FACTS:

The petitioner and respondent were previously married in Holland and divorced in 1995. The petitioner claimed that the respondent failed to provide financial support for their son. The petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent, and an information was filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Cebu City. The court granted the respondent's motion to dismiss, stating that the facts charged in the case did not constitute an offense for an alien. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the court.

The petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court, raising two issues: (1) whether a foreign national has an obligation to support his minor child under Philippine law; and (2) whether a foreign national can be held criminally liable under the Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004 (R.A. No. 9262) for his failure to support his minor child. The Supreme Court explained that it is taking cognizance of the case, despite it being directly lodged with the Supreme Court, because it falls under the instances when a ruling of the trial court may be brought on appeal directly to the Supreme Court without violating the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. The Court noted that the case presents a novel question of law concerning the liability of a foreign national under special criminal laws related to family rights and duties.

The Court found the petition meritorious, although it did not fully agree with the petitioner's contentions. The Court emphasized that the legal obligation to support must exist to determine criminal liability under R.A. No. 9262. The petitioner invoked Article 195 of the Family Code, which states the parent's obligation to support the child. However, the Court did not provide further information on the petitioner's arguments related to the divorce decree's impact on the obligation.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not a foreign national has an obligation to support his minor child under Philippine law.

2. 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.

RULING:

1. Yes. A foreign national has an obligation to support his minor child under Philippine law when the relevant foreign law is not proven. The court applies the doctrine of processual presumption, which presumes that the foreign law is the same as Philippine law. The respondent, being a foreign national, must support his minor child under the Family Code and R.A. No. 9262, which impose a duty on parents to provide support to their minor children.

2. Yes. A foreign national can be held criminally liable under R.A. No. 9262 for his unjustified failure to support his minor child. The court emphasized that the deprivation or denial of financial support to the child is considered an act of violence against women and children under the special law.

PRINCIPLES:

• Doctrine of Processual Presumption: When a foreign law is not properly pleaded and proved, Philippine courts will presume the foreign law to be the same as Philippine law.

• Nationality Principle: Family rights and duties, like the obligation to support a child, are governed by the national law of the person concerned.

• Public Policy in Conflict of Laws: Foreign laws, judgments, or contracts that are contrary to the established public policy of the forum will not be applied.

• Continuing Offense: The act of denying support to a child under R.A. No. 9262 is considered a continuing offense until the support is provided or the child reaches the age of majority.

• Territoriality Principle in Criminal Law: Penal laws are obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in Philippine territory, reinforcing the court's jurisdiction over offenses occurring within the Philippines.

• R.A. No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004): This law provides that unjust refusal to provide financial support to one's child is a criminal act and constitutes economic abuse.