Professional Documents
Culture Documents
cogent facts and circumstances which, if considered, will change the outcome of the
THIRD DIVISION case.
FFF arrived at about 10:00 in the morning of that day. When he learned
Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty. Trial on the merits ensued. about what had happened, FFF brought his daughter to the Clarin Health
In the course of the trial, two varying versions emerged. Center for medical attention and treatment.[15] Dr. Vicente Manalo (Dr.
Manalo) attended to VVV and issued her a medical certificate[16] dated
Version of the Prosecution September 2, 2000, stating that VVV sustained the following:
Private complainant VVV was born on March 24, 1984 in Mentalongon, CONTUSION WITH HEMATOMA PROXIMAL
Dalaguete, Cebu to FFF and MMM.[8] LATERAL PORTION OF THIGH, RIGHT
TIME TO HEAL: 3-4 DAYS, BARRING
On September 24, 1997, VVV's father, FFF, started leasing a portion of the COMPLICATIONS
fishpond owned by Escolastico Ronquillo (Escolastico), located at Lajog,
Clarin, Bohol. FFF and his family occupied the house beside the fishpond
which was left by the former tenant.[9] From the health center, FFF and VVV went to the Clarin Police Station where
they had the incident blottered.[17] Thereafter, FFF requested Eliezer Inferido
On September 2, 2000 at around 7:00 in the morning, while VVV was cutting to take pictures of the injuries sustained by VVV.[18]
grass in their yard, appellant arrived looking for FFF who was then at another
fishpond owned by Nilda Parilla located in Boacao, Clarin, Bohol. VVV knew Version of the Defense
appellant because he is the husband of Bienvenida Ronquillo (Bienvenida),
one of the heirs of Escolastico.[10] She noticed that appellant had a sanggot Appellant and his wife, Bienvenida, developed and operated the fishpond
(sickle) tucked in his waist. from 1982 to 1987. Sometime in 1997, FFF occupied the fishpond and the
nipa hut beside the same, by virtue of a Memorandum of Agreement[19]
(MOA) entered into by FFF with the Heirs of Escolastico, as represented by
Appellant claimed that he was surprised that a criminal case was filed by Appellant filed a Motion for Reconsideration[25] contending that appellant
VVV against him for allegedly beating her. Appellant denied that he beat never admitted that he hit VVV. The RTC, however, denied the motion in its
VVV, saying that the instant case was fabricated and was being used as a Order[26] dated August 8, 2003 for being pro forma. Aggrieved, appellant
means to extort money from him.[21] Moreover, appellant asseverated that appealed to the CA.[27]
Ronald Lauren[22] (Ronald) witnessed the incident.
The CA's Ruling
Ronald testified that he saw BBB strike appellant with a piece of wood but
appellant was able to parry the blow; that appellant threw away the piece of On February 20, 2007, the CA held that the record of the proceedings taken
wood; that when appellant threw the piece of wood, there was no one there during appellant's arraignment before the RTC belied appellant's contention
at the time; and that appellant left the place immediately.[23] that his defense was one of absolute denial. The CA pointed to a
manifestation of appellant's counsel, Atty. Cabahug, in open court that
The RTC's Ruling appellant was putting up an affirmative defense because the act of hitting
VVV was unintentional. Furthermore, the defense of absolute denial
On July 30, 2003, the RTC found that at the arraignment, appellant, through interposed by appellant cannot prevail over the positive and categorical
former counsel Atty. Theodore Cabahug (Atty. Cabahug), admitted that he hit statements of VVV and her witnesses, giving full credence to the factual
VVV, although unintentionally. Thus, appellant had the burden of proving findings of the RTC. The CA also ruled that the Information filed against
that, at the time VVV was hit, appellant was performing a lawful act. The RTC appellant was not defective inasmuch as the allegations therein were explicit.
ruled that the evidence did not favor appellant because his demand for FFF's In sum, the CA held that the prosecution had fully established the elements
family to vacate the fishpond, coupled with threats and punctuated with of the offense charged, i.e., Other Acts of Child Abuse under R.A. No. 7610
actual use of force, exceeded the limits allowed by law. The RTC also held and P.D. No. 603. However, the CA opined that the RTC erred in applying
that the injuries sustained by VVV were distinguishable, indicating that the the Indeterminate Sentence Law because R.A. No. 7610 is a special law.
blow was forceful, and that the force used was strong. Thus, the RTC Lastly, the CA deleted the award of civil indemnity and damages for utter lack
disposed in this wise: of basis. The fallo of the CA decision reads:
Appellant, likewise, posits that the instant case is not one for child abuse,
Appellant filed a Motion for Reconsideration[29] which the CA denied in its since VVV was neither punished in a cruel and unusual manner nor
Resolution[30] dated July 11, 2007. deliberately subjected to excessive indignities or humiliation. The act was not
cruel since the injury was merely slight per medical findings; the location of
Hence, this Petition claiming that the CA erred: the injury was on the thigh which is not unusual; and VVV was not beaten in
front of many people as to humiliate her. Lastly, no evidence was submitted
1. IN SUSTAINING THE CONVICTION OF THE ACCUSED by the prosecution, such as a testimony of a child psychologist, or even of
DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE STATE TO VVV's teacher who could have observed changes in the victim's behavior, as
PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE to prove that the injury was prejudicial to the victim's development. Appellant
DOUBT[;] alleges that the charge was obviously made as one for child abuse, instead
of slight physical injuries, in order to subject him to a much heavier penalty.
2. IN SUSTAINING THE RULING OF THE TRIAL COURT Appellant prays for acquittal based on reasonable doubt and, in the
THAT IT HAD JURISDICTION [OVER] THE CASE alternative, if found guilty, he should be convicted only of the crime of slight
DESPITE A DEFECTIVE INFORMATION WHICH physical injuries under the Revised Penal Code.[33]
ALLEGED THAT THE ACTS COMPLAINED OF IS
(sic) NOT COVERED BY THE REVISED PENAL On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) asseverates that
CODE, AS AMENDED[; AND] the instant Petition is fatally defective because it raises purely factual issues
contrary to the mandatory provisions of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court; that
3. IN SUSTAINING THE CONVICTION OF THE ACCUSED the Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN) taken during appellant's
OF THE CRIME CHARGED (VIOLATION OF arraignment on November 6, 2001 clearly shows that appellant, through Atty.
