Decision
-2-
G.R. No. 232678
The antecedent facts are as follows:
An Information, dated June 5, 2006, was filed on September 26, 2006
before the R TC against Reyes designating the crime as one for violation of
Section 5( e), paragraph 2 of R.A. No. 9262. On March 12, 2007, a Temporary
Protection Order (TPO) was issued by the RTC directing Reyes to resume the
delivery of monthly financial support to private complainant, AAA, in the
amount of P20,000.00 to be deducted from his net monthly salary of Two
Thousand Five Hundred Dollars (US$2,500.00), reckoned from the time it
was withheld in July 2005. Upon motion of AAA, with the conformity of the
public prosecutor, the RTC issued on August 30, 2007 a Hold Departure
Order4 (HDO) against Reyes. In the October 28, 2008 Order5 of the RTC, the
TPO issued on March 12, 2007 was made permanent.
On June 11, 2009, Reyes filed a Motion to Quash6 the Information
anchored on the ground that the allegations set forth therein do not constitute
the crime of violation of Section 5(e), par. 2 ofR.A. No. 9262. He contended
that "abandoning without financial support," which is different from
deprivation or denial of financial support, is not criminalized under R.A. No.
9262. Reyes posited that the June 5, 2006 Information should be quashed as
it does not charge any offense, otherwise, his constitutional right to due
process and right to be informed of the nature and the cause of accusation
against him, would be infringed. By way of Comment/Opposition,7 the
prosecution maintained that the totality of facts as alleged in the Information
constitutes the crime of violation of Section 5(e), par. 2 of R.A. No. 9262.
In its Order8 dated November 24, 2009, the RTC ruled that on the basis
of the allegations in the Information, Reyes is being charged with violation of
Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262 and not with violation of Section 5( e), par. 2.
Consequently, the RTC directed the Office of the City Prosecutor to amend
the Information by designating the proper crime to which Reyes should be
charged. The RTC held that the amendment of the Information was proper,
since Reyes has not been arraigned at that time, and inclusion sought would
not prejudice his rights being merely formal in nature. Reyes' Motion to
Quash was denied by the trial court.
Upon airaignment, Reyes pleaded not guilty to the crime of violation of
Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262. After pre-trial was terminated, trial on merits
ensued.
ti
Rollo, pp. 59-60
Id. at 75-76.
Id. at 77-83.
Id. at 84-86.
Id. at 90-91.