5/28/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
On August 28, 2009, petitioner, through her counsel, sent a letter demanding for
support from respondent. However, respondent refused to receive the letter.[12]
Because of the foregoing circumstances, petitioner filed a complaint-affidavit with the
Provincial Prosecutor of Cebu City against respondent for violation of Section 5,
paragraph E(2) of R.A. No. 9262 for the latter’s unjust refusal to support his minor child
with petitioner.[13] Respondent submitted his counter-affidavit thereto, to which
petitioner also submitted her reply-affidavit.[14] Thereafter, the Provincial Prosecutor of
Cebu City issued a Resolution recommending the filing of an information for the crime
charged against herein respondent.
The information, which was filed with the RTC-Cebu and raffled to Branch 20 thereof,
states that:
That sometime in the year 1995 and up to the present, more or less, in the
Municipality of Minglanilla, Province of Cebu, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully and deliberately deprive, refuse and still continue to
deprive his son RODERIGO NORJO VAN WILSEM, a fourteen (14) year old
minor, of financial support legally due him, resulting in economic abuse to
the victim.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[15]
Upon motion and after notice and hearing, the RTC-Cebu issued a Hold Departure Order
against respondent.[16]
Consequently, respondent was arrested and, subsequently,
posted bail.[17]
Petitioner also filed a Motion/Application of Permanent Protection Order to which
respondent filed his Opposition.[18] Pending the resolution thereof, respondent was
arraigned.[19]
Subsequently, without the RTC-Cebu having resolved the application of the protection
order, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of: (1) lack of jurisdiction
over the offense charged; and (2) prescription of the crime charged.[20]
On February 19, 2010, the RTC-Cebu issued the herein assailed Order,[21] dismissing
the instant criminal case against respondent on the ground that the facts charged in
the information do not constitute an offense with respect to the respondent who is an
alien, the dispositive part of which states:
WHEREFORE, the Court finds that the facts charged in the information do
not constitute an offense with respect to the accused, he being an alien, and
accordingly, orders this case DISMISSED.
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58780
2/13