You are on page 1of 44

[1] established that the trial court ignored, overlooked, misconstrued, or misinterpreted

cogent facts and circumstances which, if considered, will change the outcome of the
THIRD DIVISION case.

Same; Same; Penalties; Indeterminate Sentence Law; Although Republic Act


G.R. No. 179090 June 5, 2009
No. 7610 is a special law, the rules in the Revised Penal Code for graduating
penalties by degrees or determining the proper period should be applied; Where the
LEONILO SANCHEZ alias NILO, Appellant, special law adopted penalties from the Revised Penal Code, the Indeterminate
vs. Sentence Law will apply just as it would in felonies.—The penalty for Other Acts of
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and COURT OF APPEALS, Appellees. Child Abuse is prision mayor in its minimum period. This penalty is derived from,
and defined in, the Revised Penal Code. Although R.A. No. 7610 is a special law, the
RESOLUTION rules in the Revised Penal Code for graduating penalties by degrees or determining
the proper period should be applied. Thus, where the special law adopted penalties
Criminal Law; Republic Act No. 7610 (Child Abuse Law); Definition of Child from the Revised Penal Code, the Indeterminate Sentence Law will apply just as it
Abuse.—UnderSubsection (b), Section 3 of R.A. No. 7610, child abuse refers to the would in felonies.
maltreatment of a child, whether habitual or not, which includes any of the
following: (1) Psychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual abuse and Criminal Procedure; Information; What controls is not the title of the
emotional maltreatment; (2) Any act by deeds or words which debases, degrades or information or the designation of the offense but the actual facts recited therein.—
demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being; (3) We reject appellant’s claim that the Information filed against him was defective.
Unreasonable deprivation of his basic needs for survival, such as food and In Resty Jumaquio v. Hon. Joselito C. Villarosa, 576 SCRA 204 (2009), we held that
shelter; or (4) Failure to immediately give medical treatment to an injured child what controls is not the title of the information or the designation of the offense but
resulting in serious impairment of his growth and development or in his permanent the actual facts recited therein. Without doubt, the averments in the Information
incapacity or death. clearly make out the offense of child abuse under Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610.
The following were alleged: (1) the minority of VVV; (2) the acts constituting
Same; Same; As defined in the law, child abuse includes physical abuse of the physical abuse, committed by appellant against VVV; and (3) said acts are clearly
child, whether the same is habitual or not.—Appellant contends that, after proof, the punishable under R.A. No. 7610 in relation to P.D. No. 603. Indeed, as argued by the
act should not be considered as child abuse but merely as slight physical injuries OSG, the commission of the offense is clearly recited in the Information, and
defined and punishable under Article 266 of the Revised Penal Code. Appellant appellant cannot now feign ignorance of this.
conveniently forgets that when the incident happened, VVV was a child entitled to
the protection extended by R.A. No. 7610, as mandated by the Constitution. As PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals.
defined in the law, child abuse includes physical abuse of the child, whether the same
is habitual or not. The act of appellant falls squarely within this definition. We, NACHURA, J.:
therefore, cannot accept appellant’s contention.
Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] under Rule 45 of the
Same; Same; Evidence; Appeals; Witnesses; Full weight and respect are Rules of Civil Procedure seeking the reversal of the Court of Appeals (CA)
usually accorded by the appellate court to the findings of the trial court on the Decision[2] dated February 20, 2007 which affirmed the Decision[3] dated July
credibility of witnesses since the trial judge had the opportunity to observe the 30, 2003 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tagbilaran City, Bohol,
demeanor of the witnesses.—Appellant could only proffer the defense of denial. convicting appellant Leonilo Sanchez alias Nilo (appellant) of the crime of
Notably, the RTC found VVV and MMM to be credible witnesses, whose Other Acts of Child Abuse punishable under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610[4]
testimonies deserve full credence. It bears stressing that full weight and respect are in relation to Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 603,[5] with a modification of the
usually accorded by the appellate court to the findings of the trial court on the penalty imposed.
credibility of witnesses, since the trial judge had the opportunity to observe the
demeanor of the witnesses. Equally noteworthy is the fact that the CA did not disturb The Facts
the RTC’s appreciation of the witnesses’ credibility. Thus, we apply the cardinal rule
that factual findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the Appellant was charged with the crime of Other Acts of Child Abuse in an
witnesses, and its conclusions anchored on such findings, are accorded respect, if not Information[6] dated August 29, 2001 which reads:
conclusive effect, especially when affirmed by the CA. The exception is when it is