SECTION 10(a) OF R.A. NO. 7610) Cabahug, raised an affirmative defense, hence, appellant cannot now
NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE ACT change his theory; that the prosecution established the fact that appellant
COMPLAINED OF IS OBVIOUSLY COVERED BY committed the acts complained of by virtue of the direct, positive and
THE REVISED PENAL CODE (Act No. 3815) AS categorical testimonies of VVV, corroborated by MMM and duly supported by
SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURY.[31] the medical examination conducted by Dr. Manalo and the entry in the police
In the same manner, we reject appellant's claim that the Information filed Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended, provides:
against him was defective. In Resty Jumaquio v. Hon. Joselito C. Villarosa,[41]
we held that what controls is not the title of the information or the designation SECTION 1. Hereafter, in imposing a prison sentence for an
of the offense but the actual facts recited therein. Without doubt, the offense punished by the Revised Penal Code, or its
averments in the Information clearly make out the offense of child abuse amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to an
under Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610. The following were alleged: (1) the indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be
minority of VVV; (2) the acts constituting physical abuse, committed by that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be
appellant against VVV; and (3) said acts are clearly punishable under R.A. properly imposed under the rules of the said Code, and the
No. 7610 in relation to P.D. No. 603. Indeed, as argued by the OSG, the minimum of which shall be within the range of the penalty
commission of the offense is clearly recited in the Information, and appellant next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense;
cannot now feign ignorance of this. and if the offense is punished by any other law, the court
shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence,
Appellant could only proffer the defense of denial. Notably, the RTC found the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum
VVV and MMM to be credible witnesses, whose testimonies deserve full fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the
credence. It bears stressing that full weight and respect are usually accorded minimum term prescribed by the same.
by the appellate court to the findings of the trial court on the credibility of
witnesses, since the trial judge had the opportunity to observe the demeanor
of the witnesses.[42] Equally noteworthy is the fact that the CA did not disturb To repeat, the penalty for Other Acts of Child Abuse is prision mayor in its
the RTC's appreciation of the witnesses credibility. Thus, we apply the minimum period. This penalty is derived from, and defined in, the Revised
cardinal rule that factual findings of the trial court, its calibration of the Penal Code. Although R.A. No. 7610 is a special law, the rules in the
testimonies of the witnesses, and its conclusions anchored on such findings, Revised Penal Code for graduating penalties by degrees or determining the
are accorded respect, if not conclusive effect, especially when affirmed by proper period should be applied. Thus, where the special law adopted
the CA. The exception is when it is established that the trial court ignored, penalties from the Revised Penal Code, the Indeterminate Sentence Law will
overlooked, misconstrued, or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances apply just as it would in felonies.[46] In People v. Simon,[47] the Court applied
which, if considered, will change the outcome of the case. We have reviewed the first clause of Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law to cases of
the records of the RTC and the CA and we find no reason to deviate from the illegal drugs. In Cadua v. Court of Appeals,[48] the Court applied the same
findings of both courts and their uniform conclusion that appellant is indeed principle to cases involving illegal possession of firearms. In those instances,
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Other Acts of Child the offenses were also penalized under special laws. Finally, in Dulla v. Court
Abuse.[43] of Appeals,[49] a case involving sexual abuse of a child as penalized under
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 186080 August 14, 2009 Same; Same; Child Abuse Law (Republic Act No. 7610); Republic Act No.
7610 supplies the inadequacies of existing laws treating crimes committed against
children, namely, the Revised Penal Code and Presidential Decree No. 603 or the
JULIUS AMANQUITON, Petitioner, Child and Youth Welfare Code; While Republic Act No. 7610 is a statute that
vs. provides for a mechanism for strong deterrence against the commission of child
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. abuse and exploitation, this noble statute should not be used as a sharp sword, ready
to be brandished against an accused even if there is a patent lack of proof to convict
DECISION him of the crime—the right of an accused to liberty is as important as a minor’s right
not to be subjected to any form of abuse.—Time and again, we have held that:
Criminal Law; Presumption of Innocence; An accused is entitled to an Republic Act No. 7610 is a measure geared towards the implementation of a national
acquittal unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt—it is the primordial comprehensive program for the survival of the most vulnerable members of the
duty of the prosecution to present its side with clarity and persuasion, so that population, the Filipino children, in keeping with the Constitutional mandate under
conviction becomes the only logical and inevitable conclusion, with moral Article XV, Section 3, paragraph 2, that “The State shall defend the right of the
certainty.—The Constitution itself provides that in all criminal prosecutions, the children to assistance, including proper care and nutrition, and special
accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. An accused is protection from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation, and other
entitled to an acquittal unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. It is the conditions prejudicial to their development.” This piece of legislation supplies the
primordial duty of the prosecution to present its side with clarity and persuasion, so inadequacies of existing laws treating crimes committed against children, namely,
that conviction becomes the only logical and inevitable conclusion, with moral the Revised Penal Code and Presidential Decree No. 603 or the Child and Youth
certainty. The necessity for proof beyond reasonable doubt was discussed in People Welfare Code. As a statute that provides for a mechanism for strong deterrence
v. Berroya (283 SCRA 111 [1997]): [Proof beyond reasonable doubt] lies in the fact against the commission of child abuse and exploitation, the law has stiffer penalties
that in a criminal prosecution, the State is arrayed against the subject; it enters the for their commission, and a means by which child traffickers could easily be
contest with a prior inculpatory finding in its hands; with unlimited means of prosecuted and penalized. Also, the definition of child abuse is expanded to
command; with counsel usually of authority and capacity, who are regarded as public encompass not only those specific acts of child abuse under existing laws but
officers, as therefore as speaking semi-judicially, and with an attitude of tranquil includes also “other acts of neglect, abuse, cruelty or exploitation and other
majesty often in striking contrast to that of defendant engaged in a perturbed and conditions prejudicial to the child’s development.” However, this noble statute
distracting struggle for liberty if not for life. These inequalities of position, the law should not be used as a sharp sword, ready to be brandished against an accused even
strives to meet by the rule that there is to be no conviction where there is reasonable if there is a patent lack of proof to convict him of the crime. The right of an accused
doubt of guilt. However, proof beyond reasonable doubt requires only moral to liberty is as important as a minor’s right not to be subjected to any form of abuse.
certainty or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. Both are enshrined in the Constitution. One need not be sacrificed for the other.
