Rennie Declarador vs Hon. Gubaton et. Al. GR 159208 (August 18, 2006) Facts: Accused was 17 years old w hen he stabbed his female teacher in high school 15 times which resulted to the latters death. Based on the evidence and his plea of guilt, accused was convicted of murder with qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation but the court considered accuseds minority as a special mitigating circumstance thus his sentence was lowered. Instead of reclusion perpetua, the maximum term of imprisonment of reclusion temporal was given in view of the mitigating circumstance. Further the sentence was suspended and commitment to youth rehabilitation center was ordered. This is pursuant with PD 603 as amended. Petitioner, however, claimed that under Art. 192 of PD 603 and AM 02-1-18-SC, the sentence should not have been suspended since the juvenile convicted committed an offense punishable by death, life imprisonment or reclusion perpetua. ISSUE Whether the accuseds sentence should be suspended since the crime committed is punishable by reclusion perpetua but due to the mitigating circumstance of minority the sentence given was reduced to reclusion temporal given the fact that RA 9344 took effect. HELD No. The basis of the exclusion of suspension of sentence is the i mposable penalty for the crime regardless of the actual penalty given. Under the RPC, the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua to death. RA 9344 superseded PD 603 but retained the provisions regarding disqualifications in the suspension of sentence such as the case at bar. Thus, the suspension of sentence was improper. improper .
arraignment he pleaded not guilty but re-entered his plea of guilty to avail the benefits of firs time offenders. Subsequently, he applied for probation but was denied. In his petition for certiorari, the court said that probation and suspension of sentence are different and provisions in PD 603 or RA 9344 cannot be invoked to avail probation. It is specifically stated that in drug trafficking, application for probation should be denied. As a side issue, the court discussed the availment of suspension of sentence under RA 9344. ISSUE Whether suspension of sentence under RA 9344 can still be invoked given the fact that the accused is now 21 years old. HELD NO. The suspension of sentence under Section 38 of Rep. Act No. 9344 could no longer be retroactively applied for petitioners benefit. Section 38 of Rep. Act No. 9344 provides that once a child under 18 years of age is found guilty of the offense charged, instead of pronouncing the judgment of conviction, the court shall place the child in conflict with the law under suspended sentence. Section 40 of Rep. Act No. 9344, however, however, provides that once the child reaches 18 years of age, the court shall determine whether to discharge the child, order execution of sentence, or extend the suspended sentence for a certain specified period or until the child reaches the maximum age of 21 years. years . Petitioner has already reached 21 years of age or over and thus, could no longer be considered a child for purposes of applying Rep. Act 9344. Thus, the application of Sections 38 and 40 appears moot and academic as far as his case is concerned.
Valcesar Estioca vs. People of the Philippines GR 173876 (June 27, 2008) Facts
Michael Padua vs People of the Philippines GR 168546 (July 23, 2008) Facts: Petitioner, who was then 17 years old, was involved in selling illegal drugs. Initially in his
A number of persons were accused of conspiring and robbing an elementary school. One of which is Boniao who was 14 years old at the time of the commission of the crime. They were found guilty by the lower court. When the case was appealed to the CA, RA 9344 took effect and Boniao was acquitted since he was a minor at the time of the crime but without prejudice to his civil liability. Custody was given to his parents.
ISSUE Whether RA 9344 can retroact to Boniaos
give life to the full intent of the law. Civil liability however, is not extinguished.
case. HELD. Yes, the reckoning point in considering minority is the time of the commission of the crime. In this case Boniao is 14 years old hence exempted from criminal liability without prejudice to his civil liability. Art 22 of the Revised Penal Code provides that penal laws may be given retroactive effect if they are in favour of the acused.
