Republic of the Philippines

Department of Justice
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
Muntinlupa City

PIA W. STOCKINGER,
Complainant,
NPS-INV-112709
-versus- For: Violation of RA 9262

MARLON STOCKINGER,
Respondent.
x------------------------------/

RESOLUTION

This is a case of violation of Republic Act No. 9262 filed

by Pia Stockinger (complainant) against her husband, Marlon
Stockinger (respondent).

According to complainant, her husband, has an extra-

marital affair with a certain Paulina Vega. She also claimed
that after arriving from Saudi Arabia, her husband cohabited
with said Paulina Vega in respondents parents home.
Because of these, she suffered extreme depression, and
sleepless nights. Moreover, she was unable to perform her
daily routine because of mental and emotional anguish.

Complainant, likewise alleged that respondent failed to

give financial support while he was employed in Saudi
Arabia. As a result, complainant and her children were
sometimes constrained to beg for food from their neighbors.

Finally, complainant alleged that during their

cohabitation, respondent assaulted and inflicted violence
against her person numerous times especially when he is
drunk.
 In his defense, respondent claimed that he has no
extra-marital affair with Paulina Vega since the latter is his
relative. He also claimed that he did not neglect his family,
rather, complainant refused to let her in out of anger that
respondent no longer has a job.

As to the accusation that he failed to give financial

support, respondent averred that he actually sends or remits
his salary on a monthly basis. As proof thereof, respondent
submitted official receipts/payslips evidencing the amounts
he remitted every month.

Finally with regard to the allegation that respondent

inflicted physical violence against the person of complainant,
he argued that complainant failed to substantiate her
accusation.

To be liable for violation of Section 5(i) of RA 9262, the

following elements must concur: (1) The offended party is a
woman and/or her child or children; (2) The woman is either
the wife or former wife of the offender, or is a woman with
whom the offender has or had a sexual or dating
relationship, or is a woman with whom such offender has a
common child. As for the woman's child or children, they
may be legitimate or illegitimate, or living within or without
the family abode; (3) The offender causes on the woman
and/or child mental or emotional anguish; and (4) The
anguish is caused through acts of public ridicule or
humiliation, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, denial of
financial support or custody of minor children or access to
the children or similar such acts or omissions [Ricky
Dinamling v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 199522 (June
22, 2015].

In the case at bar, all the elements are present: (a) the
offended party in this case is the wife of respondent, (b) she
suffered extreme depression, and sleepless nights.
Moreover, she was unable to perform her daily routine
because of mental and emotional anguish, and (c) these
were caused by respondents extra-marital affair.

While respondent claimed that Paulina Vega is a

relative, he did not present any evidence to support his
claim. Moreover, it is elementary that denial as a defense is
inherently weak and cannot prevail over the positive
declaration of the victim [Ricky Dinamling v. People of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 199522 (June 22, 2015].

It is worth stressing that during the conduct of

preliminary investigation, public prosecutors are merely
tasked to determine the existence of probable cause. In the
case of Unilever Philippines, Inc. v. MichaelTan, G.R. No.
179367 (January 29, 2014) the Supreme Court held that:

The determination of probable cause needs only to

rest on evidence showing that more likely than not, a crime
has been committed and there is enough reason to believe
that it was committed by the accused. It need not be based
on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on
evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt. What is
merely required is "probability of guilt." Its determination,
too, does not call for the application of rules or standards of
proof that a judgment of conviction requires after trial on the
merits. Thus, in concluding that there is probable cause, it
suffices that it is believed that the act or omission
complained of constitutes the very offense charged.

It is also important to stress that the determination of

probable cause does not depend on the validity or merits of
a partys accusation or defense or on the admissibility or
veracity of testimonies presented. As previously discussed,
these matters are better ventilated during the trial proper of
the case.
 For this reason, there exists probable cause against
respondent for violating Section 5(i) of Republic Act No.
9262.

The same cannot be said with regard to the accusation

of economic abuse and physical abuse.

Contrary to complainants allegation, respondent

sufficiently proved that he was not remiss in his obligation to
give financial support as evidenced by official receipts and
payslips showing that as a matter of fact he regularly sends
money for his family.

With regard to the allegation of physical violence, there

is nothing in the records of the case to support the
accusation of complainant. It is worth stressing that mere
allegation is not equivalent to proof and that he who alleges
must support it with credible evidence.

In view of the foregoing, there is probable cause to

indict respondent for violating Section 5(i) of Republic Act
No. 9262 and be charged in court. The accusation for
economic and physical violence is dismissed for lack of
evidence.

SO ORDERED.

Muntinlupa City, April 22, 2017.

JOHN RAFAEL MARQUESES

Investigating Prosecutor

Approved by:
SOFIA BREANNE AUSTRIA
City Prosecutor