Human Rights Law – Assignment No. 2 (Rights of Children) Page 1 of 44


Appellant then went to VVVs house and inquired from VVVs younger brother,
The undersigned, Second Assistant Provincial Prosecutor, BBB, the whereabouts of the latters father. BBB did not answer but his
hereby accuses Leonilo Sanchez alias Nilo of Lajog, Clarin, mother, MMM, told appellant that FFF was not around. Right then and there,
Bohol of the crime of Other Acts of Child Abuse, committed appellant told them to leave the place and started destroying the house with
as follows: the use of his sickle. As a result, appellant destroyed the roof, the wall and
the windows of the house.[11] MMM got angry and told appellant that he could
That on or about the 2nd day of September, 2000 in the not just drive them away since the contract for the use of the fishpond was
municipality of Clarin, province of Bohol, Philippines, and not yet terminated. VVV was then sent by MMM to fetch a barangay tanod.
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, acting as a She did as ordered but barangay tanod Nicolas Patayon refused to oblige
Family Court, the above-named accused, with intent to because he did not want to interfere in the problem concerning the fishpond.
abuse, exploit and/or to inflict other conditions prejudicial to On her way back to their house, VVV saw appellant coming from his shop
the child's development, did then and there willfully, with a gallon of gasoline, headed to their house. Appellant warned VVV to
unlawfully and feloniously abuse physically one [VVV],[7] a better pack up her familys things because he would burn their house.[12]
sixteen (16) year old minor, by hitting her thrice in the upper
part of her legs, and which acts are prejudicial to the child- Upon reaching their house, VVV saw her brother, BBB, get a piece of wood
victim's development which acts are not covered by the from the back of their house to defend themselves and their house from
Revised Penal Code, as amended, but the same are appellant. However, appellant approached BBB, grabbed the piece of wood
covered by Art. 59, par. 8 of P.D. No. 603 as amended; to from the latter and started beating him with it.[13] At the sight, VVV
the damage and prejudice of the offended party in the approached appellant and pushed him. Irked by what she did, appellant
amount to be proved during the trial. turned to her and struck her with the piece of wood three (3) times, twice on
the left thigh and once below her right buttocks. As a result, the wood broke
Acts committed contrary to the provisions of Section 10(a) in into several pieces. VVV picked up some of the broken pieces and threw
relation to Sections 3(a) and 3(b) No. 1 of Rep. Act No. 7610 them back at appellant. MMM restrained BBB, telling him not to fight back.
and Sec. 59(8) of PD 603, amended. After which, appellant left, bringing with him the gallon of gasoline.[14]

