SECOND
DIVISION
ROBERTO P. DE
GUZMAN, G.R. No. 156013
Petitioner,
Present:
PUNO,
J., Chairperson,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
-
v e r s u s - CORONA,
AZCUNA
and
GARCIA, JJ.
HERNANDO
B. PEREZ, in his
capacity as
Secretary of Justice,
and
SHIRLEY F. ABERDE,
Respondents. Promulgated:
July
25, 2006
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CORONA, J.:
May
a parent who fails or refuses to do his part in providing his child the
education his station in life and financial condition permit, be charged for
neglect of child under Article 59(4)[1]
of PD 603?[2]
In this petition for certiorari,[3]
petitioner Roberto P. de Guzman assails the January 3, 2002 resolution of
public respondent, then Justice Secretary Hernando B. Perez, dismissing de
Guzman’s petition for review of the City Prosecutor of Lipa
City’s resolution in I.S. No. 2000-2111. Likewise questioned is public
respondent’s September 24, 2002 resolution denying reconsideration.
Petitioner
and private respondent Shirley F. Aberde became sweethearts
while studying law in the University of Sto. Tomas. Their studies were interrupted when private
respondent became pregnant. She gave birth to petitioner’s child, Robby Aberde de Guzman, on October 2, 1987.
Private respondent and petitioner
never got married. In 1991, petitioner married another woman with whom he begot
two children.
Petitioner
sent money for Robby’s schooling only twice — the first in 1992 and the second
in 1993. In 1994, when Robby fell seriously ill, petitioner gave private respondent
P7,000 to help defray the cost of the child’s
hospitalization and medical expenses. Other than these instances, petitioner never
provided any other financial support for his son.
In 1994, in order to make ends meet
and to provide for Robby’s needs, private respondent accepted a job as a
factory worker in Taiwan where she worked for two years. It was only because of her short stint
overseas that she was able to support Robby and send him to school. However, she
reached the point where she had just about spent all her savings to provide for
her and Robby’s needs. The child’s continued education thus became uncertain.
On the other hand, petitioner managed
the de Guzman family corporations. He apparently did well as he led a luxurious
lifestyle. He owned at least five luxury cars, lived in a palatial home in the
exclusive enclave of Ayala Heights Subdivision, Quezon
City, built a bigger and more extravagant house in the same private community,
and sent his children (by his wife) to expensive schools in Metro Manila. He
also regularly traveled abroad with his family. Despite his fabulous wealth,
however, petitioner failed to provide support to Robby.
In
a letter dated February 21, 2000, private respondent demanded support for Robby
who was entering high school that coming schoolyear (June
2000). She explained that, given her financial problems, it was extremely
difficult for her to send him to a good school.
Petitioner
ignored private respondent’s demand. The latter was thus forced to rely on the
charity of her relatives so that she could enroll her son in De La Salle high
school in Lipa City.
On June 15, 2000, private respondent
filed a criminal complaint[4]
for abandonment and neglect of child under Article 59(2) and (4) of PD 603 with
the Office of the City Prosecutor of Lipa City. It
was docketed as I.S. No. 2000-2111.
In his counter-affidavit,[5]
petitioner averred that he never abandoned nor intended to abandon Robby whom
he readily acknowledged as his son. He claimed that he discharged his
responsibilities as a father and said that he paid P7,000
for his son’s hospitalization and medical needs. He also shouldered the expenses of Robby’s
birth and sent money to help out when Robby was sick or was in need of money. Claiming
financial incapacity, he insisted that the acts attributed to him did not
constitute abandonment or neglect.
Petitioner
pointed out that private respondent was the financially capable parent while he
had no fixed job and merely depended on the charity of his father. He asserted
that the five luxury cars belonged not to him but to Balintawak
Cloverleaf Market Corporation. He denied ownership of the big house in Ayala
Heights Subdivision, Quezon City. He lived there with
his family only by tolerance of his father. He also disclaimed ownership of the
newly constructed house and again pointed to his father as the owner. Even the
schooling of his two children (by his wife) was shouldered by his father.