Same; Same; Pro Reo Principle; Equipoise Rule; Words and Phrases; Where Same; Same; Same; While unfortunately, incidents of maltreatment of children
the evidence on an issue of fact is in question or there is doubt on which side the abound amidst social ills, care has to be likewise taken that wayward youths should
evidence weighs, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused; If inculpatory not be cuddled by a misapplication of the law—society, through its laws, should
facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one consistent correct the deviant conduct of the youth rather than take the cudgels for them.—
with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the There is no dearth of law, rules and regulations protecting a child from any and all
evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and will not justify a forms of abuse. While unfortunately, incidents of maltreatment of children abound
conviction.—While we ordinarily do not interfere with the findings of the lower amidst social ills, care has to be likewise taken that wayward youths should not be
courts on the trustworthiness of witnesses, when there appear in the records facts and cuddled by a misapplication of the law. Society, through its laws, should correct the
circumstances of real weight which might have been overlooked or misapprehended, deviant conduct of the youth rather than take the cudgels for them. Lest we regress to
this Court cannot shirk from its duty to sift fact from fiction. We apply the pro a culture of juvenile delinquency and errant behavior, laws for the protection of
reo principle and the equipoise rule in this case. Where the evidence on an issue of children against abuse should be applied only and strictly to actual abusers. The
fact is in question or there is doubt on which side the evidence weighs, the doubt objective of this seemingly catch-all provision on abuses against children will be best
should be resolved in favor of the accused. If inculpatory facts and circumstances are achieved if parameters are set in the law itself, if only to prevent baseless accusations
On May 10, 2005, the RTC found petitioner and Amante guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime charged.[7] The dispositive portion of the RTC Petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied.[10]
decision read:
Hence, this petition. Petitioner principally argues that the facts of the case as
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this Court finds the established did not constitute a violation of Section 10 (a), Article VI of RA
accused JULIUS AMANQUITON and DOMINADOR 7160 and definitely did not prove the guilt of petitioner beyond reasonable
AMANTE GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for violation of doubt.
Article VI Sec. 10 (a) of Republic Act 7610 in relation to
Section 3 (j) of Republic Act 8369, hereby sentences The Constitution itself provides that in all criminal prosecutions, the
accused JULIUS AMANQUITON and DOMINADOR accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved.[11] An
AMANTE a straight penalty of thirty (30) days of Arresto accused is entitled to an acquittal unless his guilt is shown beyond
Menor. reasonable doubt.[12] It is the primordial duty of the prosecution to present its
side with clarity and persuasion, so that conviction becomes the only logical
Both accused Julius Amanquiton and Dominador Amante and inevitable conclusion, with moral certainty.[13]
are hereby directed to pay Leoselie John A. Banaga the
following: The necessity for proof beyond reasonable doubt was discussed in People v.
Berroya:[14]
1. Actual damages in the amount of P5,000.00; [Proof beyond reasonable doubt] lies in the fact that
2. Moral Damages in the amount of P 30,000.00; and in a criminal prosecution, the State is arrayed against the
3. Exemplary damages in the amount of P 20,000.00. subject; it enters the contest with a prior inculpatory finding in
its hands; with unlimited means of command; with counsel
The case against the accused Gil Gepulane is usually of authority and capacity, who are regarded as public
hereby sent to the ARCHIVES to be revived upon the arrest officers, as therefore as speaking semi-judicially, and with an
of the accused. Let [a] warrant of arrest be issued against attitude of tranquil majesty often in striking contrast to that of
him. defendant engaged in a perturbed and distracting struggle
for liberty if not for life. These inequalities of position, the law
SO ORDERED. strives to meet by the rule that there is to be no conviction
where there is reasonable doubt of guilt. However, proof
beyond reasonable doubt requires only moral certainty or
Amanquitons motion for reconsideration was denied.[8] that degree of proof which produces conviction in an
unprejudiced mind.
Petitioner filed a notice of appeal which was given due course. On
August 28, 2008, the CA rendered a decision[9] which affirmed the conviction The RTC and CA hinged their finding of petitioners guilt beyond reasonable
but increased the penalty. The dispositive portion of the assailed CA decision doubt (of the crime of child abuse) solely on the supposed positive
read: identification by the complainant and his witness (Alimpuyo) of petitioner and
his co-accused as the perpetrators of the crime.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing the Decision
appealed from is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The We note Baagas statement that, when he was apprehended by petitioner
accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of four and Amante, there were many people around.[15] Yet, the prosecution
(4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision presented only Baaga and his aunt, Alimpuyo, as witnesses to the mauling
correccional maximum up to eight (8) years of prision mayor incident itself. Where were the other people who could have testified, in an
minimum as maximum. In addition to the damages already unbiased manner, on the alleged mauling of Baaga by petitioner and
awarded, a fine of thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00) is Amante, as supposedly witnessed by Alimpuyo?[16] The testimonies of the
hereby solidarily imposed the proceeds of which shall be two other prosecution witnesses, Dr. Paulito Cruz and Rachelle Baaga, did
We apply the pro reo principle and the equipoise rule in this case. The objective of this seemingly catch-all provision on abuses against children
Where the evidence on an issue of fact is in question or there is doubt on will be best achieved if parameters are set in the law itself, if only to prevent
which side the evidence weighs, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the baseless accusations against innocent individuals. Perhaps the time has
accused.[18] If inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more come for Congress to review this matter and institute the safeguards
explanations, one consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other necessary for the attainment of its laudable ends.
consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral
certainty and will not justify a conviction.[19] We reiterate our ruling in People v. Mamalias:[21]
Time and again, we have held that:
We emphasize that the great goal of our criminal law and
Republic Act No. 7610 is a measure geared towards the procedure is not to send people to the gaol but to do justice.
implementation of a national comprehensive program for the The prosecutions job is to prove that the accused is guilty
survival of the most vulnerable members of the population, beyond reasonable doubt. Conviction must be based on the
the Filipino children, in keeping with the Constitutional strength of the prosecution and not on the weakness of the
mandate under Article XV, Section 3, paragraph 2, that The defense. Thus, when the evidence of the prosecution is not
State shall defend the right of the children to assistance, enough to sustain a conviction, it must be rejected and the
including proper care and nutrition, and special accused absolved and released at once.
protection from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty,
exploitation, and other conditions prejudicial to their
SO ORDERED.
