Previous 7 / 8 Next

11 See id. at 90-91. 12 Id. at 52. See also id. at 92. 13 Id. at 88-93. 14 Id. at 93. 15 See id. at 92-93. 16 See motion for reconsideration dated February 4, 2013; id. at 94-98. 17 Id. at 99-101. 18 Not attached to the rollo. 19Rollo, pp. 50-61. 20 Id. at 60. 21 See id. at 55-60. 22 Id. at 60. 23 See motion for reconsideration dated October 7, 2015; id. at 66-78. 24 Id. at 64-65. 25 See Section 3 (a) ofRA 9262. See also Garcia v. Drilon, 712 Phil. 44, 66 (2013). Under the Family Code, parents are obliged to provide for their children, whether legitimate or illegitimate, support which comprises everything indispensable for sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical attendance, education and transportation, in keeping with the financial capacity of the family. This obligation to give support is demandable from the time the person who is entitled thereto needs it, and such obligation may be enforced through a civil action for this purpose. (See Articles 194, 195, and 203 of the Family Code.) 26 27Del 28 Socorro v. Van Wilsem, 749 Phil. 823, 839 (2014). Id. at 840. See Peralta v. People, G.R. No. 221991, August 30, 2017, citing People v. Matibag, 757 Phil. 286, 293 (2015). 29 30 See rollo, pp. 21-34. Under Section 3 (a) (C) of RA 9262, "'[p]sychological violence' refers to acts or omissions causing or likely to cause mental or emotional suffering of the victim such as 31

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Melgar v. People

Jurisprudence

Case number: G.R. No. 223477

Division: PH Supreme Court Second Division

Date of decision: Peb 14, 2018

Year of decision: 2018

GBV Case Type

Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004 (VAWC)

Nature of the case: The accused have committed economic abuse against the victim and their son, when he stopped supporting them. Worse, he sold the property which was supposed to answer for his support-in-arrears. The accused argues, inter alia, that he was charged of violation of Section 5 (i) of RA 9262 as the Information alleged that the acts complained of caused mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to his wife and son. As such, he contends that he cannot be convicted of violation of Section 5 (e) of RA 9262. The Court denied his contention. The Court found the accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5 (e) of Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise known as the "Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004.

Summary of outcome: The Court found the accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5 (e) of Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise known as the "Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004.

The accused is sentenced to suffer the following: (a) 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; (b) to pay a fine in the amount of P300,000.00; and (c) to undergo a mandatory psychological counselling or psychiatric treatment and report compliance to the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 6.

Observatory: Gender-Based Violence

Affected Sector

Women

Ponente: PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

Long title: CELSO M.F.L. MELGAR, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

Geolocation 1

Latitude: 10.293188

Longitude: 123.901328

: Geolocation 1

Primary Documents

MELGAR.pdf
English
Download View

Commission on Human Rights

Select target paragraph3

Melgar v. People

Primary Documents

Notifications