WC CASES (DIGEST)1.

ECONOMIC ABUSE

A.G.R. No. 223477, February 14, 2018CELSO M.F.L. MELGAR,v.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

FACTS:

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 said accused, having the means and capacity to give financial support,
with deliberate intent, did then and there commit acts of economic abuse against one [AAA,6] and her minor son,
[BBB] (12 years old), by depriving them of financial support, which caused mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule
or humiliation, to AAA and her son.After arraignment wherein Melgar pleaded not guilty to the charge against him, he
and AAA entered into a compromise agreement8on the civil aspect of the 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 moved to set aside the compromise
agreement and to revive the criminal action, on the ground that Melgar sold the property, whichwas supposed to,
among others, answer for the support-in-arrears of his son, BBB, from 2001 to 2010 pursuant to their compromise
agreement. Consequently, the RTC revived the criminal aspect of the case and allowed the prosecution to present its
evidence.

ISSUE:

WHETHER OR NOT THE CA CORRECTLY UPHELD MELGAR'S CONVICTION FOR VIOLATION OF SECTION 5 (E) OF RA
9262.

HELD:

YES.The said law defines economic abuse as follows:Section 3.Definition of Terms. -x x x.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 victim's own money or properties or solely controlling the
conjugal money or properties.

x x x xAs may be gathered from the foregoing, "economic abuse" may include the deprivation of support of a common
child of the man-accused and the woman-victim, whether such common child is legitimate or not.26This specific act
is penalized by Section 5 (e) of RA 9262, pertinent portions of which read: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:xxxx(e)Attempting to compel or compelling the woman or her child to engage in conduct which the woman or her
childhas the right to desist from or to 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 hann, 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:xxxx(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 todeprive the woman or her child of a legal
right;xxxxUnder this provision, the deprivation or denial of financial support to the child is considered an act of violence
against women and children.27Notably, case law instructs that the act of denying support to a child is a continuing
offense.28In this case, the courtsa quocorrectly found that all the elements of violation of Section 5 (e) of RA 9262 are
present, as it was established that: (a) Melgar and AAA had a romantic relationship, resulting in BBB's birth; (b) Melgar
freely acknowledged his paternity over BBB; (c) Melgar had failed to provide BBB support ever since the latter was just a
year old; and (d) his intent of not supporting BBB was made more apparent when he sold to a third party hisproperty
which was supposed to answer for, among others, his support-in-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 circumstances of the case. In fact, the trial court
was in the best position to assess and detennine the credibility of the witnesses presented by both parties and,
hence, due deference should be accorded to thesame.

PSYCHOLOGICAL/ MENTAL ABUSE

A.G.R. No. 212448 January 11, 2018AAA, Petitionervs BBB, Respondent

FACTS:

Petitioner AAA and BBB were married on August 1, 2006 in Quezon City. Their union produced two children: CCC was
born on March 4, 2007 and DDD on October 1, 2009.6In May of 2007, BBB started working in Singapore as a chef, where
he acquired permanent resident status in September of 2008. This petition nonetheless indicates his address to
be in Quezon City where his parents reside and where AAA alsoresided from the time they were married until March of
2010, when AAA and their children moved back to her parents' house in Pasig City.7AAA claimed, albeit not
reflected in the Information, that BBB sent little to no financial support, and only sporadically. This allegedly
compelled her to fly extra hours and take on additional jobs to augment her income as a flight attendant. There
were also allegations of virtual abandonment, mistreatment of her and their son CCC, and physical and sexual violence.
To make matters worse, BBB supposedly started having an affair with a Singaporean woman named Lisel Mok with
whom he allegedly has been living in Singapore. Things came to a head on April 19, 2011 when AAA and BBB had a
violent altercation at a hotel room in Singapore during her visit with their kids.8 As can be gathered from the earlier
cited Information, despite the claims of varied forms of abuses, the investigating prosecutor found sufficient basis to
charge BBB with causing AAA mental and emotional anguishthrough his alleged marital infidelity.

ISSUE:

Whether or not this Court should entertain the petition. How R.A. No. 9262 should be applied in a question of territorial
jurisdiction over a case of psychological abuse brought against the husband when such is allegedly caused by marital
infidelity carried on abroad.

