refused to give support for her and BBB. As such, AAA was constrained to file the
instant criminal case against Melgar.10
To substantiate her claims, AAA averred that Melgar could afford to provide support of
P8,000.00 per month because he has a lavish lifestyle with his family. He owns a
Toyota Avanza and his children are enrolled in. On the other hand, her son, BBB, is a
scholar at and she spends the amount of P20,000.00 a month for his needs, of which
she asked Melgar for P8,000.00 as support.11
For his part, Melgar was deemed to have waived his right to adduce evidence due to his
repeated failure to appear during trial.12
The RTC Ruling
In a Judgment13 dated September 10, 2012, the RTC found Melgar guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violating Section 5 (e) of RA 9262 and, accordingly, sentenced him
to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of six (6) months
of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision
correccional, as maximum.14
The RTC found Melgar to have committed economic abuse against AAA and their son,
BBB, when he stopped supporting them. Worse, he sold the property which was
supposed to answer for his support-in-arrears from 2001 to 2010.15
Melgar moved for reconsideration,16 which was, however, denied in an Order17 dated
May 9, 2013 of the RTC. Aggrieved, Melgar appealed18 to the CA.
The CA Ruling
In a Decision19 dated August 28, 2015, the CA affirmed Melgar's conviction. It held that
Melgar is legally obliged to support BBB.20 As such, when he deliberately and with
evident bad faith deprived BBB of support, he committed economic abuse under Section
5 (e) of RA 9262. In this regard, the CA observed that the reinstatement of the criminal
case was prompted by Melgar's evident refusal to comply with the judgment based on
compromise agreement, particularly, in providing support to his son; and worse, in
conveying to another person the parcel of land which was supposed to, among others,
answer for the support-in-arrears of his son from 2001 to 2010.21 Lastly, the CA ruled
that Melgar's acts "has clearly caused mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or
humiliation to [AAA] and her child[, BBB]."22
Undaunted, Melgar moved for reconsideration,23 which was, however, denied in a
Resolution24 dated February 10, 2016; hence, this petition.
The Issue Before the Court
The issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA correctly upheld Melgar's
conviction for violation of Section 5 (e) of RA 9262.
The Court's Ruling