SECOND DIVISION Same; Same; Same; The intent of Republic Act No. 9344 is to promote and
protect the rights of a child in conflict with the law or a child at risk by providing a
G.R. No. 182941 July 3, 2009 system that would ensure that children are dealt with in a manner appropriate to
their well-being through a variety of disposition measures such as care, guidance
and super-vision orders, counseling, probation, foster care, education and
ROBERT SIERRA y CANEDA, Petitioner, vocational training programs and other alternatives to institutional care; The
vs. current law also drew its changes from the principle of restorative justice that it
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. espouses—it considers the ages 9 to 15 years as formative years and gives minors of
these ages a chance to right their wrong through diversion and intervention
DECISION measures.—R.A. No. 9344 was enacted into law on April 28, 2006 and took effect
on May 20, 2006. Its intent is to promote and protect the rights of a child in conflict
Criminal Law; Exempting Circumstances; Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of with the law or a child at risk by providing a system that would ensure that children
2006 (Republic Act No. 9344); The defense is entitled to present all alternative are dealt with in a manner appropriate to their well-being through a variety of
defenses available to it, even inconsistent ones.—While the defense, on appeal, disposition measures such as care, guidance and supervision orders, counseling,
raises a new ground—i.e., exemption from criminal liability under R.A. No. 9344— probation, foster care, education and vocational training programs and other alter-
that implies an admission of guilt, this consideration in no way swayed the natives to institutional care. More importantly in the context of this case, this law
conclusion we made above, as the defense is entitled to present all alternative modifies as well the minimum age limit of criminal irresponsibility for minor
defenses available to it, even inconsistent ones. We note, too, that the defense’s offenders; it changed what paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 12 of the Revised Penal
claim of exemption from liability was made for the first time in its appeal to the CA. Code (RPC), as amended, previously provided—i.e., from “under nine years of age”
While this may initially imply an essential change of theory that is usually and “above nine years of age and under fifteen” (who acted without discern-ment)—
disallowed on appeal for reasons of fairness, no essential change is really involved as to “fifteen years old or under” and “above fifteen but below 18” (who acted without
the claim for exemption from liability is not incompatible with the evi dence discernment) in determining exemption from criminal liability. In providing
submitted below and with the lower courts’ conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of exemption, the new law—as the old paragraphs 2 and 3, Article 12 of the RPC did—
the crime charged. An exempting circumstance, by its nature, admits that criminal presumes that the minor offenders completely lack the intelligence to distinguish
and civil liabilities exist, but the accused is freed from criminal liability; in other right from wrong, so that their acts are deemed involuntary ones for which they
words, the accused committed a crime, but he cannot be held criminally liable cannot be held accountable. The current law also drew its changes from the principle
therefor because of an exemption granted by law. In admitting this type of defense of restorative justice that it espouses; it considers the ages 9 to 15 years as formative
on appeal, we are not unmindful, too, that the appeal of a criminal case (even one years and gives minors of these ages a chance to right their wrong through diversion
made under Rule 45) opens the whole case for review, even on questions that the and intervention measures.
parties did not raise. By mandate of the Constitution, no less, we are bound to look
into every circumstance and resolve every doubt in favor of the accused. It is with Same; Same; Same; Burden of Proof; In a criminal case, the burden of proof
these considerations in mind and in obedience to the direct and more specific to establish the guilt of the accused falls upon the prosecution which has the duty to
commands of R.A. No. 9344 on how the cases of children in conflict with the law prove all the essential ingredients of the crime; The defense, not the prosecution, has
should be handled that we rule in this Rule 45 petition. the burden of showing by evidence that the accused was 15 years old or less when he
committed the rape charged—minority and age are not elements of the crime of
Same; Same; Same; The age of the accused is critical for purposes of his rape.—Burden of proof, under Section 1, Rule 131 of the Rules on Evidence, refers
entitlement to exemption from criminal liability under Republic Act No. 9344, while to the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue in order to establish his
the age of the victim is material in characterizing the crime committed and in or her claim or defense. In a criminal case, the burden of proof to establish the guilt
considering the resulting civil liability that R.A. No. 9344 does not remove.—In of the accused falls upon the prosecution which has the duty to prove all the essential
tackling the issues of age and minority, we stress at the outset that the ages of both ingredients of the crime. The prosecution completes its case as soon as it has
the petitioner and the complaining victim are material and are at issue. The age of the presented the evidence it believes is sufficient to prove the required elements. At this
petitioner is critical for purposes of his entitlement to exemption from criminal point, the burden of evidence shifts to the defense to disprove what the prosecution
liability under R.A. No. 9344, while the age of the latter is material in characterizing has shown by evidence, or to prove by evidence the circumstances showing that the
accused did not commit the crime charged or cannot otherwise be held liable
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of The defense also presented BBB who denied that the petitioner
Appeals. raped her; she confirmed the petitioners claim that AAA bore her brother a
grudge.
BRION, J.:
On April 5, 2006, the RTC convicted the petitioner of qualified rape as
Before us is the petition of Robert Sierra y Caneda (petitioner) for the review follows:
on certiorari[1] of the Decision[2] and Resolution[3] of the Court of Appeals[4]
(CA) that affirmed with modification his conviction for the crime of qualified WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this Court finds the
rape rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 159, Pasig City, in accused ROBERT SIERRA y CANEDA GUILTY beyond
its decision of April 5, 2006. reasonable doubt of the crime of rape (Violation of R.A. 8353
in relation to SC A.M. 99-1-13) and hereby sentences the
THE ANTECEDENT FACTS said juvenile in conflict with law to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment of reclusion perpetua; and to indemnify the
In August 2000, thirteen-year-old AAA[5] was playing with her friend BBB in victim the amount of P75,000 as civil indemnity, P50,000 as
the second floor of her familys house in Palatiw, Pasig. The petitioner arrived moral damages, and P25,000 as exemplary damages.
holding a knife and told AAA and BBB that he wanted to play with them. The
petitioner then undressed BBB and had sexual intercourse with her. SO ORDERED.[8]
Afterwards, he turned to AAA, undressed her, and also had sexual
intercourse with her by inserting his male organ into hers. The petitioner The petitioner elevated this RTC decision to the CA by attacking AAAs
warned AAA not to tell anybody of what they did. credibility. He also invoked paragraph 1, Section 6 of R.A. No. 9344 (Juvenile
THE COURTS RULING We find a review of the facts of the present case and of the
We grant the petition. applicable law on exemption from liability compelling because of the patent
errors the CA committed in these regards. Specifically, the CAs findings of
We examine at the outset the prosecutions evidence and the findings fact on the issues of age and minority, premised on the supposed absence of
of the lower courts on the petitioners guilt, since the petition opens the whole evidence, are contradicted by the evidence on record; it also manifestly
case for review and the issues before us are predicated on the petitioners overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties that, if properly
guilt of the crime charged. A determination of guilt is likewise relevant under considered, would justify a different conclusion.[ 2 5 ]
the terms of R.A. No. 9344 since its exempting effect is only on the criminal,
not on the civil, liability. In tackling the issues of age and minority, we stress at the outset that
the ages of both the petitioner and the complaining victim are material and
We see no compelling reason, after examination of the CA decision are at issue. The age of the petitioner is critical for purposes of his
and the records of the case, to deviate from the lower courts findings of guilt. entitlement to exemption from criminal liability under R.A. No. 9344, while the
The records show that the prosecution established all the elements of the age of the latter is material in characterizing the crime committed and in
crime charged through the credible testimony of AAA and the other considering the resulting civil liability that R.A. No. 9344 does not remove.