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

Human Rights Law – Assignment No. 2 (Rights of Children) Page 2 of 44


Segundino Ronquillo. After the MOA expired in 1998, appellant and his wife,
Bienvenida, decided to discontinue the lease because they did not WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds
understand the management and accounting of FFF. They made several LEONILO SANCHEZ y Aranas guilty beyond reasonable
demands on him to return possession of the fishpond but FFF refused, doubt of violating paragraph (a), Section 10 of Republic Act
asking for a written termination of the contract from all the heirs of No. 7610, and applying in his favor the Indeterminate
Escolastico. To solve the problem, appellant and Bienvenida engaged the Sentence Law, this Court imposes on him the indeterminate
services of FFF as caretaker of the fishpond, providing him with fingerlings, sentence of an imprisonment of Six (6) years of prision
fertilizers and all necessary expenses. [correccional] as minimum to seven (7) years and four (4)
months of prision mayor as maximum, with costs against
This notwithstanding, FFF still failed to make an accounting. Thus, on him. The Court orders him to pay [VVV] the sum of TEN
September 2, 2000, at around 7:00 in the morning, after pasturing his cattle, THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000.00) for civil indemnity and the
appellant dropped by the house of FFF to ask him to make a detailed sum of TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000.00) for
accounting because he and his wife were not satisfied with the harvest in damages; the awards for civil indemnity and damages are
August of 2000. MMM, however, retorted, saying that they would no longer without subsidiary penalties in case of insolvency.
make any accounting, as Benny Ronquillo, brother of appellants wife, would
finance the next cropping. Displeased with MMM's statement, appellant got IN ACCORDANCE with letter (f) of Section 31 of Republic
angry and demanded that they leave the fishpond. FFF's family resented this Act No. 7610, the Court exercising its discretion also
demand and a commotion ensued. BBB got a piece of wood and struck imposes on Leonilo Sanchez y Aranas the penalty of a fine
appellant but the latter was able to parry the blow. Appellant got hold of the of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) without subsidiary
piece of wood which actually broke. Intending not to hurt anybody, appellant penalty in case of insolvency.
threw the same behind him. Suddenly from behind, VVV appeared, got hold
of the said piece of wood and hit appellant once at the back of his shoulder. SO ORDERED.[24]
Appellant testified that the blow was not strong enough to injure him.[20]

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:

Human Rights Law – Assignment No. 2 (Rights of Children) Page 3 of 44


WHEREFORE, all the foregoing considered, the appealed
Judgment dated July 30, 2003 of the Regional Trial Court of Appellant posits that his conviction is not supported by proof beyond
Bohol, Branch 1, Tagbilaran City in Criminal Case No. 11110 reasonable doubt; that the RTC erred when it shifted the burden of proof to
finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of appellant; that the RTC and CA erred in ruling that appellant interposed an
Other Acts of Child Abuse under Republic Act No. 7610 and affirmative defense when, all throughout his testimony before the RTC, he
Presidential Decree No. 603 is hereby UPHELD with denied having inflicted any injury on VVV; and that appellant and his counsel
MODIFICATION as to the penalty imposed. Accused- did not sign any written stipulation for appellant to be bound thereby, hence,
appellant is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of the burden of proof still rests in the prosecution. Moreover, appellant claims
six (6) years and one (1) day as minimum to eight (8) years that VVV and her family had ill motive to implicate him because of the
as maximum of prision mayor. The fine imposed is retained. pressure he exerted against them to give up the fishpond. Appellant pointed
out that VVV, in her testimony, made material inconsistencies as to who got
The Order dated August 8, 2003 denying appellant's motion the piece of wood at the back of their house. Appellant also claims that he
for reconsideration is hereby AFFIRMED. had no motive or intention of harming anyone, otherwise, he would have
done so earlier that day; that if BBB was also beaten, he should have
The award of civil indemnity and damages in the assailed submitted himself for medical treatment and examination; and that the
Decision is deleted. Information charging appellant was substantially and jurisdictionally defective
as the acts complained of were covered by the provisions of the Revised
With costs. Penal Code. Appellant submits that, if duly proven, the acts complained of
are clearly constitutive of Slight Physical Injuries punishable under Article
SO ORDERED.[28] 266[32] of the Revised Penal Code.

