The act of denying financial support to a child, by itself, constitutes economic abuse under Section 5(e) of RA 9262 and is specifically penalized therein, even without proof of mental or emotional anguish which is an element for psychological violence under Section 5(i) of the same Act. An accused charged under Section 5(i) can be convicted under Section 5(e) by virtue of the variance doctrine if the deprivation of support is proven.

The case arose from a romantic relationship between petitioner Celso Melgar and AAA, which resulted in the birth of their illegitimate child, BBB, in 1995. Melgar acknowledged paternity but later stopped providing financial support when BBB was about one year old after his relationship with AAA soured due to his affair with another woman. This led AAA to file a case for support, which was granted, but Melgar allegedly continued to refuse to provide support, prompting the filing of the criminal case for economic abuse under RA 9262.

• In 1995, AAA and petitioner Celso Melgar had a romantic relationship resulting in the birth of their illegitimate child, BBB.
• Melgar acknowledged paternity of BBB, as evidenced by the child's Certificate of Live Birth and photographs.
• When BBB was about one year old, Melgar stopped providing financial support after his relationship with AAA soured due to his affair with a younger woman.
• AAA filed a case for support, which was eventually granted. Despite this, Melgar allegedly continued to refuse to provide support.
• An Information was filed against Melgar for violation of Section 5 of RA 9262, alleging economic abuse by depriving AAA and BBB of financial support from August 2001 onwards, causing mental or emotional anguish.
• Melgar pleaded not guilty. He and AAA entered into a compromise agreement on the civil aspect, approved by the RTC on June 24, 2010, leading to the provisional dismissal of the criminal case.
• On June 24, 2011, the prosecution moved to revive the criminal action because Melgar allegedly sold a property that was supposed to answer for BBB's support-in-arrears (2001-2010) under the compromise agreement. The RTC revived the criminal case.
• AAA testified that Melgar could afford P8,000.00 monthly support as he lived a lavish lifestyle, owned a Toyota Avanza, and his other children were enrolled in school, while she spent P20,000.00 monthly for BBB's needs.
• Melgar was deemed to have waived his right to adduce evidence due to repeated failure to appear during trial.
• The RTC found Melgar guilty, noting he committed economic abuse by stopping support and selling the property intended for support-in-arrears.
• The CA affirmed the RTC's decision, finding Melgar legally obliged to support BBB and that his deliberate deprivation of support constituted economic abuse under Section 5(e) of RA 9262, causing mental or emotional anguish.

• Melgar argued that he was charged under Section 5(i) of RA 9262, as the Information alleged that his actions "caused mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to [AAA] and her son[, BBB]."
• Melgar contended that since the prosecution failed to prove the element of mental or emotional anguish, he could not be convicted of violating Section 5(i) of RA 9262.
• Consequently, Melgar asserted that he could not be convicted of violating Section 5(e) of RA 9262 because it was different from the offense charged (Section 5(i)).

• The prosecution (representing the People of the Philippines) argued that Melgar committed economic abuse against AAA and their son, BBB, by deliberately depriving them of financial support despite having the means to do so.
• The prosecution maintained that Melgar's failure to provide support, and his subsequent sale of property meant to cover support-in-arrears, demonstrated his intent to evade his obligation.
• The prosecution asserted that Melgar's actions caused mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule, or humiliation to AAA and BBB, thereby satisfying the elements of VAWC.
• The prosecution successfully moved for the revival of the criminal case after Melgar violated the compromise agreement by selling the property designated for BBB's support-in-arrears.

• Whether the Court of Appeals correctly upheld Melgar's conviction for violation of Section 5(e) of RA 9262, despite the Information alleging elements (mental or emotional anguish) primarily associated with Section 5(i) of the same law.

• The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision with modification as to penalties.
• The Court ruled that all elements of violation of Section 5(e) of RA 9262 were present: (a) Melgar and AAA had a romantic relationship resulting in BBB's birth; (b) Melgar acknowledged paternity; (c) Melgar failed to provide BBB support since BBB was about a year old; and (d) his intent not to support BBB was apparent when he sold property supposed to answer for support-in-arrears.
• The Court held that while the Information alleged "mental or emotional anguish" (an element of Section 5(i) - psychological violence), and no evidence was presented to prove such anguish, Melgar could still be convicted under Section 5(e) - economic abuse.
• The Court applied the variance doctrine, which allows conviction for a crime proved if it is different from but necessarily included in the crime charged. Deprivation or denial of financial support, by itself, is specifically penalized as economic abuse under Section 5(e)(2) of RA 9262, even without the additional element of psychological violence.
• The Court found that the act of denying support is a continuing offense.
• The penalty imposed was affirmed: imprisonment for an indeterminate period of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as maximum. Additionally, Melgar was ordered to pay a fine of P300,000.00 and undergo mandatory psychological counselling or psychiatric treatment.