HELD:

There is merit in the petition."Physical violence is only the most visible form of abuse. Psychological abuse, particularly
forced social and economic isolation of women, is also common."30In this regard, Section 3 of R.A. No. 9262 made it a
point to encompass in a non-limiting manner the various forms of violence that may be committed againstwomen and
their children:Sec. 3.Definition of Terms.-As used in this Act, (a)"Violence against women and their children"refers
to any act or a series of acts committed by any person against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or against a
woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a common
child, or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the family abode, which result in or is
likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse including threats of such acts,
battery, assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty. It includes, but is not limited to, the following
acts:A."Physical Violence"refers to acts that include bodily or physical harm;B."Sexual violence"refers to an act which is
sexual in nature, committed against a woman or her child. It includes, but is not limited to:x x x x

C."Psychological violence"refers to acts or omissions causing or likely tocause mental or emotional suffering of
the victim such as but not limited to intimidation, harassment, stalking, damage to property, public ridicule or
humiliation, repeated verbal abuse and marital infidelity. It includes causing or allowing the victim to witness the
physical, sexual or psychological abuse of a member of the family to which the victim belongs, or to 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 visitation of common children.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:x x x xAs jurisdiction of a court over the criminal
case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information, threshing out the essential elements of
psychological abuse under R.A. No. 9262 is crucial. InDinamling v. People,31this Court already had occasion to
enumerate the elements of psychological violence under Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262, as follows: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:x x x x(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 access to the woman's child/children.From the aforequoted Section 5(i), in relation to
other sections of R[.]A[.] No. 9262, the elements of the crime are derived as follows:(1) The offended paiiy is a
woma.J.1and/orher child or children;(2) The woman is either the wife or former wife of the offender, or is a woman with
whom the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or is a woman with whom such offender has a common
child. As for the woman's child or children, they may be legitimate or illegitimate, or living within or without the
family abode;(3) The offender causes on the woman and/or child mental or emotional anguish; and(4) The anguish is
caused through acts of public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, denial of financial
support or custody of minor children or access to the children or similar· such acts or omissions.x x x xIt bears emphasis
that Section 5(i) penalizes some forms of psychological violence that are inflicted on victims who are women and
children. Other forms of psychological violence, as well as physical, sexual and economic violence, are addressed and
penalized in other subparts of Section 5.x x x xPsychological violence is an. element of violation of Section 5(i) just like
the mental or emotional anguish caused on the victim. Psychological violence is the means employed by the perpetrator,
while mental or emotional anguish is the effect 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 proof of commission of any of the acts
enumerated in Section 5(i) or similar such acts. And to establish mental or emotional anguish, it is necessary to
present the testimony of the victim as such experiences are personal to this party. x x x.32(Citations omitted and
emphasis ours)

Contrary to the interpretation of the RTC, what R.A. No. 9262 criminalizes is not the marital infidelity per se but
the psychological violence causing mental or emotional suffering on the wife. Otherwise stated, it is the violence
inflicted under the said circumstances that the law seeks to outlaw. Marital infidelity as cited in the law is only one
of the various acts by which psychological violence may be committed. Moreover, depending on the circumstances of
the spouses and for a myriad of reasons, the illicit relationship may or may not even be causing mental or
emotional anguish on the wife. Thus, the mental or emotional suffering of the victim is an essential and distinct
element in the commission of the offense. In criminal cases, venue is jurisdictional. In Section 7 of R.A. No. 9262,
venue undoubtedly pertains to jurisdiction. As correctly pointed out by AAA, Section 7 provides that the case may be
filed where the crime or any of its elements was committed at the option of the complainant. Which the
psychological violence as the means employed by the perpetrator is certainly an indispensable element of the
offense, equally essential also is the element of mental or emotional anguish which is personal to the complainant.
The resulting mental or emotional anguish is analogous to the indispensable element of damage in a prosecution for
estafa,What may be gleaned from Section 7 of R.A. No. 9262 is that the law contemplates that acts of violence against
women and their children may manifest as transitory or continuing crimes; meaning that some acts material and
essential thereto and requisite in their consummation occur in one municipality or territory, while some occur in
another. In such cases, the court wherein any of the crime's essential and material acts have been committed
maintains jurisdiction to try the case; it being understood that the first court taking cognizance of the same
excludes the other. Thus, a person charged with a continuing or transitory crime may be validly tried in any
municipality or territory where the offense was in part committed.36It is necessary, for Philippine courts to have
jurisdiction when the abusive conduct or act of violence under Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262 in relation to Section
3(a), Paragraph (C) was committed outside Philippine territory, that the victim be a resident of the place where
the complaint is filed in view of the anguish suffered being a material element of the offense. In the present scenario,
the offended wife and children of respondent husband are residents of Pasig City since March of 2010. Hence, the RTC of
Pasig City may exercise jurisdiction over the case.Certainly, the act causing psychological violence which under the
information relates to BBB's marital infidelity must be proven by probable cause for the purpose of formally charging
the husband, and to establish the same beyond reasonable doubt for purposes of conviction. It likewise remains
imperative to acquire jurisdiction over the husband. What this case concerns itself is simply whether or not a complaint
for psychological abuse under R.A. No. 9262 may even be filed within the Philippines if the illicit relationship is
conducted abroad. We say that even if the alleged extra-marital affair causing the offended wife mental and emotional
anguish is committed abroad, the same does not place a prosecution under R.A. No. 9262 absolutely beyond the reach
of Philippine courts