Joemar Ortega vs. People of the Philippines. GR. 151085 (August 20, 2008) Facts: Petitioner was 13 years old when he raped a 6 year old girl This act was committed sometime in 1996. The lower courts convicted him of rape with criminal and civil liability imposed. During the pendency of appeal in the Supreme Court, RA 9344 was passed which provided that at the time of the commission of the crime, a child whose age was 15 years old and below will be exempted from criminal liability. ISSUE: Whether criminal liability attaches although there were already convictions in the lower court. Stated otherwise, whether the retroactive effect of the law is not applicable in the case at bar. HELD. NO. Although there is a crime committed, no criminal liability attaches. Sec. 15 of RA 9344 exempts a child below fifteen from criminal liability if at the time of the commission of the crime he is below fifteen (15) years of age. Upon assessment, the offender will be released to the custody of his parents or be referred to prevention programs. It is given a retroactive since penal laws which are favourable to the accused are give retroactive effect(Art 22 of the Revised Penal code) Even if the crime committed is heinous as in this case rape- criminal liability does not attach. The flaw in the logic of the law should be addressed in Congress and not in courts. This is to
Robert Sierra vs People of the Philippines GR 182941 (July 3, 2009) Facts Petitioner was 15 years old when he raped a minor. He was convicted of rape and was imposed a penalty of imprisonment of reclusion perpetua and a fine. He elevated the case to CA and during the pendence of the case, RA 9344 took effect. CA affirmed the conviction and denied the defense of minority since the age was not established by presenting the birth certificate but only alleged in the testimonial of the petitioner and his mother. According to them the burden of proof of age is upon the prosecution. ISSUES Who has the burden of establishing the age of the accused?
proof
in
Whether the law be given retroactive application. HELD: The duty to establish the age of the accused is not on the prosecution but on the accused. Age can be established by birth certificate. Sec. 7 provides that in the absence of such document, age may be based from the information of the child, testimonies of other persons, physical appearance and other relevant evidence. Also in case of doubt, minority should be in favour of the child. In the case at bar, minority was established by the testimonies of the petitioner and his mother. This was not objected by the prosecution and did not even presented contrary evidence. Thus, minority is established. The law should be given retroactive application since this favors the accused as provided for in the Revised Penal Code penal laws favouring the accused should be given retroactive effect. Hence the accused is considered a minor with an age of not above 15 years old. The case is dismissed and the petitioner is referred to the appropriate local social welfare.
Raymund Madali and Rodel Madali vs. People of the Philippines GR 180380 (August 4, 2009)
Facts: Petitioners inflicted physical injuries to the victim which caused the latters death. At the time of the crime, Raymund and Rodel were minors 14 years old and 16 years old respectively. The lower court found them guilty of homicide. Petitioners elevated the case to the CA and during the pendency of the appeal, RA 9344 took effect. ISSUE Whether petitioners should be exempted from criminal liability. HELD Yes. At the time of the commission of the crime, petitioners were minors. By provisions of RA 9344, they are exempted from liability but not from criminal liability. Their exemption however differs. In the case of Raymund, the case is dismissed as to him since he was below 15 years old. He is to be released and custody is given to the parents by virtue of RA 9344 Secs. 6 and 20 setting the minimum age of criminal responsibility and who will have custody respectively. In the case of Rodel, who was 16 years old at that time, It is necessary to determine whether he acted with discernment or not. Sec 6 provides that children above 15 but below 18 will be exempt from criminal liability unless he acted with discernment. He, however, should be subjected to an intervention program. Sec 38 provides for the automatic suspension of sentence.
distinguish as to which crimes the suspension of sentence is applicable. It applies even to heinous crimes such as in this case even if the child in conflict with the law is already 18 years of age or more at the time of the pronouncement of his guilt. However, Sec. 40 limits the suspension of sentence until the child reaches the maximum age of 21. Though the accused is already 31 years old, he is entitled to appropriate disposition under Sec. 51 of RA 9344 where in lieu of confinement in a regular penal institution, he may be ordered to serve in an agricultural camp and other training facilities that may be established, maintained, supervised and controlled by the BUCOR, in coordination with the DSWD. The civil liability remains the same and unaffected.
Robert Remiendo vs. People of the Philippines GR 184874 (October 9, 2009) Facts: Petitioner was a minor whose age is above 15 but below 18 years old when he raped a minor when the latter was left alone in her house. In violating the minor, he threatened to kick the latter if she would shout for help. Petitioner was convicted of rape but on appeal invoked a suspension of sentence pursuant to RA 9344. By the time he was convicted by the trial court and before the case was elevated to the CA, he was already 22 years old.
People of the Philippines vs. Richard Sarcia
Issues:
GR 169641 (September 10, 2009)
Whether criminal liability.
