5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly charged against respondent. It is likewise irrefutable that jurisdiction over the respondent was acquired upon his arrest. Finally, we do not agree with respondent’s argument that granting, but not admitting, that there is a legal basis for charging violation of R.A. No. 9262 in the instant case, the criminal liability has been extinguished on the ground of prescription of crime[52] under Section 24 of R.A. No. 9262, which provides that: SECTION 24. Prescriptive Period. – Acts falling under Sections 5(a) to 5(f) shall prescribe in twenty (20) years. Acts falling under Sections 5(g) to 5(I) shall prescribe in ten (10) years. The act of denying support to a child under Section 5(e)(2) and (i) of R.A. No. 9262 is a continuing offense,[53] which started in 1995 but is still ongoing at present. Accordingly, the crime charged in the instant case has clearly not prescribed. Given, however, that the issue on whether respondent has provided support to petitioner’s child calls for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented, and the truth and falsehood of facts being admitted, we hereby remand the determination of this issue to the RTC-Cebu which has jurisdiction over the case. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Orders dated February 19, 2010 and September 1, 2010, respectively, of the Regional Trial Court of the City of Cebu are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The case is REMANDED to the same court to conduct further proceedings based on the merits of the case. SO ORDERED. Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Villarama, Jr., Mendoza,* and Reyes, JJ., concur. January 20, 2015 N O T I C E OF J U D G M E N T Sirs/Mesdames: Please take notice that on ___December 10, 2014___ a Decision, copy attached herewith, was rendered by the Supreme Court in the above-entitled case, the original of which was received by this Office on January 20, 2015 at 1:53 p.m. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58780 9/13