Eslao vs.

Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 116773
January 16, 1997

Allegations:
Petitioner Maria Ouye was married to the son of respondent Eslao. The couple has
two children, Leslie and Angelica. Leslie was entrusted to the care and custody of
the petitioner’s mother while Angelica stayed at respondent’s house. When
Renaldo died, petitioner intended to bring Angelica with her but the respondent
prevailed upon her to entrust the custody of Angelica to her, respondent reasoning
out that her son just died and to assuage her grief therefor, she needed the company
of the. Subsequently, petitioner was introduced to Dr. Ouye, their acquaintance
blossomed into a marriage and the petitioner migrated to USA, to join her new
husband.  The petitioner returned to the Philippines to be reunited with her children
and bring them to the United States. The petitioner then informed the respondent
about her desire to take Angelica and explained that her present husband, Dr.
Ouye, expressed his willingness to adopt Leslie and Angelica and to provide for
their support and education. Respondent did not agree to this. With this,
respondent’s adamant attitude led for the filing of this case.

Defense:

Respondent resisted the idea by way of explaining that the child was entrusted to
her when she was ten days old and accused the petitioner of having abandoned
Angelica. The abandonment of Angelica when she was still a minor was
collaterally attacked by the respondent in this case. When this case was appealed to
the Court of Appeals, Eslao contended that the respondent court erred in finding
that there was no abandonment committed by the private respondent; that while
judicial declaration of abandonment of the child in a case filed for the purpose is
not her obtaining as mandated in Art. 229 of the Family Code because petitioner
failed to resort to such judicial action, it does not ipso facto follow that there was
in fact no abandonment committed by the private respondent. Eslao also argues
that it has been amply demonstrated during the trial that private respondent had
indeed abandoned Angelica to the care and custody of the petitioner; that during all
the time that Angelica stayed with petitioner, there were only three instances or
occasions wherein the private respondent saw Angelica; that private respondent
never visited Angelica on important occasions, such as her birthday, and neither
did the former give her cards or gifts, "not even a single candy;" that while private
respondent claims otherwise and that she visited Angelica "many times" and insists
that she visited Angelica as often as four times a month and gave her
remembrances such as candies and clothes, she would not even remember when
the fourth birthday of Angelica was.

Decision:
Regional Trial Court’s Decision

“WHEREFORE, finding the petition to be meritorious, the Court grants the same
and let the corresponding writ issue. As a corollary, respondent Teresita Sagala-
Eslao or anyone acting under her behalf is hereby directed to cause the immediate
transfer of the custody of the minor Angelica Cordero Eslao, to her natural mother,
petitioner Maria Paz Cordero-Ouye.

No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.”

Court of Appeal’s Decision

On appeal, the respondent court affirmed in full the decision of the trial court.

Supreme Court’s Decision

“In the instant petition, when private respondent entrusted the custody of her minor
child to the petitioner, what she gave to the latter was merely temporary custody
and it did not constitute abandonment or renunciation of parental authority. For the
right attached to parental authority, being purely personal, the law allows a waiver
of parental authority only in cases of adoption, guardianship and surrender to a
children's home or an orphan institution which do not appear in the case at bar. Of
considerable importance is the rule long accepted by the courts that "the right of
parents to the custody of their minor children is one of the natural rights incidents
to parenthood, a right supported by law and sound public policy. The right is an
inherent one, which is not created by the state or decisions of the courts, but
derives from the nature of the parental relationship.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the decision appealed from dated March 25, 1994 being in
accordance with law and the evidence, the same is hereby AFFIRMED and the
petition DISMISSED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.”

Dempsey vs. Regional Trial Court

G.R. Nos. 77737-38
August 15, 1988

Allegations:

On January 30, 1986, two separate informations were filed against respondent
Dempsey before the Municipal Trial Court. Criminal Case No. 68-86 states that
somewhat on December 1985 to the present, the accused did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously leave their conjugal dwelling and abandon
his child Christina and deprive her of his love, care and protection from the
accused since then, by continuously failing and refusing to give adequate
support to the said minor child and despite pleas, the accused without lawful
justification, failed, disregarded and still continues to fail and disregard to
perform his obligations to his said minor child Christina .

Defense:

Upon arraignment, the private respondent freely, voluntarily, and

spontaneously entered a plea of guilty to the offense charged in the
Information. The private respondent appealed the municipal trial court's
decision to the regional trial court and prayed that the award on civil liability
be set aside and the penalty of imprisonment be reduced to a penalty of fine
only.

Decision:

Municipal Trial Court’s Decision:

“WHEREFORE, finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
charges against him, considering the mitigating circumstances of his voluntary
plea of guilty, this Court sentences him to a prison term of Three (3) Months
and Eleven (11) days to Four (4) months of Arresto Mayor, medium period
and fine of Three hundred (P300.00) Pesos for each of the cases and to pay the
costs.

For the civil liability, judgment is rendered against accused Joel Dempsey
confirming the payment of US $150.00 monthly support to Christina Marie
and to continue payment thru Janalita Rapada, to be used solely for the needs
of the child until she reaches the age of majority; to recognize the child
Christina Marie as his natural child; to pay Christina Marie thru Janalita
Rapada the sum of P10,000.00 as exemplary damage; and to pay the sum of
P5,000.00 as attorney's fee to Atty. Manuel Rosapapan as Chairman of the
Committee on Legal Aid of the IBP Chapter of Zambales Olongapo City and the
same to form part of the legal aid fund.