Facts: Accused was 17 years old when he raped the victim who was then a minor. He was convicted of rape with a penalty of death which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in 2005. During the pendency of the appeal in the Supreme Court, RA 9344 took effect. Before the promulgation of SC decision, accused was already 31 years old.
petitioner
is
exempt
from
Whether petitioner is entitled to a suspension of sentence under Sec. 38 and 40 of RA 9344. Held:
HELD
No. Since his age is above 15 and below 18, the finding of discernment is necessary to determine if he would be exempt from criminal liability. In this case, his act of waiting for the victims parents to leave the house before defiling the latter and threatening to kick her if she should shout prove that petitioner can differentiate what is right and wrong.
The application of suspension of sentence is now moot and academic. Sec 38 does not
Furthermore, Sec. 38 and 40, suspension of sentence, can no longer be availed since by the
ISSUE Whether SEC 38 and 40 of RA 9344 to the suspension of sentence apply to the instant c ase.
time his sentence was imposed by the trial court, he was already 22 years old. Sec 40 provides that If the child in conflict with the law has reached eighteen (18) years of age while under suspended sentence, the court shall determine whether to discharge the child in accordance with this Act, to order execution of sentence, or to extend the suspended sentence for a certain period or until the child reaches the maximum age of twenty-one (21) years. G.R. No. 182239
March 16, 2011
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, vs. HERMIE M. JACINTO, AccusedAppellant. FACTS: Accused-appellant Hermie Jacinto, is charged and convicted in the lower courts of raping a 5-year old child, AAA. Jacinto is neighbors with the family of AAA for a long time and he was friends with the victims father. The victim AAA knew Jacinto well, as she calls him kuya. On January 2003, the victims father sent his other daughter, CCC, to the store to buy cigarettes and the victim followed her older sister but did not return with the latter. The father thought that she was left behind to watch television at another house. A witness saw Jacinto with the victim later on, at the store where the latter was seated in his lap. The victim testified that when she left the store with the accused Jacinto, he had carnal knowledge of her. She went home crying after the incident. The victims father confronted Jacinto and called the police. AAA underwent a physical checkup which leads to findings that she ha d been raped. For his defense, Jacinto interposed an alibi, that he attended a birthday party at the time of the incident and that the victim merely followed him when he went to the store. The RTC found Jacinto guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Thereafter, the defense moved to reopen the trial for reception of newly discovered evidence. It is stated that appellant Jacinto was born on March 1, 1985. This means that at the time of the alleged commission of the crime, he was merely 17 years old.
The RTC appreciated the new evidence and reduced the penalty. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. ISSUE: Whether or not accused appellant Jacinto should be convicted of rape. What is the imposable penalty on the appellant? HELD/RATIO: Yes, SC confirms conviction. However due to the retroactive effect of RA 9344, and it being proven that Jacinto was a minor at the time the crime was committed The rape that took place has been sufficiently proven in the court. Therefore, the Supreme Court found sufficient ground for conviction. In 2003, at the time of the commission of the crime, Jacinto was 17 years old. Though the RA 9344 took effect only in 2006, it is given a retroactive effect. Sec. 6 of Republic Act No. 9344 exempts a child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age from criminal liability, unless the child is found to have acted with discernment, in which case, "the appropriate proceedings" in accordance with the Act shall be observed. In the present case, Jacinto showed discernment in committing the crime as proven by the facts that he choose an isolated and dark place to perpetrate the crime, to prevent detection and he boxed the victim to weaken her defense. These are indicative of then 17 year-old appellants mental capacity to fully understand the consequences of his unlawful action. To give meaning to the legislative intent of the Act, the promotion of the welfare of a child in conflict with the law should extend even to one who has exceeded the age limit of twenty-one (21) years, so long as he/she committed the crime when he/she was still a child. The offender shall be entitled to the right to restoration, rehabilitation and reintegration in accordance with the Act in order that he/she is given the chance to live a normal life and become a productive member of the community. The age of the child in conflict with the law at the time of the promulgation of the judgment of conviction is not material. What matters is that the offender committed the offense when he/she was still of tender age. RA No. 9344 warrants the suspension of sentence of a child in conflict with the law notwithstanding that he/she has reached the age of
majority at the time the judgment of conviction is pronounced. According to the law, the appellant may be confined in an agricultural camp or any other training facility in accordance with Sec. 51 of Republic Act No. 9344. G.R. No. 173822
October 13, 2010
SALVADOR ATIZADO and SALVADOR MONREAL, Petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. FACTS: Petitioners Atixado and Monreal are accused of killing and murdering one Rogelio Llona on April 1994. It was said that both petitioners barged in on the house of one Desder, where the victim was a guest and suddenly shot at Llona with their guns. After the shooting, they fled. For their defense, the petitioners interposed that they were at their family residence and drinking gin. The RTC convicted Atizado and Monreal for the crime of murder and sentenced them with reclusion perpetua. On appeal to the CA, the court affirmed the conviction in 2005. It is important to note that Salvador Monreal was a minor at the time of the commission of the crime. ISSUE: Whether or not the lower courts erred in finding the petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt for murder. What is the penalty to be imposed on Monreal, a minor during the time of the commission? HELD/RATIO: Yes, conviction affirmed. However, the penalty imposed on Monreal is suspended. The witness positive identification of the petitioners as the killers, and her declarations on what each of the petitioners did when they mounted their sudden deadly assault against Llona left no doubt whatsoever that they had conspired to kill and had done so with treachery. Under Article 248 of the RPC, the penalty for murder is recl usion per pet ua to death. There being no modifying circumstances, the CA correctly imposed the lesser penalty of recl usion per pet ua on Atizado. But recl usion per pet ua was not the correct penalty for Monreal due to his being a minor over 15 but under 18 years of age.
