A foreign national can be held criminally liable under R.A. No. 9262 for unjustly refusing or failing to give financial support to his minor child, even if his national law might not impose such an obligation, if said foreign law is not proven in Philippine courts (invoking processual presumption) or if applying such foreign law would be contrary to Philippine public policy or work an injustice to a resident child.

Petitioner Norma A. Del Socorro, a Filipina, and respondent Ernst Johan Brinkman Van Wilsem, a Dutch national, were married in Holland and had a son, Roderigo. Their marriage was dissolved by a divorce decree in Holland. Petitioner and her son returned to the Philippines. Respondent, who also came to the Philippines and remarried, allegedly failed to provide the promised monthly support to their son.

• Petitioner Norma A. Del Socorro (Filipina) and respondent Ernst Johan Brinkman Van Wilsem (Dutch) married in Holland on September 25, 1990, and had a son, Roderigo Norjo Van Wilsem, born on January 19, 1994.
• Their marriage was dissolved by a Divorce Decree issued by a Dutch Court on July 19, 1995.
• Petitioner and her son returned to the Philippines.
• Petitioner alleged respondent promised to provide monthly support of 250 Guildene (approx. Php17,500.00) to their son but failed to do so since their arrival in the Philippines.
• Respondent later came to the Philippines, remarried in Pinamungahan, Cebu, and resided there, establishing a business.
• All parties, including the son Roderigo, were living in Cebu City at the time of the petition.
• On August 28, 2009, petitioner sent a demand letter for support, which respondent allegedly refused to receive.
• Petitioner filed a criminal complaint for violation of R.A. No. 9262 (economic abuse by denial of financial support) against respondent.
• The RTC-Cebu dismissed the criminal case, reasoning that respondent, being an alien, is not subject to Philippine law (Family Code) regarding the obligation to give support.

• Respondent has an obligation to support their minor child under Article 195 of the Family Code, and failure to do so makes him liable under R.A. No. 9262, which applies to all persons in the Philippines regardless of nationality.
• The divorce decree does not excuse respondent from his obligation to support his minor child, and petitioner alleged the divorce covenant itself stated respondent's obligation to support the child.
• The Territoriality Principle in criminal law applies, as respondent resides in the Philippines and the alleged acts of refusing support are committed in the Philippines.
• The crime of denying support under R.A. No. 9262 is a continuing offense and has not prescribed.

• Petitioner cannot rely on Article 195 of the Family Code for support because, as a foreign citizen (Dutch), he is governed by his national law regarding family rights and duties (citing Article 15 of the Civil Code).
• By reason of the Divorce Decree, he is not obligated to petitioner for any financial support.
• There is no sufficient and clear basis presented by petitioner that she and her son are entitled to financial support.
• If there is any legal basis for charging a violation of R.A. No. 9262, the criminal liability has been extinguished by prescription under Section 24 of R.A. No. 9262.

• Whether or not a foreign national has an obligation to support his minor child under Philippine law.
• Whether or not a foreign national can be held criminally liable under R.A. No. 9262 for his unjustified failure to support his minor child.

• The petition is GRANTED. The RTC Orders dated February 19, 2010, and September 1, 2010, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The case is REMANDED to the RTC-Cebu for further proceedings.
• While respondent, being a Dutch national, is subject to his national law regarding family rights and duties (including child support) under Article 15 of the Civil Code, he failed to plead and prove Dutch law.
• Under the doctrine of processual presumption, if foreign law is not pleaded and proved, it is presumed to be the same as Philippine law, which obliges parents to support their children.
• Even if Dutch law does not require support or penalize non-compliance, Philippine public policy protecting children and preventing injustice would make the obligation enforceable in the Philippines, especially when the child resides here.
• R.A. No. 9262, which penalizes the deprivation or denial of financial support to a child, applies to the respondent as he is residing in the Philippines, and the alleged acts occurred in the Philippines (Territoriality Principle).
• The act of denying support under Section 5(e)(2) and (i) of R.A. No. 9262 is a continuing offense and has not prescribed.
• Respondent is no longer liable to support petitioner (the former wife) due to the divorce.

