G.R. No. 262419* [Formerly Criminal Case No. R-PSY-16-12641-CR] - XXX, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , in view of the foregoing and for the prosecution to have proven the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, accused [XXX] is found GUILTY of economic abuse under Sec. 5(i) of [Republic Act] No. 9262 as stated in the Information and proven during the trial of the case. Thus, sentence is hereby pronounced against him: In applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, to suffer imprisonment of Prision Correccional (2 years and 4 months) as minimum term[,] to Prision Mayor (6 years and 1 day) as maximum term, in the absence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances; To pay the fine, in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos ([PHP] 100,000.00); and To undergo mandatory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment and shall report compliance to the Court. SO ORDERED . [17] (Emphasis in the original) Taking umbrage at the foregoing ruling, XXX elevated his case before the CA. On appeal, XXX avouched that the prosecution failed to prove that BBB was his and AAA's child. Therefore, it did not establish all the elements of the crime under Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262. [18] The CA's Ruling The CA gave credence to AAA's testimony and held that all the elements of the crime were present. Furthermore, the CA declared that the establishment of paternity is not an element of the crime. It found XXX's refusal to take a DNA test unjustified since he admitted to having sexual relations with AAA. [19] The fallo of the Decision reads: WHEREFORE , in view of the foregoing, the appeal is DISMISSED . The Decision dated 25 January 2018 of Branch Regional Trial Court of [redacted] in Criminal Case No. R-PSY-16-12641-CR is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS . Accused-appellant [XXX] is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 and is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of two (2) years and four (4) months of prision correccional , as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor , as maximum. Accused-appellant [XXX] is DIRECTED TO PAY a fine in the amount of [PHP]100,000.00 and DIRECTED to UNDERGO a mandatory psychological counseling and to REPORT his compliance therewith to the court of origin within fifteen days (15) after completion of such counseling. SO ORDERED . [20] (Emphasis in the original) The Present Petition Via the instant recourse, XXX intransigently denies fathering BBB as she was born merely eight months after he and AAA copulated. He insists that the prosecution was not able to prove the elements of the crime under Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262. For criminal liability to arise, there should be evidence that the offender willfully or consciously withheld financial support for the purpose of inflicting mental or emotional anguish upon her. [21] On the other hand, the People of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), argues that the petition should be dismissed for being an improper remedy. The OSG explicated that