On August 1, 2000, private respondent
submitted her reply-affidavit.[6]
To prove petitioner’s financial capacity to support Robby’s education, she
attached a notarized copy of the General Information Sheet (GIS) of the RNCD
Development Corporation. It showed that petitioner owned P750,000 worth of paid-up corporate shares.
In
his rejoinder-affidavit,[7]
petitioner maintained that his equity in the RNCD Development Corporation belonged
in reality to his father. The shares were placed in his name only because he
had no means to invest in the corporation. He could not use, withdraw, assign
or alienate his shares. Moreover, the corporation was virtually dormant and
petitioner did not receive any compensation as its secretary.
On August 15, 2000, the City
Prosecutor of Lipa City issued his resolution[8]
dismissing the complaint for abandonment but finding probable cause to charge
petitioner with neglect of child punishable under Article 59(4) of PD 603 in
relation to Section 10(a)[9]
of RA 7610.[10]
On
August 25, 2000, an information was filed before
Branch 85 of the Regional Trial Court of Lipa City
for the crime of neglecting a minor child. It was docketed as Criminal Case No.
0431-00.
Before
petitioner could be arraigned, however, he filed a petition for review of the
City Prosecutor’s resolution with the Secretary of Justice.
On January 3, 2002, public respondent
dismissed the petition for review and affirmed the City Prosecutor’s
resolution.[11]
He found that petitioner’s ostentatious and luxurious lifestyle constituted
circumstantial evidence of his ample financial resources and high station in
life. Petitioner did not deny allegations that he failed to send a single
centavo for the education of his son. All the elements of the offense were therefore
sufficiently established. Petitioner’s claim that everything he had belonged to
his father was a defense which should properly be raised only during trial.[12]
Petitioner
sought reconsideration but the same was denied.[13]
Hence, this petition.
Petitioner contends that public
respondent acted with grave abuse of discretion in sustaining the City
Prosecutor’s resolution. He insists that there is no probable cause to justify
his prosecution for neglect of a minor child. First, he is financially incapable
to give support. One can only be charged with neglect if he has the means but
refuses to give it. Second, Robby is not
a neglected child. He has been given, albeit by private respondent who is the
financially capable parent, the requisite education he is entitled to.
The petition is without merit.
The rule is that judicial review of
the resolution of the Secretary of Justice is limited to a determination of
whether it is tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction.[14]
Courts are without power to substitute their judgment for that of the executive
branch.[15]
They may only look into the question of whether such exercise has been made in
grave abuse of discretion.[16]
Grave abuse of discretion is such
capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment which amounts to an excess or
lack of jurisdiction.[17]
Where it is not shown that the findings complained of are wholly devoid of
evidentiary support or that they are patently erroneous as to constitute
serious abuse of discretion, the findings must be sustained.[18]
The assailed resolutions of public
respondent were supported by evidence on record and grounded in law. They were
not issued in a capricious, whimsical or arbitrary manner. There is therefore
no reason to countermand them.
Petitioner
is charged with neglect of child punishable under Article 59(4) of PD 603 which
provides that:
Art. 59. Crimes.
– Criminal liability shall attach to any parent who:
xxx
xxx xxx
(4) Neglects the child by not giving him the education
which the family’s station in life and financial conditions permit.
xxx
xxx xxx
The crime has the following elements:
(1)
the
offender is a parent;
(2)
he or
she neglects his or her own child;
(3)
the
neglect consists in not giving education to the child and
(4)
the offender’s station in life and
financial condition permit him to give an appropriate education to the child.
Here, petitioner acknowledged Robby
as his son. He has not denied that he never contributed for his education
except in two instances (1992 and 1993). He admitted that the boy’s education
was being financed by private respondent and her relatives. He stated under
oath that the last time he sent material support to his son was in 1994 when he
gave P7,000 for the latter’s hospitalization
and medical expenses.
There
is a prima facie showing from the evidence that petitioner is in fact
financially capable of supporting Robby’s education. The notarized GIS of the
RNCD Development Corporation indicates that petitioner owns P750,000 worth of paid-up shares in the company.