The RTC and the CA did not appreciate Monreals minority at the time of the commission of the murder probably because his birth certificate was not presented at the trial. Yet, it cannot be doubted that Monreal was a minor below 18 years of age when the crime was committed on April 18, 1994. His counter-affidavit, the police blotter and trial records show that Monreal was a minor at the time of the commission. Monreals minority was legally sufficient, for it conformed with the norms subsequently set under Section 7 of Republic Act No. 9344: Section 7. Determinat ion of Age. - The child in conflict with the law shall enjoy the presumption of minority. He/She shall enjoy all the rights of a child in conflict with the law until he/she is proven to be eighteen (18) years old or older. In all proceedings, law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges and other government officials concerned shall exert all efforts at determining the age of the child in conflict with the law. Monreal has been detained for over 16 years, that is, from the time of his arrest on May 18, 1994 until the present. Given that the entire period of Monreals detention should be credited in the service of his sentence, pursuant to Section 41 of Republic Act No. 9344, the revision of the penalty warranted his immediate release from the penitentiary. G.R. No. 184170
February 2, 2011
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JERWIN QUINTAL, VICENTE BONGAT, FELIPE QUINTAL and LARRY PANTI, Accused. FACTS: On 2 May 2001, appellant Vicente, together with 15-year old Jerwin Quintal, 16-year old Felipe Quintal and Larry Panti were charged in an Information for Rape. The victim is a 16-year old girl, AAA. Of all the accused, only Felipe and Jerwin were arrested. The victim testified that in August 2002, as she was leaving a wake at around 10 pm, she noticed that Jerwin was following her. She recognized Jerwin because he was her schoolmate. As AAA was about to go into her grandmothers
house, the both of the accused invited her to go to a birthday party, to which she acceded. She was then led to a rice field where the other accused were and all four of them took turns to rape her. AAA reported the incident after 2 days. The parents of Jerwin accompanied their son and there were talks of Jerwin proposing marriage to the victim and there was an admission of the rape put in writing. For the defense, Jerwin claimed that the victim was his girlfriend and they had sexual intercourse before. In 2006, the RTC convicted all the accused of rape and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, but mitigated the penalty imposed on Jerwin and Felipe for they were minors. Pursuant to R.A. No. 9344, the judgment of conviction against Jerwin Quintal and Felipe Quintal was suspended and they were confined at the Home for Boys in Naga City for rehabilitation. In 2009, the RTC ordered the dismissal of the cases against Jerwin and Felipe upon reconsideration upon the recommendation of the DSWD. The only appellant in this case is Vicente, who was not a minor at the time of the commission of the crime. ISSUE: Whether or not there is sufficient evidence for conviction. HELD/RATIO: No. The credibility of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, as well as the inconclusive medical finding, tends to create doubt if AAA was indeed raped. The RTC and the Court of Appeals relied largely on the testimony of AAA that she was raped. The SC doubted the credibility of AAAs testimony, which was inconsistent with the testimonies she told the barangay tanod and barangay kagawad, the purported confession put into writing and signed by all the accused; and the subsequent incidents relating to the case. The combination of all the circumstances are more than sufficient to create a reasonable doubt as to whether first, rape was actually committed and second, whether the accused were the perpetrators.
As to the minors Jerwin and Felipe, the case against them had been dismissed before the RTC.