corroborating evidence; sexual intercourse did indeed take place as the Minority as an Exempting Circumstance
information charged.[19] As against AAAs testimony, the petitioner could only
raise the defenses of denial and alibi defenses that, in a long line of cases, R.A. No. 9344 was enacted into law on April 28, 2006 and took effect
we have held to be inherently weak unless supported by clear and on May 20, 2006. Its intent is to promote and protect the rights of a child in
convincing evidence; the petitioner failed to present this required evidentiary conflict with the law or a child at risk by providing a system that would ensure
support.[20] We have held, too, that as negative defenses, denial and alibi that children are dealt with in a manner appropriate to their well-being
cannot prevail over the credible and positive testimony of the complainant.[21] through a variety of disposition measures such as care, guidance and
We sustain the lower courts on the issue of credibility, as we see no supervision orders, counseling, probation, foster care, education and
compelling reason to doubt the validity of their conclusions in this regard. vocational training programs and other alternatives to institutional care.[26]
Burden of Proof Rule 30-A of the Rules and Regulations Implementing R.A. No. 9344
provides the implementing details of this provision by enumerating the
Burden of proof, under Section 1, Rule 131 of the Rules on measures that may be undertaken by a law enforcement officer to ascertain
Evidence, refers to the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in the childs age:
issue in order to establish his or her claim or defense. In a criminal case, the
burden of proof to establish the guilt of the accused falls upon the (1) Obtain documents that show proof of the childs age, such
prosecution which has the duty to prove all the essential ingredients of the as
crime. The prosecution completes its case as soon as it has presented the
evidence it believes is sufficient to prove the required elements. At this point, (a) Childs birth certificate;
the burden of evidence shifts to the defense to disprove what the prosecution (b) Childs baptismal certificate ;or
has shown by evidence, or to prove by evidence the circumstances showing (c) Any other pertinent documents such as but not
that the accused did not commit the crime charged or cannot otherwise be limited to the childs school records, dental records,
held liable therefor. In the present case, the prosecution completed its or travel papers.
evidence and had done everything that the law requires it to do. The burden (2) x x x
of evidence has now shifted to the defense which now claims, by an
affirmative defense, that the accused, even if guilty, should be exempt from (3) When the above documents cannot be obtained or
criminal liability because of his age when he committed the crime. The pending receipt of such documents, the law enforcement
defense, therefore, not the prosecution, has the burden of showing by officer shall exhaust other measures to determine age
evidence that the petitioner was 15 years old or less when he committed the by:
rape charged.[30]
(a) Interviewing the child and obtaining information that
This conclusion can also be reached by considering that minority and indicate age (e.g. date of birthday, grade level in
age are not elements of the crime of rape; the prosecution therefore has no school);
duty to prove these circumstances. To impose the burden of proof on the (b) Interviewing persons who may have knowledge that
prosecution would make minority and age integral elements of the crime indicate[s] age of the child (e.g. relatives, neighbors,
when clearly they are not. [31] If the prosecution has a burden related to age, teachers, classmates);
Section 7, R.A. No. 9344, while a relatively new law (having been Given the express mandate of R.A. No. 9344, its implementing rules,
passed only in 2006), does not depart from the jurisprudence existing at that and established jurisprudence in accord with the latest statutory
time on the evidence that may be admitted as satisfactory proof of the developments, the CA therefore cannot but be in error in not appreciating
accuseds minority and age. and giving evidentiary value to the petitioners and CCCs testimonies relating
to the formers age.
In the 1903 case of U.S. v. Bergantino,[33] we accepted testimonial
evidence to prove the minority and age of the accused in the absence of any Retroactive Application of R.A. No. 9344
document or other satisfactory evidence showing the date of birth. This was
followed by U.S. v. Roxas[34] where the defendants statement about his age That the petitioner committed the rape before R.A. No. 9344 took
was considered sufficient, even without corroborative evidence, to establish effect and that he is no longer a minor (he was already 20 years old when he
that he was a minor of 16 years at the time he committed the offense took the stand) will not bar him from enjoying the benefit of total exemption
charged. Subsequently, in People v. Tismo,[35] the Court appreciated the that Section 6 of R.A. No. 9344 grants.[41] As we explained in discussing
minority and age of the accused on the basis of his claim that he was 17 Sections 64 and 68 of R.A. No. 9344[42] in the recent case of Ortega v.
years old at the time of the commission of the offense in the absence of any People:[43]
contradictory evidence or objection on the part of the prosecution. Then, in
People v. Villagracia,[36] we found the testimony of the accused that he was Section 64 of the law categorically provides that
less than 15 years old sufficient to establish his minority. We reiterated these cases of children 15 years old and below, at the time of the
dicta in the cases of People v. Morial[37] and David v. Court of Appeals,[38] commission of the crime, shall immediately be dismissed
and ruled that the allegations of minority and age by the accused will be and the child shall be referred to the appropriate local social
accepted as facts upon the prosecutions failure to disprove the claim by welfare and development officers (LSWDO). What is
contrary evidence. controlling, therefore, with respect to the exemption
from criminal liability of the CICL, is not the CICLs age at
In these cases, we gave evidentiary weight to testimonial evidence the time of the promulgation of judgment but the CICLs
on the accuseds minority and age upon the concurrence of the following age at the time of the commission of the offense. In
conditions: (1) the absence of any other satisfactory evidence such as the short, by virtue of R.A. No. 9344, the age of criminal
birth certificate, baptismal certificate, or similar documents that would prove irresponsibility has been raised from 9 to 15 years old.
the date of birth of the accused; (2) the presence of testimony from accused [Emphasis supplied]
and/or a relative on the age and minority of the accused at the time of the
complained incident without any objection on the part of the prosecution; and The retroactive application of R.A. No. 9344 is also justified under Article 22
(3) lack of any contrary evidence showing that the accuseds and/or his of the RPC, as amended, which provides that penal laws are to be given
relatives testimonies are untrue. retroactive effect insofar as they favor the accused who is not found to be a
habitual criminal. Nothing in the records of this case indicates that the
All these conditions are present in this case. First, the petitioner and petitioner is a habitual criminal.