Petitioner’s assertion that the GIS is not evidence of his financial capability (since the
shares are allegedly owned by his father) is of no moment. The claim is
factual and evidentiary, and therefore a defense which should be interposed
during the trial.
The argument that criminal liability
for neglect of child under Article 59(4) of PD 603 attaches only if both
parents are guilty of neglecting the child’s education does not hold water.
The law is clear. The crime may be
committed by any parent. Liability for the crime does not depend on
whether the other parent is also guilty of neglect. The law intends to punish
the neglect of any parent, which neglect corresponds to the failure to give the
child the education which the family’s station in life and financial condition
permit. The irresponsible parent cannot exculpate himself from the consequences
of his neglect by invoking the other parent’s faithful compliance with his or
her own parental duties.
Petitioner’s position goes against
the intent of the law. To allow the neglectful parent to shield himself from
criminal liability defeats the prescription that in all questions regarding the
care, custody, education and property of the child, his welfare shall be the
paramount consideration.[19]
However, while petitioner can be
indicted for violation of Article 59(4) of PD 603, the charge against him
cannot be made in relation to Section 10(a) of RA 7610 which provides:
SEC. 10. Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty or
Exploitation and Other Conditions Prejudicial to the Child’s Development. –
(a) Any person who shall commit any
other acts of child abuse, cruelty or exploitation or be responsible for other
conditions prejudicial to the child’s development including those covered by
Article 59 of PD No. 603, as amended, but not covered by the Revised Penal
Code, as amended, shall suffer the penalty of prision
mayor in its minimum period. (emphasis supplied)
x x
x x
x x x x x
The law expressly penalizes any
person who commits other acts of neglect, child abuse, cruelty or exploitation
or be responsible for other conditions prejudicial to the child’s development
including those covered by Article 59 of PD 603 “but not covered by the
Revised Penal Code.”
The “neglect of child” punished under
Article 59(4) of PD 603 is also a crime (known as “indifference of parents”)
penalized under the second paragraph of Article 277 of the Revised Penal Code.[20]
Hence, it is excluded from the coverage of RA 7610.
We make no determination of
petitioner’s guilt or innocence of the crime charged. The presumption of
innocence in his favor still stands. What has been ascertained is simply the
existence of probable cause for petitioner’s indictment for the charge against
him, that is, whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded
belief that a crime has been committed and that petitioner is probably guilty
thereof, and should thus be held for trial. Petitioner’s guilt should still be
proven beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 0431-00.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED.
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
Associate Justice
Chairperson
Associate
Justice
Associate Justice
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had
been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution
and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in
the above decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
[1] It attaches criminal liability to any parent who neglects his child by not giving the latter the education which the family’s station in life and financial condition permit.
[2] Child and Youth Welfare Code.
[3] Under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
[4] Complaint-affidavit dated June 15, 2000; rollo, pp. 37-39.
[5] Dated July 27, 2000; id., pp. 40-46.
[6] Id., pp. 47-56.
[7] Dated August 9, 2000; id., pp. 57-61.
[8] Id., pp. 62-66.
[9] It penalizes any person who commits other acts of neglect, child abuse, cruelty or exploitation or be responsible for other conditions prejudicial to the child’s development including those covered by Article 59 of PD 603, as amended, but not covered by the Revised Penal Code.
[10] Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act.
[11] Resolution dated January 3, 2002; rollo, pp. 23-26.
[12] Id.
[13] Resolution dated September 24, 2002; id., pp. 27-28.
[14] Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. v. Tonda, 392 Phil. 797 (2000).
[15] Id.
[16] Id.
[17] Corpuz v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 162214, 11 November 2004, 442 SCRA 294.
[18] Estrella Real Estate Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 374 Phil. 261 (1999).
[19] Article 8, PD 603.
[20] The crime of indifference of parents, the essence of which is the failure to provide the child with education, is punished under Article 277 and is also penalized by Article 59(4) of PD 603. (Regalado, Criminal Law Conspectus, 1st Edition [2000], National Bookstore, Inc., p. 502)