAA ang hahawak at kada

suweldo ay Php6,000.00-ang kukunin ni AAA at ang
iba ay ibabalik kay XXX kung magkano man ang
matira

3. Na ang bata ay kay AAA ang pangangalaga

4. Na hindi pagbabawalan hiramin ang mga bata kahit

anung oras ni XXX ngunit ibabalik nito sa tamang
pinag usapan nila

5. Na ang gagastos at pag aasikaso sa panganganak ni

AAA ay si XXX kapag ito ay magsilang ng kanilang
anak.

Ang dalawang panig ay kusang loob na lalagda dito sa Brgy.

YYY ng walang sinuman namilit sa kanila.

AAA (signed) XXX (signed)11

Accused-appellant provided financial support to private

complainant on November 15, 2011 12 but has failed to do the
same ever since.

11 Record, p. 90.
12 See Transcript of Stenographic Notes dated May 13, 2014, p. 11.
CA-G.R. CR No. 39451 Page 5 of 12
Decision

The Case for the Accused

The accused waived his right to present evidence.13

Decision of the RTC

After trial, the RTC rendered the assailed decision,

acquitting accused-appellant of the charges for violation of
Sections 5(a) and 5(b) of R.A. No. 9262. However, the trial
court found accused-appellant guilty of violation of Section 5(i)
of the same law. The fallo of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is

hereby rendered finding accused XXX guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act
No. 9262 otherwise known as the “Anti-Violence Against
Women and their Children Act of 2004” in Criminal Case No.
R-QZN-14-00311-CR and is hereby sentenced to an
indeterminate penalty of Two (2) years, Four (4) months and
One (1) day of prision correccional as minimum, to Six (6)
years and One (1) day of prision mayor as maximum and to
pay a fine of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00)
plus costs.

Accused is further ordered to undergo mandatory

psychological counseling at the SSDD, Quezon City and to
submit proof of compliance thereof to the court.

In Criminal Case Nos. R-QZN-14-003009-CR and R-

QZN-14-00310-CR, accused XXX is acquitted of the offense
charged on the ground of reasonable doubt.

SO ORDERED.14

Hence, this appeal raising the following errors:

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT ACCUSED-

APPELLANT WAS GAINFULLY EMPLOYED

13 Per RTC Order dated April 5, 2016, Record, p. 131.

14 Supra, note 2.
CA-G.R. CR No. 39451 Page 6 of 12
Decision

II

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT ACCUSED-

APPELLANT DENIED SUPPORT TO HIS CHILDREN WITH
THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT

In this appeal, accused-appellant questions the trial

court's finding that he is unlawfully withholding financial
support from private complainant and their children. He
brings forth, for the first time, a Certification 15 dated January
2, 2012 from Masterbatch Phils, Inc., (“Masterbatch”), which
states that he had been employed in said company as
production engineer from May 30 to November 23, 2011. He
alleges that shortly after the execution of the “Kasunduan”, he
lost his only source of income.

He argues that the loss of his employment should be

considered in determining the issue of denial of financial
support. Thus, he contends that he should not be ordered to
provide financial support for private complainant and their
children.

He proceeds to question private complainant's credibility,

contending that her statements as to accused-appellant's
employment are self-serving, hearsay, and insufficient to prove
his guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.

The Ruling of the Court

The determination of the instant controversy centers on

the culpability of accused-appellant for Section 5(i) of R.A. No.
9262 , which provides:

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:

xxx

15 Rollo, p. 71.
CA-G.R. CR No. 39451 Page 7 of 12
Decision

(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 or denial of access to the
woman's child/children.

Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262, a form of psychological

violence, punishes the act of "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 or denial of access to the woman's
child/children."16 Notably, "psychological violence is an
element of violation of Section 5(i) just like the mental or
emotional anguish caused on the victim. Jurisprudence
explains that in order to prosecute a violation under Sec. 5(i)
of R.A. No. 9262, the commission of the enumerated acts must
be established, along with proof of mental or emotional
anguish caused upon the victim.17

In the instant case, after Our evaluation of the records

relative to the crime charged, We agree with the trial court that
the prosecution was able to establish accused-appellant's guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.

