De Guzman vs.
Perez Under 59(4) of PD 603, the crime of neglect of child must
Relief from Courts | G.R. No. 156013 | July 25, 2006 |
Corona, J. | By Tiongson, J.
FACTS
- Petitioner Roberto De Guzman and Respondent
Shirley Aberde became sweethearts while
studying law at UST but their studies were
interrupted when Aberde became pregnant.
- Aberde then gave birth to De Guzman's child,
Robby, in 1987.
- De Guzman and Aberde never got married and
instead De Guzman married another woman
with whom he begot two children.
- De Guzman allegedly sent money for Robby's
schooling only twice. He also gave Aberde P7000
to help defray the cost of the child's
hospitalization. Other than these instances, De
Guzman never provided any other financial
support for his son.
- In order to make ends meet, Aberde accepted a
job as a factory worker in Taiwan. However, her
salary was still insufficient to provide for her and
Robby's needs. Meanwhile, De Guzman
managed the De Guzman family's corporations
and led a luxurious lifestyle.
- In 2000, Aberde filed a criminal complaint for
abandonment and neglect of child under Art
59(2) and (4) of PD 603.
- In his answer, De Guzman claimed that he did
not intend to abandon Robby. Claiming financial
incapacity, he insisted that the acts attributed to
him did not constitute abandonment or neglect,
explaining that it was his father who shouldered
all the expenses of De Guzman's family.
- The City Prosecutor of Lipa dismissed the
complaint for abandonment but finding
probable cause to charge de Guzman with
neglect of child punishable under Art 59(4) of PD
603 in relation to Sec. 10(a) of RA 7610.
- An information was then filed before the RTC for
the crime of neglecting a minor.
- The Secretary of Justice affirmed the
prosecution.
- De Guzman sought reconsideration but was
denied. Hence this petition.
ISSUES
1. W/N petitioner can be indicted for violation of
Art. 59(4) of PD 603 – YES
have the ff. elements:
1. Offender is a parent;
o Petitioner acknowledged Robby as his
son.
2. He or she neglects his/her own child;
o He stated under oath that the last time
he sent material support to his son was
in 1994 when he gave P7,000 for
hospitalization and medical expenses.
3. The neglect consists in not giving education to
the child
o He has not denied that never
contributed for his education except in 2
instances (1992 & 1993). He admitted
that the boy’s education was being
financed by respondent and her
relatives.
4. The offender’s station in life and financial
condition permit him to given an appropriate
education to the child.
o There is a prima facie showing from the
evidence that petitioner is in fact
capable of supporting Robby's
education. The notarized GIS of the
RNCD Development Corporation
indicates that petitioner owns P750,000
worth of paid-up shares in the company.
2. W/N criminal liability for neglect of child
attaches only if both parents are guilty of
neglecting the child’s education – NO
- The law is clear. The crime may be committed by
any parent.
- The irresponsible parent cannot exculpate
himself from the consequences of his neglect by
invoking the other parent's faithful compliance
with his or her own parental duties.
- To allow the neglectful parent to shield himself
from criminal liability defeats the prescription
that in all questions regarding the care, custody,
education and property of the child, his welfare
shall be the paramount consideration.
3. W/N petitioner is guilty – NO; to be determined
- RA 7610 expressly penalizes any person who
commits other acts of neglect, child abuse,
cruelty or exploitation or be responsible for
other conditions prejudicial to the child's
 development including those covered by Article
59 of PD 603 "but not covered by the Revised
Penal Code."
- The "neglect of child" punished under Article
59(4) of PD 603 is also a crime penalized under
the Art. 27792) of the RPC. Hence, it is excluded
from the coverage of RA 7610.
- Court makes no determination of petitioner's
guilt or innocence of the crime charged. What
has been ascertained is simply the existence of
probable cause for petitioner's indictment for
the charge against him. Petitioner's guilt should
still be proven beyond reasonable doubt in the
Criminal Case (filed against him the City
Prosecutor of Lipa).

SC RULING: Petition is dismissed.

See pertinent provisions: Art. 59(4) of PD 603, Sec. 10(a)

of RA 7610, & Art. 277(2) of the RPC