ESTEBAN DONATO REYES v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 232678, JULY 3, 2019, Third Division (Peralta, J.) DOCTRINE: Under the Test of Sufficiency, the fundamental test in determining the sufficiency of the averments in a complaint or information is whether the facts alleged therein, if hypothetically admitted, constitute the elements of the offense. FACTS: An information was filed against Esteban Donato Reyes before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for violating Section 5 (e), paragraph 2 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. (9262), otherwise known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 (VAWC). AAA is married to Reyes on May 15, 1969 and had four children, three of whom are still alive and are of legal age. During their marriage, Reyes is seldom home because he served as a military pilot for the Philippine Airforce and later on as a commercial pilot to Philippine Airlines. At the time the VAWC case was filed against Reyes, he was serving in Angola Africa. AAA only found out in 2005 that Reyes got married to one Marilou Osias Ramboanga who bore him four children and at the present, living with him. During their marriage, AAA said that Reyes used to give her and their children monthly financial support ranging from P10,000 to P20,000. After he ceased giving them support, she also suffered various illnesses and as a result, she had undergone regular consultation and medical check-up. According to AAA, she filed the case for violation of RA 9262 against Reyes for his failure to give her support to provide monthly financial allowance which he stopped sometime in July 2005. For his part, Reyes said that he never really got married to AAA. The signature appearing on their marriage certificate was forged. They are only living in a common-law relationship. He admitted having stopped giving support to her because of the bigamy case that was file against him because he treated it as an act of her ingratitude to him. On June 11, 2009, he filed a Motion to Quash the Information on the ground that the allegations raised by AAA do not constitute a crime for violation of Section 5 (e), par. 2, of R.A. 9262. He said that “abandoning without financial support is different from “deprivation or denial of financial support, which is not criminalized under RA 9262. Since it does not charge any offense against him, it should be quashed, otherwise, his right to constitutional due process and right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, would be infringed. Upon amendment of the information changing the charge for violation of Section 5 (e), par. 2, of R.A. 9262 to violation of Section 5 (i), par. 2, of R.A. 9262, the RTC convicted Reyes for the crime charged against him saying that the testimony of AAA, her attending physician, and their daughter are credible and sufficient to adequately establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the crime charged against him. On appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA), it dismissed the appeal for lack of merit and affirmed the decision of the trial court that due to Reyes’ act of suddenly giving support to AAA, he committed psychological violence against her which caused her emotional and mental anguish.
ISSUE: Was there a sufficient compliance of Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, in filing the information against Reyes? RULING: Yes. Under Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, the complaint or information is sufficient if it states the names of the accused; the designation of the offense given by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate date of the commission of the offense; and the place where the offense was committed. Since the Prosecution has the duty to prove the each and every element of the crime, they must be alleged in the Information to warrant a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. To prove the sufficiency of the allegations, the fundamental test is the Test of Sufficiency. This answers the question that, if the facts alleged therein are to be hypothetically admitted, would constitute the elements of the crime? In the case of Dinamling v. People, the Court enumerated the elements of violation of Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262 as follows: (1)
The offended party is a woman and/or her child or children;
(2)
The woman is either the wife or former wife of the offender, or is a woman with whom the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or is a woman with whom such offender has a common child. As for the woman's child or children, they may be legitimate or illegitimate, or living within or without the family abode;
(3)
The offender causes on the woman and/or child mental or emotional anguish; and
(4)
The anguish is caused through acts of public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, denial of financial support or custody of minor children or access to the children or similar acts or omissions.
Hence, AAA, being the wife of Reyes; who suffered emotional and mental anguish; due to Reyes’ act of unlawfully and deliberately denying AAA of financial support. Lastly, contrary to Reyes’ contention that sine they are not lawfully married, he cannot be charged with a violation of RA 9262 because RA 9262 penalizes acts committed against women and their children committed by the woman’s husband, former husband, or any person against whom she has had a sexual or dating relationship with, or with whom the woman has a common child, or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the family abode, which will likely result in economic abuse or physical harm or suffering. In their case, t is evident that AAA and Reyes had four children borne out of their relationship. Therefore, the Information that was filed against Reyes is sufficient enough to convict him for his violation of Section 5 (i), par. 2, of R.A. 9262.