Private complainant's testimony was honest and

straightforward. She clearly stated that accused-appellant has
not been supporting her and their children since November
2011, viz:

ACP HAYAG (to the witness)

Q: You mentioned in your affidavit, Ms. Witness that the

accused since 2011 does not support you properly?

A: Yes, ma'am until now.

Q: When was the last support did [sic] he give you any
support, financial support?

16 Celso M.F.L. Melgar, vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 223477, February 14, 2018.
17 Celso M.F.L. Melgar, vs. People of the Philippines, supra.
CA-G.R. CR No. 39451 Page 8 of 12
Decision

A: November 15, 2011, ma'am.

Q: When was the last time you were girlfriend and

boyfriend or as live-in partners?

A: Until the third week of October, ma'am.

Q: So, after you finally broke up, he never give [sic] you
anything?

A: After we had an agreement before the barangay, he

gave support on November 15, 2011, ma'am, after that
he disappeared.

Q: He never abide [sic] by the Kasunduan you both signed

before the barangay.

A: Yes, ma'am he did not abide.

This Court has no reason to doubt the veracity of private

complainant's testimony. Verily, the positive, categorical and
credible testimony of a lone witness is sufficient to
successfully prosecute violations of Section 5(i) of R.A. No.
9262. Corroborative evidence, though helpful, is not essential,
if the testimony of the prosecution's sole witness is truthful
and sincere, and distinctly narrating the essential elements of
the offense charged.18

Necessarily, this Court rejects accused-appellant's

invocation of the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Lam vs.
Chua19 to support his contention that private complainant's
testimony is insufficient to prove his guilt. Lam vs. Chua is not
in all fours with the case at bar. The issue raised before the
Supreme Court in that case was the propriety of the amount of
support awarded by the trial court to the child of the parties
seeking nullity of their marriage. Thus, the Supreme Court in
that case ruled that in fixing the amount of support for a
child, the trial court must consider the “capacity or resources
of both parents who are jointly obliged to support their
children and the monthly expenses incurred for the
sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical attendance, education
and transportation of the child.” Meanwhile, the issue in the
instant case is whether accused-appellant violated Section 5(i)
of R.A. No. 9262. Specifically, this Court is tasked to
18 See Ricky Dinamling vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 199522, June 22, 2015.
19 G.R. No. 131286, March 18, 2004.
CA-G.R. CR No. 39451 Page 9 of 12
Decision

determine whether accused-appellant's denial of financial

support to private complainant and their children caused
them mental or emotional suffering. The Supreme Court has
been clear that the focus of Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262 is the
causation of non-physical suffering, that is, mental or
emotional distress, or even anxiety and social shame or
dishonor on the offended party.20

In this case, the trial court correctly considered and gave

weight to private complainant's testimony, not only because it
was candid and honest, but also for accused-appellant's
failure to interpose a defense and to present controverting
evidence.

This Court notes that despite the opportunity given to the

accused starting from the time of the preliminary
investigation, during his trial in court, and until his
conviction, he had chosen to remain mum as to his defense on
the offenses charged against him. During the preliminary
investigation, accused-appellant did not attend any of the
hearings.21 After the prosecution rested its case, and despite
various opportunities22 given him, accused-appellant refused
to engage the services of new counsel and expressly waived his
right to present his evidence during trial.23

Accused-appellant now, for the first time, brings forth a

purported Certification dated January 2, 2012 from
Masterbatch Phils, Inc., which supposedly justifies his failure
to support private complainant and their children. Certainly,
in the absence of compelling reasons that would justify
reception of this new evidence, this Court cannot consider the
same without running afoul with the principles of fairness and
due process. Evidence and issues not presented below cannot
be taken up for the first time on appeal. 24 During the trial, the
prosecution was neither given the opportunity to rebut the
authenticity of said certification, nor squarely address
accused-appellant's allegation that he had no source of
income.

