DEMPSEY VS RTC (1988)

FACTS:

Janalita Rapada purports to show that in her cohabitation with the accused, without the benefit of
marriage, Christina Marie was born on October 01, 1984, at the St. Jude's Family Clinic, Olongapo City
where she delivered the child. Her birth certificate, bears the name of the accused as the father. The
Affidavit of the Acknowledgment duly signed by him.

The child receives a monthly support from the accused in the sum of $150.00 thru the child's mother,
Janalita Rapada. Aside from this monthly support, Janalita Rapada obtained a promise from the accused
to declare Christina Marie as his dependent and also a commitment to declare the child after his
citizenship. This will entitle the child for all the benefits and privileges extended to dependents of
American US Navy servicemen like free medical check-up. Efforts were made with the Naval Legal
Service Office, US Naval Facilities, Subic Bay, Philippines to compel the accused to fulfill these
commitments but to no avail. To seek redress thru the Court, she engaged the services of Atty.
Estanislao L. Cesa, Jr., offering P5,000.00 as Attorney's fee payable after the cases are decided.

On January 30, 1986, two separate informations were filed against respondent Joel Dempsey before
the Municipal Trial Court, Branch II, Olongapo City charging him with violation of Article 59 (par. 2) of
P.D. 603 and Article 46, par. 8 of P.D. 603.

minal Case No. 68-86

That on or about and during the period from December 1985 to the present, in the City
of Olongapo, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously leave their conjugal
dwelling at No. 15 Ohio Street, Upper Kalaklan, Olongapo City and abandon his child
Christina R. Dempsey and deprive him (sic) of his love, care and protection she from the
accused (sic) since then, by continuously failing and refusing to give adequate support
to the said minor child and despite pleas, the accused without lawful justification, failed,
disregarded and still continues to fail and disregard to perform his obligations to his said
minor child Christina R. Dempsey,

Criminal Case No. 69-86

That on or about and during the period from December 1985 to the present, in the City
of Olongapo, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and criminally fail and refuse to
provide his child Christina R. Dempsey with adequate support, as defined in Article 290
of the Civil Code, despite the fact that he is capable of supporting his child, and despite
pleas, the accused without lawful justification, failed and refused and still fails and refuses
to provide his child with adequate support, to the damage and prejudice of the said child.

ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excessive
jurisdiction.

HELD: Joel Dempsey's plea of guilt to the charge of withholding support from his minor daughter was
made without a full understanding of that particular charge. Janalita Rapada herself testified that she is
receiving $150.00 a month for the support of the minor Christina Marie Dempsey. The amount of
P3,000.00 monthly appears to fulfill the requirement of "adequate support" found in Par. 8, Art. 46 of
P.D. No. 603. What Rapada wants is a judicial declaration for this support to continue. This cannot be
the basis of a criminal conviction.

As to the information charging abandonment, the private respondent entered his plea of guilt with full
knowledge of the consequences and meaning of his act and with the assistance of his counsel. The
reversal of conviction based on a plea of guilty is an act which is not at all explained by the respondent
court and, therefore, in excess of its jurisdiction. It is well-settled as a general rule that a plea of guilt is
sufficient to sustain conviction without introduction of further evidence (People v. Formentera, 130 SCRA
114; People v. Balisacan, 17 SCRA 119; People v. Gravino, et al., 122 SCRA 123; People v. Pajarillo,
94 SCRA 828). Only in such exceptional cases as capital offenses is evidence still required.

that Christina Dempsey is not entitled to the rights arising from the parental responsibility of her father,
she being an illegitimate child. Reliance was made on Art. 17 of P.D. 603 which defines the joint parental
authority of parents over their legitimate or adopted children. The respondent court's observations are
wrong because the law itself protects even illegitimate children. Illegitimate children have rights of the
same nature as legitimate and adopted children. This is enunciated in Art. 3, P.D. 603 which provides
that "all children shall be entitled to the rights herein set forth without distinction as to legitimacy or
illegitimacy, sex, social status, religion, political antecedents, and other factors." Rights must be
enforced or protected to the extent that it is possible to do so.

In this criminal prosecution, where the accused pleaded guilty to criminal charges and the issue of
recognition was not specifically and fully heard and tried, the trial court committed reversible error when
it ordered recognition of a natural child as part of the civil liability in the criminal case.