DEL, SOCORRO v.

WILSEM 744 S 16
FACTS:

Case Background:

● Petitioner: Norma A. Del Socorro

● Respondent: Ernst Johan Brinkman Van Wilsem
● Legal Basis: Violation of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9262, the Anti-Violence Against
Women and Their Children Act of 2004.
● Court: Regional Trial Court of Cebu City (RTC-Cebu)
● Criminal Case Number: CBU-85503

Marriage and Divorce:

● Norma A. Del Socorro and Ernst Johan Brinkman Van Wilsem were married in Holland
on September 25, 1990.
● They had a son, Roderigo Norjo Van Wilsem, born on January 19, 1994.
● The couple divorced on July 19, 1995, in Holland, when their son was 18 months old.
● Norma and Roderigo returned to the Philippines post-divorce.

Support Agreement:

● Ernst promised to provide monthly support of 250 Guilders (approx. PHP 17,500) for
their son.
● Since returning to the Philippines, Ernst failed to provide the promised support.

Respondent's Actions:

● Ernst moved to the Philippines, remarried in Pinamungahan, Cebu, and established a

business (Paree Catering) in Cebu City.

Legal Proceedings:

● On August 28, 2009, Norma sent a letter to Ernst demanding support, which he refused
to receive.
● Norma filed a complaint affidavit with the Provincial Prosecutor of Cebu City for violation
of Section 5, paragraph E(2) of R.A. No. 9262 due to Ernst's refusal to support their
minor child.
● The Provincial Prosecutor recommended filing an information for the crime.
● The information charged Ernst with willfully and unlawfully depriving his son of financial
support, resulting in economic abuse.

Trial Court Proceedings:

● A Hold Departure Order was issued against Ernst, leading to his arrest and subsequent
posting of bail.
● Ernst opposed Norma's Motion/Application for a Permanent Protection Order.
● Ernst filed a Motion to Dismiss on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and prescription of the
crime charged.

RTC-Cebu Rulings:
 ● On February 19, 2010, the RTC-Cebu dismissed the case, stating the facts did not
constitute an offense since Ernst, as a foreign national, was not subject to Philippine
laws regarding support obligations.
● Norma filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that R.A. No. 9262 applies to all
persons in the Philippines, regardless of nationality, obliging them to support their minor
children.
● On September 1, 2010, the RTC-Cebu denied the Motion for Reconsideration,
reiterating that Ernst, as a foreign national, was not bound by Philippine domestic law
regarding parental support obligations and thus could not be charged under R.A. No.
9262.

ISSUES:

1. Obligation to Support Under Philippine Law:

● Issue: Whether or not a foreign national has an obligation to support his minor child
under Philippine law.
● Details: This issue questions whether Philippine laws on parental support, specifically
those outlined in the Family Code, extend to foreign nationals residing in the Philippines.

2. Criminal Liability Under R.A. No. 9262:

● Issue: 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.
● Details: This issue addresses the applicability of the Anti-Violence Against Women and
Their Children Act (R.A. No. 9262) to foreign nationals, particularly regarding the
economic abuse provision related to the failure to provide child support.

RULING:

Case Overview:

● Petition: Review on Certiorari

● Issues Raised: Whether a foreign national has an obligation to support his minor child
under Philippine law and whether he can be held criminally liable under R.A. No. 9262
for failing to do so.

Supreme Court's Decision:

Jurisdiction:

● The Supreme Court took cognizance of the petition directly, as it involved purely
questions of law, consistent with the doctrine of hierarchy of courts and the ruling in
Republic v. Sunvar Realty Development Corporation.
● The issues raised concern the correct application of law and jurisprudence, particularly
the obligation of a foreign national to support his minor child and the potential criminal
liability under R.A. No. 9262.

Obligation to Support:

● The court agreed with the respondent that Article 195 of the Family Code, which
mandates parental support, applies only to Filipino citizens. Under Article 15 of the New
Civil Code, family rights and duties are governed by the personal law of the individual,
meaning the laws of their home country.
 ● However, since the respondent did not adequately prove the law of the Netherlands
regarding parental support, the court applied the doctrine of processual presumption,
assuming the foreign law to be the same as Philippine law.
● The Divorce Covenant presented by the respondent did not explicitly show an exemption
from the obligation to support his child post-divorce. The petitioner claimed that the
covenant actually stated an obligation to support, which was not disputed by the
respondent.

Criminal Liability Under R.A. No. 9262:

● The court held that the respondent could be held liable under Sections 5(e) and 5(i) of
R.A. No. 9262 for unjustly refusing to support his child.
● The act of denying financial support constitutes violence against women and children
under the law.
● Since the respondent resides in the Philippines, the Territoriality Principle in criminal law
applies, making him subject to Philippine penal laws.

Prescription of Crime:

● The court rejected the respondent's claim that the criminal liability had been extinguished
due to the prescription period. The denial of support is considered a continuing offense,
ongoing since 1995, and has not prescribed.

Conclusion:

● The petition was granted.

● The orders of the RTC-Cebu dated February 19, 2010, and September 1, 2010, were
reversed and set aside.
● The case was remanded to the RTC-Cebu for further proceedings based on the merits
of the case.