SO ORDERED. (Rollo, pp. 23-24)

Regional Trial Court’s Decision

The municipal trial court's decision was reversed on the following grounds:

1. Parental authority to which certain parental obligations are attached

pertains only to legitimate and adopted children unlike petitioner who is an
acknowledged illegitimate minor child of private respondent; that in cases of
abandonment of minors, the proper forum is the Department of Social Welfare
where the person to whom the minor has been left must report immediately
(Art. 161, P.D. 603).

2. A person cannot he held criminally liable for failure to support a minor

child.

3. The Municipal Trial Court had determined a matter not within its
competence and authority.

The respondent court committed reversible error when it failed to take into
account that the decision of the municipal trial court was based on the private
respondent's plea of guilty. Respondent Dempsey did not and does not
challenge the validity of the laws. As a matter of fact, respondent Dempsey's
appeal impliedly recognizes the validity of the judgment of conviction because
he asked that the penalty of imprisonment be changed to fine, not that the
trial court's decision was void or that he be acquitted.

There can be no question about the trial court's jurisdiction over the criminal
prosecutions. Article 69 of P.D. 603 penalizes abandonment of a minor child
by its parent, as provided in Article 59.

The respondent court erred in its ruling that the trial court determined a
matter not within its competence and authority. There is likewise no basis for
its gratuitous finding that a parent cannot be held criminally liable under P.D.
603 for withholding support from his minor child. There is absolutely no
discussion on this ruling. The records show, however, that Dempsey's plea of
guilt to the charge of withholding support from his minor daughter was made
without a full understanding of that particular charge. Janalita Rapada herself
testified that she is receiving $150.00 a month for the support of the minor
Christina Marie Dempsey. The amount of P3,000.00 monthly appears to fulfill
the requirement of "adequate support" found in Par. 8, Art. 46 of P.D. No. 603.
What Rapada wants is a judicial declaration for this support to continue. This
cannot be the basis of a criminal conviction.

As to the information charging abandonment, the private respondent entered

his plea of guilt with full knowledge of the consequences and meaning of his
act and with the assistance of his counsel. The reversal of conviction based on
a plea of guilty is an act which is not at all explained by the respondent court
and, therefore, in excess of its jurisdiction. It is well-settled as a general rule
that a plea of guilt is sufficient to sustain conviction without introduction of
further evidence (People v. Formentera, 130 SCRA 114; People v. Balisacan,
17 SCRA 119; People v. Gravino, et al., 122 SCRA 123; People v. Pajarillo, 94
SCRA 828).

The respondent court would shift jurisdiction over the case from the
municipal trial court to the Department of Social Services and Development. It
is readily apparent that the DSSD cannot take cognizance of and enforce the
criminal sanctions of P.D. 603. Besides, Christina is not an abandoned child in
the strict sense of the word as she is still in the custody and care of her
mother. Art. 141 of P.D. 603 defines an abandoned child as follows: "... An
abandoned child is one who has no parental care or guardianship or whose
parents or guardians have deserted him for a period of at least six continuous
months." Article 161 cannot, therefore, be applied to the case at bar. Thus, it is
not the Department of Social Services and Development which has jurisdiction
but the Municipal Trial Court.

In this criminal prosecution, where the accused pleaded guilty to criminal

charges and the issue of recognition was not specifically and fully heard and
tried, the trial court committed reversible error when it ordered recognition
of a natural child as part of the civil liability in the criminal case.

We also agree with the respondent regional trial court that the penalty
imposed is erroneous. The award of exemplary damages and attorney's fees is
improper. Although fathers like Dempsey should be deterred from committing
similar acts of irresponsibility, the law does not allow us to affirm the grant of
exemplary damages only on the basis of the facts herein presented.

As to the penalties, we agree with the Solicitor General that these should be
modified accordingly. And finally, it should be noted that the Regional Trial
Court after declaring that the Municipal Trial Court acted outside of its
competence merely set aside the appealed decision. Instead of acquitting the
accused, it suggested the filing of necessary pleadings before the proper court.

WHEREFORE, the questioned decision of the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo

City, Branch 75 of the Third Judicial Region is hereby REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. The decision of Branch II of the Municipal Trial Court of Olongapo City
is REINSTATED with the modification that in Criminal Case No. 6886, Joel
Dempsey is sentenced to imprisonment of One (1) month and to pay a fine of
Three Hundred Pesos (P300.00) while in Criminal Case No. 69-86 he is
ACQUITTED. SO ORDERED.”

The Elements of Abandoning a Minor under Article 276 are as follow:

1. Offender has the custody of the child;

2. Child is under 7 years of age;
3. He abandons such child; and
4. He has no intent to kill the child when the latter is abandoned.
 In the first case presented, petitioner Ouye had the custody of her child
Angelica who was at that time of the alleged abandonment was under 7 years of
age but not less than 3 days old. However, it was proved that despite the petitioner
left Angelica to go to the United States, the same did not intentionally abandoned
her daughter and did not have any intention to kill the abandoned child.