CCC both testified regarding his minority and age when the rape was
committed.[39] Second, the records before us show that these pieces of Civil Liability
testimonial evidence were never objected to by the prosecution. And lastly,
the prosecution did not present any contrary evidence to prove that the The last paragraph of Section 6 of R.A. No. 9344 provides that the
petitioner was above 15 years old when the crime was committed. accused shall continue to be civilly liable despite his exemption from criminal
liability; hence, the petitioner is civilly liable to AAA despite his exemption
We also stress that the last paragraph of Section 7 of R.A. No. 9344 from criminal liability. The extent of his civil liability depends on the crime he
provides that any doubt on the age of the child must be resolved in his would have been liable for had he not been found to be exempt from criminal
favor.[40] Hence, any doubt in this case regarding the petitioners age at the liability.
3. If the certificate of live birth or authentic document is Accordingly, we uphold the grant of moral damages of P50,000.00
shown to have been lost or destroyed or otherwise but increase the awarded exemplary damages P30,000.00, both pursuant to
unavailable, the testimony, if clear and credible, of the prevailing jurisprudence.[47]Moral damages are automatically awarded to rape
victims mother or a member of the family either by affinity victims without the necessity of proof; the law assumes that the victim
or consanguinity who is qualified to testify on matters suffered moral injuries entitling her to this award.[48]Article 2230 of the Civil
respecting pedigree such as the exact age or date of birth Code justifies the award of exemplary damages because of the presence of
of the offended party pursuant to Section 40, Rule 130 of the aggravating circumstances of relationship between AAA and petitioner
the Rules on Evidence shall be sufficient under the and dwelling.[49] As discussed above, the relationship (between the parties) is
following circumstances: not disputed. We appreciate dwelling as an aggravating circumstance based
on AAAs testimony that the rape was committed in their house.[50] While
a. If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years dwelling as an aggravating circumstance was not alleged in the Information,
of age and what is sought to be proved established jurisprudence holds that it may nevertheless be appreciated as
is that she is less than 7 years old; basis for the award of exemplary damages.[51]
b. If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years
of age and what is sought to be proved We modify the awarded civil indemnity of P75,000.00 to P50,000.00,
is that she is less than 12 years old; the latter being the civil indemnity appropriate for simple rape[52] on the
c. If the victim is alleged to be below 12 finding that rape had been committed.[53]
years of age and what is sought to be
SO ORDERED.
As for the second and third issues, Padua cannot argue that his right
under Rep. Act No. 9344, the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 was
violated. Nor can he argue that Section 32 of A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC otherwise
known as the Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law has application in
[36]
this case. Section 68 of Rep. Act No. 9344 and Section 32 of A.M. No. 02-
1-18-SC both pertain to suspension of sentence and not probation.
4. Crim. Case No. Q-00-91970: He turned her around three (3) times and then, removed her shorts and
underwear. After that, he sat on a chair, which was inside the bathroom, and
That on or about the 20th day of March 1998 in Quezon City, raised both of her legs.
Philippines, the above-named accused with force and
intimidation did then and there willfully, unlawfully and Thereafter, she felt him on top of her. She also felt accused-appellant’s penis
feloniously commit acts of sexual assault at knifepoint upon enter her vagina which she found painful.
the person of [AAA] his own niece a minor 10 years of age
by then and there laying her down on a bed inside his She cried and shouted the name of her aunt, but accused-appellant got
grandparents’ room then blindfolded her, then removed her angry and poked a sharp instrument on her neck. [AAA] did not report the
shorts and underwear, then accused inserted his penis incident because accused-appellant threatened to cut her tongue and to kill
inside her vagina and thereafter had carnal knowledge of her her and her mother.
against her will and without her consent.7
[AAA] was raped again on 20 March 1998 while she was at the same house
5. Crim. Case No. Q-00-91971:
of her paternal grandparents. She was on the terrace on the second floor of
the house when accused-appellant, who was in her grandparents’ bedroom
That on or about the 11th day of May 1998 in Quezon City, at that time, called her. She hesitated to go near him because she was afraid
Philippines, the above-named accused with force and that he might rape her again.
intimidation did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously commit acts of sexual assault at knifepoint upon Accused-appellant then went to the terrace and dragged her to the bedroom
the person of [AAA] his own niece a minor 10 years of age of her grandparents. She could not run anymore nor shout for help because
by then and there removing her shorts and underwear and
aside from the fact that there was nobody else in the room, accused-
inserting his penis inside her vagina and thereafter had appellant was holding a pointed weapon.
carnal knowledge of her against her will and without her
consent.8 Accused-appellant Roxas entered a plea of Not
Guilty to all the crimes charged.9 While [AAA] and accused-appellant were inside the room, he blindfolded her,
removed her shorts and underwear, and then laid her down the bed.
Accused-appellant committed the same acts he had perpetrated on [AAA] [EEE], brother of herein private complainant, likewise testified that when [his
during her three [previous] rape incidents: he removed her shorts and Tita VVV] arrived, they went to North Olympus, Quezon City where [his]
underwear, laid her on the bed, moved on top of her and thereafter, inserted maternal relatives reside. On one occasion, he saw his sister, [AAA] and his
his penis in her vagina. She was again threatened by the accused-appellant maternal uncle [Tito XXX] entered one of the bedrooms. He tried to open the
not to tell anybody about the incident or else he would cut her tongue and kill door to see what the duo were doing, but it was locked. [EEE] looked for a
her and her mother. wire and was able to open the door. He saw private complainant on top of his
[TitoXXX], both naked. When the duo saw him, private complainant and his
The fifth and last incident of rape happened on 09 August 1998. At that time, [Tito XXX] stood up. The latter threatened him not to tell anybody or he will
[AAA] was at the terrace on the second floor of her paternal grandparents’ cut off his tongue.
house; and accused-appellant also happened to be there. He pulled her and
brought her inside the room, blindfolded her, and turned her around three (3) On November 26, 1999, [BBB], mother of the private complainant testified
times. He employed the same method in raping her: he removed her shorts that her two (2) children, [AAA] and [DDD], were missing. She looked for
and underwear, laid her on the bed and moved on top of her. She tried to them, but to no avail. So she went to the police station to have it blottered.
push him and raise her shorts and panty, but she did not succeed because Later did she know when she called her sister who resides in Project 6,
he poked a pointed instrument on her neck. Thereafter, he inserted his penis Quezon City that [DDD] was brought to Ilocos and [AAA] at the SSDD in
in her vagina. Again, she did not report the incident to anyone because she Kamuning by her 3 brothers and sister. She filed a case of kidnapping
was scared of his threats.10 (Emphases supplied, citations omitted.) against his brother [Tito WWW]. [Tito WWW], however, promised to return
her children if she will have the said case dismissed which she did.
