The act of denying support to a child penalized under RA 9262 is a continuing crime.

May foreigners be held liable for violation of RA 9262? This is the question raised in  this case decided by the Supreme Court.  This case tackled the issue of whether or not aliens who sired a child with a Filipino spouse may be held liable for support. 

The Facts:

ßAAA and BBB were married in Holland in 1190.  They had a son, CCC, born in 1994.  Their marriage, however, did not last, and in 1995, they entered into a Divorce Covenant.  AAA, the wife, and her son went back to the Philippines.  BBB later went to the Philippines, contracted another marriage, and established a catering business in the Province of Cebu.  Both AAA and BBB were residents of Cebu. Alleging that BBB did not provide financial support for their son, AAA sent a demand letter for support to BBB.  BBB refused to receive the letter, hence AAA filed a complaint for violation of RA 9262 against BBB.  Preliminary investigation ensued, and the provincial prosecutor later on filed a case for violation of Section 5 (E)(2) against BBB. BBB posted bail, and was arraigned.  Before the RTC, he filed his motion to dismiss the case, averring that since he is an alien, he is not bound to support the child under RA 9262.  

The RTC sided with BBB, and dismissed the case. 

On pure question of law, AAA appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Whether or not BBB, a foreign national, is liable for violation of RA 9262.

Ruling:

On whether or not BBB is bound by Art. 195 of the Family Code on the obligation of parents to support the child, the Supreme Court held that BBB is not liable since the Civil Code stresses the principle of nationality.

“Insofar as family laws are concerned, specifically the provisions of the Family Code on support, the same applies only to Filipino citizens.  By analogy, the same principle applies to foreigners such that they are governed by their national law with respect to family rights and duties.

The obligation to give support to a child is a matter that falls under family rights and duties.  Since the respondent is a citizen of Holland or the Netherlands, we agree with the RTC-Cebu that he is subject to the laws of his country, to to Philippine law, as to whether he is obliged to give support to his child, as well as the consequences of his failure to do so.”

While the Court said that respondent is not obliged to give support to his child under Art. 195 of the Family Code, it also said that respondent is not altogether bound to give support to his child.  While he pleaded Dutch law in his defense, he was not able to prove his national law, which must be proven as fact in this jurisdiction as they do not prove themselves in the Philippines and the courts are not allowed to take judicial notice of them.  Like any other fact, they must be alleged and proven.  For failure on the part of the respondent to allege and prove the national law of Netherlands on support, the Court applied the doctrine of processual presumption in resolving that respondent is liable to support his child, thus:

“In view of the respondent’s failure to prove the national law of the Netherlands in his favor, the doctrine of processual presumption shall govern.  Under this doctrine, if the foreign law involved is not properly pleaded and proved, our courts will presume that foreign law is the same as our local law or domestic or internal law.  Thus, since the law of the Netherlands as regards the obligation to support has not been properly pleaded and proved in the instant case, it is presumed to be the same with Philippine law, which enforces the obligation of parents to support their children and penalising the non-compliance therewith”

Another thing that militated against the accused is the doctrine, applied in the ruling of Bank of America, NT and SA v. American Realty Corporation, that when the foreign law, judgment or contract is contrary to a sound and established public policy of the forum, the said foreign law, judgment or order shall not be applied:

“Additionally prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those which have for their object public order, public policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country.

The public policy sought to be protected in the instant case is the principle embedded in our jurisdiction proscribing the splitting up of a single cause of action.

Section 4, Rule 2 of the 1997 Rules of Procedure is pertinent.

If two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment upon the merits in any one is available as a ground for the dismissal of the others.  Moreover, foreign law should not be applied when its application would work undeniable injustice to the citizens or residents of the forum.  To give justice is the most important function of law; hence, a law or judgment or contract that is obviously unjust negates the fundamental principle of Conflict of laws.

Applying the foregoing, even if the laws of the Netherlands neither enforce a parent’s obligation to support the child nor penalize the noncompliance therewith, such obligation is still duly enforceable in the Philippines because it would be of great injustice the the child to be denied of financial support when the latter is entitled thereto.

In the end, the Court applied the territoriality principle in criminal law, in finding the respondent may be held liable for violation of RA 9262 for failure to support his minor child:

“In addition, considering that respondent is currently living in the Philippines, we find strength in petitioner’s claim that the Territoriality Principle in criminal law, in relation to Article 14 of the New Civil Code, applies to the instant case, which provides that: [p]enal laws and those of public security and safety shall be obligatory upon all who live and sojourn in Philippine territory, subject the principle of public international law and to treaty stipulations.”  On this score, it is indisputable that the alleged continuing acts of respondent in refusing to support his child with petitioner is committed here in the Philippines as all of the parties herein are residents of the Province of Cebu City.  As such our courts have territorial jurisdiction over the offense charged against respondent.  It is likewise irrefutable that jurisdiction over the respondent was acquired upon his arrest.”

No prescription of the offense charged:

“Finally, we do not agree with the respondent’s argument that granting, without admitting, that there is a legal basis for charging violation of RA 9262 in the instant case, the criminal liability has been extinguished on the ground of prescription of crimes 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 Section 5 (g) to 5 (i) shall prescribe in ten (10) years.

The act of denying support to a child under Secton  5(e) (2) and (i) of R.A. No. 9262 is a continuing offense, which started in 1995 but is still ongoing at present.  Accordingly, the crime charged in the instant case has clearly not prescribed.”

Case was remanded to the RTC for trial on the merits.

(G.R. No. 193707, December 10, 2014, NORMA A. DEL SOCORRO, for and in behalf of her minor child RODERIGO NORJO VAN WILSEM vs. ENRST JOHAN BRINKMAN VAN WILSEM)