20 Ricky Dinamling vs. People of the Philippines, supra.

21 See Resolution dated June 6, 2012 (Record, p. 20).
22 See Orders dated April 5, 2016 and May 17, 2016 (Record, pp. 124 and 127).
23 See Order dated September 6, 2016 (Record, p. 131).
24 Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc., vs. Gomersendo P. Daniel , G.R. No. 156893, June 21, 2005.
CA-G.R. CR No. 39451 Page 10 of 12
Decision

Even if this Court were to admit this piece of evidence

from accused-appellant, We are doubtful of its credibility. For
one, this Court notes that the Certification presented by
accused-appellant is dated January 2, 2012. Indeed, if this
document has been executed on said date, and accused-
appellant believed it to be material in establishing his defense,
he could have presented it during the trial, or even during the
preliminary investigation. His failure to do so, without
compelling explanation, leaves the Court to conclude that the
presentation of such evidence at this stage is merely an
afterthought and a last ditch effort at convincing this Court of
his innocence.

Further, considering that accused-appellant's sole

defense rests solely on this document, the Certification leaves
out relevant details on accused-appellant's employment with
Masterbatch Phils., Inc. that could, at least, give plausibility to
its contents. The Certification merely contains a simplistic
statement that accused-appellant is “employed with
Masterbatch Philippines, Inc. as Production Engineer from
May 30, 2011 to November 23, 2011.” It neither details the
nature of accused-appellant's employment nor the cause of
termination of his employment from the company. Accused-
appellant did not even attempt to present corroborating
evidence to support his claim that he lost his job and has no
other source of funds.

Indeed, by raising the defense that he has no source of

income from gainful employment, accused-appellant, in effect,
admits to his failure to provide for private complainant and
their children. He merely argues that he was justified in such
omission. Thus, in order to escape from criminal liability, it
was incumbent upon accused-appellant to convince this Court
of the veracity of his excuse. This accused-appellant failed to
do. Not only did he belatedly raise his purported justification,
the credibility of his supporting evidence is likewise of
doubtful value.

As to the proof of mental or emotional anguish, suffice it

to state that private complainant's experience when she gave
birth to their third child clearly gave this Court an idea of the
CA-G.R. CR No. 39451 Page 11 of 12
Decision

suffering she underwent after accused-appellant left and

stopped supporting her, viz:

ACP HAYAG (to the witness)

Q: Ms. Witness, why is it that there is no entry in the

name of the father?

A: Because he did not show up anymore. Even his

parents did not visit me in the hospital when I gave
birth, ma'am.

Q: Why are you crying, Ms. Witness?

A: Because I remember what happened in the hospital

when I gave birth, I was alone, ma'am. I gave birth at
2:30, I had to walk at 3:00 o'clock because I have to
breastfeed my baby, ma'am.

Private complainant's testimony and demeanor reveal the

anguish she felt when she had to endure, on her own, the
rigorous process of physically delivering and caring for the
baby, as well as tending to the payment of her hospital bills.
Plainly, private complainant's agony was caused by accused-
appellant's absence and failure to assist her, despite his legal
obligation, not to mention his undertaking under the
“Kasunduan”.

In all, the prosecution was able to sufficiently establish

that accused-appellant has indeed unlawfully deprived private
complainant and his children of support ever since he left
them. His failure to give support, particularly during the time
when private complainant gave birth to their child, caused
private complainant emotional anguish.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is hereby

DENIED. Accordingly, the Decision dated November 11, 2016
of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City in Criminal Case
Nos. R-QZN-14-00309-CR, R-QZN-14-00310-CR and R-QZN-
14-00311-CR, finding XXX guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9262, or the
“Anti-Violence against Women and Their Children Act of
CA-G.R. CR No. 39451 Page 12 of 12
Decision

2004”, is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

MARIA ELISA SEMPIO DIY

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

PRISCILLA J. BALTAZAR-PADILLA
Associate Justice

RONALDO ROBERTO B. MARTIN

Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

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

is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision
were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court.

PRISCILLA J. BALTAZAR-PADILLA
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Special Eleventh Division