In contrast, the defense presented four witnesses: AAA’s mother (BBB),
AAA’s two brothers (DDD and EEE), and Dr. Agnes Aglipay, Regional She denied the allegations that[her] brother-in-law, herein accused, raped
Psychiatrist of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology. The defense’s her daughter, [AAA]. In fact, before the filing of the present rape cases there
The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not include We shall now discuss the criminal liability of accused-appellant Roxas. As
exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced in accordance with stated above, the trial court imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua for
existing laws. (Emphasis supplied.) each count of rape.
In determining age for purposes of exemption from criminal liability, Section 6 The first rape incident was committed in July 1997, and therefore the law
clearly refers to the age as determined by the anniversary of one’s birth date, applicable is Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic
and not the mental age as argued by accused-appellant Roxas. When the Act No. 7659 which provides:
law is clear and free from any doubt or ambiguity, there is no room for
construction or interpretation. Only when the law is ambiguous or of doubtful
19 ART. 335. When and how rape is committed. — Rape is committed by
meaning may the court interpret or construe its true intent.
having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following
circumstances:
On the matter of the credibility of AAA, we carefully examined AAA’s
testimony and found ourselves in agreement with the assessment of the trial
1. By using force or intimidation;
court and the Court of Appeals. As observed by the appellate court:
However, the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty on accused-
1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the
appellant, applying Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659.1âwphi1 We have
following circumstances:
consistently held that the circumstances under the amendatory provisions of
Section 11 of R.A. No. 7659, the attendance of which could mandate the
a) Through force, threat or intimidation; imposition of the single indivisible penalty of death, are in the nature of
qualifying circumstances which cannot be proved as such unless alleged in
b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise the information. Even in cases where such circumstances are proved, the
unconscious; death penalty cannot be imposed where the information failed to allege them.
To impose the death penalty on the basis of a qualifying circumstance which
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; has not been alleged in the information would violate the accused's
and constitutional and statutory right to be informed of the nature and cause of
the accusation against him.
d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is
demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above While the informations in this case alleged that accused-appellant is the
be present. uncle of the two victims, they did not state that he is their relative within the
third civil degree of consanguinity or affinity. The testimonial evidence that
Article 266-B. Penalties. — Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding accused-appellant's wife and Luisa de Guzman are sisters is immaterial. The
article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua. circumstance that accused-appellant is a relative of the victims by
consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree must be alleged in the
In the case at bar, the allegation that AAA was accused-appellant Roxas’s
"niece" in each Information is therefore insufficient to constitute the qualifying
circumstances of minority and relationship. Instead, the applicable qualifying
circumstance is that of the use of a deadly weapon, for which the penalty is
reclusion perpetua to death. Since there was no other aggravating
circumstance alleged in the Information and proven during the trial, the
imposed penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count of rape is nonetheless
proper even as we overturn the lower courts’ appreciation of the qualifying
circumstances of minority and relationship.
SO ORDERED.
Same; Statutory Construction; Courts; The Court has no discretion to give Criminal Case No. 98-19084
statutes a meaning detached from the manifest intendment and language of the law—
its task is constitutionally confined only to applying the law and jurisprudence to the That on or about the 1st day of December, 1996, in the
proven facts.—The Court is fully cognizant that our decision in the instant case Municipality of XXX, Province of YYY, Philippines, and
effectively exonerates petitioner of rape, a heinous crime committed against AAA within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
who was only a child at the tender age of six (6) when she was raped by the named accused, by means of force, violence and
petitioner, and one who deserves the law’s greater protection. However, this intimidation, did then and there, (sic) willfully, unlawfully and
consequence is inevitable because of the language of R.A. No. 9344, the wisdom of feloniously (sic) had carnal knowledge of and/or sexual
which is not subject to review by this Court. Any perception that the result reached intercourse with the said AAA, a minor, then about 6 years
herein appears unjust or unwise should be addressed to Congress. Indeed, the Court old, against her will.
has no discretion to give statutes a meaning detached from the manifest intendment
and language of the law. Our task is constitutionally confined only to applying the CONTRARY TO LAW.[8]
law and jurisprudence to the proven facts, and we have done so in this case.
Upon arraignment on September 10, 1998, petitioner pleaded not guilty to
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals. the offense charged.[9] Thus, trial on the merits ensued. In the course of the
trial, two varying versions arose.
This last incident was corroborated by BBB in his testimony. When BBB was Petitioner was born on August 8, 1983 to spouses Loreto (Loreto) and
about to drink water in their kitchen, as he was passing by his room, BBB Luzviminda Ortega.[24] He is the second child of three siblings ― an elder
was shocked to see petitioner and AAA both naked from their waist down in brother and a younger sister. Petitioner denied the accusations made against
the act of sexual intercourse. BBB saw petitioner holding AAA and making a him. He testified that: his parents and AAA's parents were good friends;
pumping motion. Immediately, BBB told petitioner to stop; the latter, in turn, when MMM left AAA and her brothers to the care of his mother, petitioner
hurriedly left. Thereafter, BBB reported the incident to his mother, MMM.[17] slept in a separate room together with BBB and CCC while AAA slept
together with Luzviminda and his younger sister; he never touched or raped
MMM testified that when she asked AAA about what BBB saw, AAA told her AAA or showed his private parts to her; petitioner did not threaten AAA in
that petitioner inserted his fingers and his penis into her vagina. MMM any instance; he did not rape AAA in the former's comfort room, but he
learned that this was not the only incident that petitioner molested AAA as merely accompanied and helped AAA clean up as she defecated and feared
there were two previous occasions. MMM also learned that AAA did not the toilet bowl; in the process of washing, he may have accidentally touched
report her ordeal to them out of fear that petitioner would spank her. MMM AAA's anus; on December 1, 1996, petitioner together with his parents, went
testified that when BBB reported the matter to her, petitioner and Luzviminda to AAA's house;[25] they were dancing and playing together with all the other
already left her house. After waiting for AAA's brothers to go to sleep, MMM, children at the time; while they were dancing, petitioner hugged and lifted
Title VIII SECTION 68. Children Who Have Been Convicted and are
Transitory Provisions Serving Sentences. Persons who have been convicted and
are serving sentence at the time of the effectivity of this Act,
SECTION 64. Children in Conflict with the Law Fifteen (15) and who were below the age of eighteen (18) years at the
Years Old and Below. Upon effectivity of this Act, cases of time of the commission of the offense for which they were
children fifteen (15) years old and below at the time of the convicted and are serving sentence, shall likewise benefit
commission of the crime shall immediately be dismissed from the retroactive application of this Act. They shall be
and the child shall be referred to the appropriate local social entitled to appropriate dispositions provided under this Act
welfare and development officer. Such officer, upon and their sentences shall be adjusted accordingly. They
thorough assessment of the child, shall determine whether shall be immediately released if they are so qualified under
to release the child to the custody of his/her parents, or this Act or other applicable laws.