• Nationality Principle (Article 15, New Civil Code) — Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad. Applied by analogy to foreigners, meaning their family rights and duties are governed by their national law. The Court initially agreed with the RTC that respondent, being Dutch, is governed by Dutch law regarding his obligation to support his child.
• Doctrine of Processual Presumption — If the foreign law involved is not properly pleaded and proved, courts will presume that the foreign law is the same as the local or domestic internal law. Applied because respondent, while claiming Dutch law governed him, failed to prove what Dutch law states regarding child support. Thus, Philippine law on child support was presumed applicable.
• Conflict of Laws (Public Policy Exception) — Foreign law should not be applied when its application would work undeniable injustice to citizens or residents of the forum, or when the foreign law, judgment, or contract is contrary to a sound and established public policy of the forum. Applied to argue that even if Dutch law did not require child support, it would not be applied if it leads to injustice for the child residing in the Philippines or violates Philippine public policy on child protection.
• Territoriality Principle (Article 14, New Civil Code) — Penal laws and those of public security and safety shall be obligatory upon all who live and sojourn in Philippine territory. Applied to establish that Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the offense under R.A. No. 9262 as respondent resides in the Philippines and the alleged refusal to support occurred there.
• Continuing Offense — A single crime consisting of a series of acts but all arising from one criminal resolution; although there is a series of acts, there is only one crime committed. Applied to the act of denying support under R.A. No. 9262, meaning the prescriptive period runs from the cessation of the unlawful conduct, thus the crime had not prescribed.

• "True, foreign laws do not prove themselves in our jurisdiction and our courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of them. Like any other fact, they must be alleged and proved."
• "Thus, 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."
• "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 principles of Conflict of Laws."
• "To maintain, as private respondent does, that, under our laws, petitioner has to be considered still married to private respondent and still subject to a wife's obligations under Article 109, et. seq. of the Civil Code cannot be just. Petitioner should not be obliged to live together with, observe respect and fidelity, and render support to private respondent. The latter should not continue to be one of her heirs with possible rights to conjugal property. She should not be discriminated against in her own country if the ends of justice are to be served." (Quoted from San Luis v. San Luis regarding the effect of divorce on the Filipino spouse).

• Republic v. Sunvar Realty Development Corporation — Cited to justify taking cognizance of the petition directly filed with the Supreme Court when only questions of law are raised.
• Republic v. Malabanan — Cited to explain the three modes of appeal from RTC decisions, clarifying that a Rule 45 petition to the Supreme Court is proper for questions of law.
• Vivo v. Cloribel — Cited to support the principle that family rights and duties of aliens are governed by their personal law (national law), not Philippine Civil Code provisions.
• Llorente v. Court of Appeals — Cited for the rule that foreign laws must be alleged and proved as facts and are not subject to judicial notice.
• Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera — Referenced for the principle that a divorce obtained abroad by a foreign spouse may be recognized in the Philippines, but noted that the divorce covenant in this case did not completely show the respondent was not liable for child support.
• Bank of America, NT and SA v. American Realty Corporation — Cited for the principle that foreign law will not be applied if it is contrary to a sound and established public policy of the forum or would cause undeniable injustice.
• San Luis v. San Luis — Cited to establish that after a divorce obtained by an alien spouse, the Filipino spouse is no longer considered married and is not obliged to render support to the alien ex-spouse.
• People v. De Leon — Cited for the definition of a continued (continuing) crime, relevant to the issue of prescription.
• EDI-Staffbuilders International, Inc. v. NLRC — Cited for the rule that the party who wants to have a foreign law applied has the burden of proving it.
• Yao Kee, et al. vs. Sy-Gonzales — Mentioned within the quote from Bank of America regarding the proper pleading and proof of foreign law.

• Rule 45, Rules of Court — Governs petitions for review on certiorari filed with the Supreme Court, invoked by the petitioner.
• R.A. No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004) — The law under which respondent was charged.
• Section 5, paragraph E(2) and (i) of R.A. No. 9262 — Specific provisions defining economic abuse through deprivation of financial support as an act of violence against women and their children. Applied as the basis for the criminal charge against respondent.
• Article 195, Family Code — Enumerates persons obliged to support each other. Petitioner invoked this, but the Court stated it applies to Filipino citizens due to Article 15 of the Civil Code.
• Article 26, Family Code — Pertains to the validity of marriages solemnized abroad and the effects of divorce obtained by a foreign spouse. Mentioned in relation to the divorce decree.
• Article 15, New Civil Code — States that laws relating to family rights and duties, status, condition, and legal capacity of persons are binding upon Filipino citizens, even abroad (nationality principle). Applied by analogy to the respondent, a foreign national, to determine that his national law governs his obligation to support.
• Article 14, New Civil Code — States that penal laws and those of public security and safety are obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in Philippine territory (territoriality principle). Applied to assert jurisdiction over respondent for the alleged violation of R.A. No. 9262 committed in the Philippines.
• Section 24, R.A. No. 9262 — Provides for the prescriptive periods for offenses under the Act. Respondent invoked this, but the Court found the offense to be a continuing one, hence not prescribed.
• Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court — Mentioned in a quote from Bank of America regarding proof of public documents, relevant to proving foreign law.
• Section 4, Rule 2 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Pertains to splitting a single cause of action. Mentioned in a quote from Bank of America in the context of public policy.