• Economic Abuse under RA 9262 (Section 3(D) and Section 5(e)) — Refers to acts that make or attempt to make a woman financially dependent, including withdrawal of financial support or deprivation of financial resources legally due her or her child. This was applied as the core of Melgar's offense; his failure to provide financial support to his child BBB was deemed economic abuse under Section 5(e)(2) of RA 9262.
• Psychological Violence under RA 9262 (Section 5(i)) — Punishes acts causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule, or humiliation, including denial of financial support if it leads to such anguish. The Court clarified that while denial of support is listed under 5(i), if mental/emotional anguish is not proven, conviction for 5(i) cannot stand. However, the act of denial of support itself is punishable under 5(e).
• Variance Doctrine (Rule 120, Sections 4 and 5 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure) — Allows an accused to be convicted of an offense proved which is different from the offense charged, provided that the offense proved is necessarily included in the offense charged, or the offense charged is necessarily included in the offense proved. This was applied to convict Melgar under Section 5(e) (economic abuse through deprivation of support) even though the Information included allegations of "mental or emotional anguish" (an element of Section 5(i)), because the act of deprivation of support was proven and is an offense in itself under 5(e).
• Continuing Offense — An offense where the criminal conduct is not a single, isolated act but spans a period of time. The Court cited case law stating that the act of denying support to a child is a continuing offense. This implies that the prescriptive period for filing the case runs from the cessation of the unlawful act.
• Application of Revised Penal Code (RPC) Penalties to Special Penal Laws (Indeterminate Sentence Law - Act No. 4103) — When a special penal law adopts penalties from the technical nomenclature of the RPC (e.g., prision correccional), the rules for applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and other effects under the RPC system of penalties also apply. This was used to determine the proper indeterminate sentence for Melgar, as RA 9262 prescribes penalties like prision correccional.

• "Notably, case law instructs that the act of denying support to a child is a continuing offense."
• "[T]he courts a quo correctly convicted Melgar of violation of Section 5 (e) of RA 9262 as the deprivation or denial of support, by itself and even without the additional element of psychological violence, is already specifically penalized therein."
• "Meanwhile, Sec. 1 of Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL), provides that if the offense is ostensibly punished under a special law, the minimum and maximum prison term of the indeterminate sentence shall not be beyond what the special law prescribed. Be that as it may, the Court had clarified in the landmark ruling of People v. Simon ... that the situation is different where although the offense is defined in a special law, the penalty therefor is taken from the technical nomenclature in the RPC. Under such circumstance, the legal effects under the system of penalties native to the Code would also necessarily apply to the special law."

• Del Socorro v. Van Wilsem (749 Phil. 823 (2014)) — Referenced for the principle that the deprivation or denial of financial support to a child is an act of violence against women and children under RA 9262, and that the act of denying support is a continuing offense.
• Dinamling v. People (761 Phil. 356 (2015)) — Cited for the definition and elements of psychological violence under Section 5(i) of RA 9262, emphasizing that to establish psychological violence, proof of commission of acts enumerated in Section 5(i) is necessary, and to establish mental or emotional anguish, the victim's testimony is required as such experiences are personal.
• People v. Caoili (G.R. Nos. 196342 and 196848, August 8, 2017) — Cited in relation to the variance doctrine under Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
• Quimvel v. People (G.R. No. 214497, April 18, 2017) — Cited extensively for the discussion on how to apply the Indeterminate Sentence Law when a special penal law prescribes penalties taken from the technical nomenclature of the Revised Penal Code.
• People v. Simon (G.R. No. 93028, July 29, 1994, 239 SCRA 555) — Referenced as a landmark ruling clarifying that when a special law uses RPC penalty nomenclature, the legal effects under the RPC's penalty system apply.
• Peralta v. People (G.R. No. 221991, August 30, 2017) — Cited for the principle that factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the CA, are generally accorded great respect and deference, particularly on matters of witness credibility.
• Garcia v. Drilon (712 Phil. 44 (2013)) — Cited in a footnote regarding Section 3(a) of RA 9262 (definition of VAWC).
• Mabunot v. People (G.R. No. 204659, September 19, 2016, 803 SCRA 349) — Cited in a footnote in relation to Peralta v. People and the application of RPC penalties to special penal laws.

• Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004) — The primary law violated by the petitioner.
• Section 3(D) of RA 9262 — Defines "Economic abuse" as acts that make or attempt to make a woman financially dependent, including withdrawal of financial support. This definition was central to understanding the nature of Melgar's offense.
• Section 5(e) of RA 9262 — Penalizes specific acts of economic abuse, including "(2) Depriving or threatening to deprive the woman or her children of financial support legally due her or her family, or deliberately providing the woman's children insufficient financial support." Melgar was convicted under this provision.
• Section 5(i) of RA 9262 — Penalizes acts "causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to the woman or her child, including... denial of financial support." The Court differentiated this from Section 5(e), noting 5(i) requires proof of anguish, while 5(e) punishes the denial of support itself.
• Section 6 of RA 9262 — Prescribes the penalties for violations of Section 5, including imprisonment (prision correccional), a fine, and mandatory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment. This section guided the imposition of the modified penalty.
• Act No. 4103 (Indeterminate Sentence Law), Section 1 — Governs the imposition of indeterminate sentences. Its application to special penal laws that adopt RPC penalty nomenclature was discussed.
• Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 120, Sections 4 and 5 — Detail the "variance doctrine," allowing conviction for an offense proved if included in the offense charged, or vice-versa. This was key to convicting Melgar under Sec. 5(e) despite the Information's wording leaning towards Sec. 5(i).
• Family Code, Articles 194, 195, and 203 — Referenced in a footnote to explain the obligation of parents to provide support to their children, what support comprises, and when it is demandable.