refer the child to prevention programs, as provided under
this Act. Those with suspended sentences and undergoing Ostensibly, the only issue that requires resolution in this case is whether or
rehabilitation at the youth rehabilitation center shall likewise not petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape as found
be released, unless it is contrary to the best interest of the by both the RTC and the CA. However, with the advent of R.A. No. 9344
child. while petitioner's case is pending before this Court, a new issue arises,
namely, whether the pertinent provisions of R.A. No. 9344 apply to
SECTION 65. Children Detained Pending Trial. If the child petitioner's case, considering that at the time he committed the alleged rape,
is detained pending trial, the Family Court shall also he was merely 13 years old.
determine whether or not continued detention is necessary
and, if not, determine appropriate alternatives for detention. In sum, we are convinced that petitioner committed the crime of rape against
If detention is necessary and he/she is detained with adults, AAA. In a prosecution for rape, the complainant's candor is the single most
the court shall immediately order the transfer of the child to important factor. If the complainant's testimony meets the test of credibility,
a youth detention home. the accused can be convicted solely on that basis.[44] The RTC, as affirmed
by the CA, did not doubt AAA's credibility, and found no ill motive for her to
"The second element of dolus is intelligence; Likewise, Section 64 of the law categorically provides that cases of children
without this power, necessary to determine 15 years old and below, at the time of the commission of the crime, shall
the morality of human acts to distinguish a immediately be dismissed and the child shall be referred to the appropriate
licit from an illicit act, no crime can exist, and local social welfare and development officer (LSWDO). What is
because . . . the infant (has) no intelligence, controlling, therefore, with respect to the exemption from criminal liability of
the law exempts (him) from criminal liability." the CICL, is not the CICL's age at the time of the promulgation of judgment
but the CICL's age at the time of the commission of the offense. In short, by
It is for this reason, therefore, why minors nine years of age virtue of R.A. No. 9344, the age of criminal irresponsibility has been raised
and below are not capable of performing a criminal act. from 9 to 15 years old.[52]
Given this precise statutory declaration, it is imperative that this Court accord
In its Comment[50] dated April 24, 2008, the OSG posited that petitioner is no retroactive application to the aforequoted provisions of R.A. No. 9344
longer covered by the provisions of Section 64 of R.A. No. 9344 since as pursuant to the well-entrenched principle in criminal law - favorabilia sunt
early as 1999, petitioner was convicted by the RTC and the conviction was amplianda adiosa restrigenda. Penal laws which are favorable to the
affirmed by the CA in 2001. R.A. No. 9344 was passed into law in 2006, and
The President. Therefore, that should be specifically Senator Pangilinan. Mr. President, we are willing to include
provided for as an amendment. that as an additional amendment, subject to style.
Senator Pangilinan. That is correct, Mr. President. Senator Pimentel. I would certainly appreciate that because
that is a reality that we have to address, otherwise injustice
The President. All right. Is there any objection? [Silence] will really be . . .
There being none, the Santiago amendment is accepted.[55]
Senator Pangilinan. Yes, Mr. President, we would also
xxxx include that as a separate provision.
PIMENTEL AMENDMENTS The President. In other words, even after final conviction if,
in fact, the offender is able to prove that at the time of the
xxxx commission of the offense he is a minor under this law, he
should be given the benefit of the law.
Senator Pimentel.
Senator Pimentel. Yes, Mr. President. That is correct.
xxxx
Senator Pangilinan. Yes, Mr. President. We accept that
Now, considering that laws are normally prospective, Mr. proposed amendment.[56]
President, in their application, I would like to suggest to the
Sponsor if he could incorporate some kind of a The Court is bound to enforce this legislative intent, which is the dominant
transitory provision that would make this law apply also factor in interpreting a statute. Significantly, this Court has declared in a
to those who might already have been convicted but are number of cases, that intent is the soul of the law, viz.:
awaiting, let us say, execution of their penalties as
adults when, in fact, they are juveniles. The intent of a statute is the law. If a statute is valid it is to
have effect according to the purpose and intent of the
Senator Pangilinan. Yes, Mr. President. We do have a lawmaker. The intent is the vital part, the essence of the
provision under the Transitory Provisions wherein we law, and the primary rule of construction is to ascertain and
address the issue raised by the good Senator, give effect to the intent. The intention of the legislature in
specifically, Section 67. For example, Upon effectivity of enacting a law is the law itself, and must be enforced when
this Act, cases of children fifteen (15) years old and ascertained, although it may not be consistent with the strict
below at the time of the commission of the crime shall letter of the statute. Courts will not follow the letter of a
immediately be dismissed and the child shall be referred statute when it leads away from the true intent and purpose
to the appropriate local social welfare and development of the legislature and to conclusions inconsistent with the
officer. So that would be giving retroactive effect.
The RTC, however, erred in not separately awarding moral damages, distinct
from the civil indemnity awarded to the rape victim. AAA is entitled to moral WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Criminal Case Nos. 98-19083 and
damages in the amount of P50,000.00 for each count of rape, pursuant to 98-19084 filed against petitioner Joemar F. Ortega are hereby DISMISSED.
Article 2219 of the Civil Code, without the necessity of additional pleading or Petitioner is hereby referred to the local social welfare and development
proof other than the fact of rape. Moral damages are granted in recognition officer of the locality for the appropriate intervention program. Nevertheless,
of the victim's injury necessarily resulting from the odious crime of rape.[59] the petitioner is hereby ordered to pay private complainant AAA, civil
indemnity in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00)
A final note. While we regret the delay, we take consolation in the fact that a and moral damages in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos
law intended to protect our children from the harshness of life and to (P100,000.00). No costs.
alleviate, if not cure, the ills of the growing number of CICL and children at
risk in our country, has been enacted by Congress. However, it has not Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the two Houses of Congress and the
escaped us that major concerns have been raised on the effects of the law. It Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council (JJWC).
is worth mentioning that in the Rationale for the Proposed Rule on Children
SO ORDERED.