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

Human Rights Law – Assignment No. 2 (Rights of Children) Page 4 of 44


blotter; that VVV's and MMM's statements are consistent with their
allegations in their respective complaint-affidavits; and that appellant failed to
present any reason or ground to set aside the decisions of the RTC and the In this case, the applicable laws are Article 59[37] of P.D. No. 603 and Section
CA. Furthermore, the OSG argues that there is no ambiguity in the 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610. Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610 provides:
Information as the allegations are clear and explicit to constitute the essential
elements of the offense of child abuse, to wit: (a) minority of the victim; (b) SECTION 10. Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty or
acts complained of are prejudicial to the development of the child-victim; and Exploitation and Other Conditions Prejudicial to the Child's
(c) the said acts are covered by the pertinent provisions of R.A. No. 7610 and Development.
P.D. No. 603. The OSG submits that appellant cannot now feign ignorance of
the offense under which he was specifically charged, and to which he (a) Any person who shall commit any other acts of child
voluntarily entered a plea of not guilty when arraigned.[34] abuse, cruelty or exploitation or be responsible for
other conditions prejudicial to the child's
However, the OSG opines that the CA erred in modifying the indeterminate development including those covered by Article 59 of
sentence imposed by the RTC. The offense of Other Acts of Child Abuse as Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended, but not
defined and punished under Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610, a special law, covered by the Revised Penal Code, as amended,
carries the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period which is a penalty shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its
defined in the Revised Penal Code. The OSG states that the RTC correctly minimum period.
applied the first part of Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
sentencing appellant to an indeterminate sentence of six (6) years of prision
correccional, as minimum, to seven (7) years and four (4) months of prision In this connection, our ruling in Araneta v. People[38] is instructive:
mayor, as maximum, the minimum term thereof being within the range of the
penalty next lower in degree to the prescribed penalty, as there were no As gleaned from the foregoing, the provision punishes not
attendant mitigating and/or aggravating circumstances. Thus, the OSG prays only those enumerated under Article 59 of Presidential
that the instant petition be denied and the assailed CA Decision be modified Decree No. 603, but also four distinct acts, i.e., (a) child
as aforementioned but affirmed in all other respects.[35] abuse, (b) child cruelty, (c) child exploitation and (d) being
responsible for conditions prejudicial to the childs
Our Ruling development. The Rules and Regulations of the questioned
statute distinctly and separately defined child abuse, cruelty
The instant Petition is bereft of merit. and exploitation just to show that these three acts are
different from one another and from the act prejudicial to the
Under Subsection (b), Section 3 of R.A. No. 7610, child abuse refers to the childs development. Contrary to petitioners assertion, an
maltreatment of a child, whether habitual or not, which includes any of the accused can be prosecuted and be convicted under
following: Section 10(a), Article VI of Republic Act No. 7610 if he
commits any of the four acts therein. The prosecution
(1) Psychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, need not prove that the acts of child abuse, child cruelty and
sexual abuse and emotional maltreatment; child exploitation have resulted in the prejudice of the child
because an act prejudicial to the development of the child is
(2) Any act by deeds or words which debases, degrades or different from the former acts.
demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a
human being; Moreover, it is a rule in statutory construction that the word
or is a disjunctive term signifying dissociation and
(3) Unreasonable deprivation of his basic needs for survival, independence of one thing from other things enumerated. It
such as food and shelter; or should, as a rule, be construed in the sense which it
ordinarily implies. Hence, the use of or in Section 10(a) of
(4) Failure to immediately give medical treatment to an Republic Act No. 7610 before the phrase be responsible for
injured child resulting in serious impairment of his growth other conditions prejudicial to the childs development
and development or in his permanent incapacity or death.[36] supposes that there are four punishable acts therein. First,

Human Rights Law – Assignment No. 2 (Rights of Children) Page 5 of 44


the act of child abuse; second, child cruelty; third, child
exploitation; and fourth, being responsible for conditions However, the penalty imposed upon appellant by the CA deserves review.
prejudicial to the childs development. The fourth The imposable penalty under Section 10(a), Article VI of Republic Act No.
penalized act cannot be interpreted, as petitioner suggests, 7610 is prision mayor in its minimum period. Applying the Indeterminate
as a qualifying condition for the three other acts, because an Sentence Law, the RTC imposed upon appellant the penalty of six (6) years
analysis of the entire context of the questioned provision of prision correccional, as minimum, to seven (7) years and four (4) months
does not warrant such construal.[39] of prision mayor, as maximum. The CA modified this by imposing upon
appellant the indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day, as
minimum, to eight (8) years, as maximum, of prision mayor, postulating that
Appellant contends that, after proof, the act should not be considered as since R.A. No. 7610 is a special law, the RTC should have imposed on
child abuse but merely as slight physical injuries defined and punishable appellant an indeterminate sentence, "the maximum term of which shall not
under Article 266 of the Revised Penal Code. Appellant conveniently forgets exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less
that when the incident happened, VVV was a child entitled to the protection than the minimum term prescribed by the same.[44] On the other hand, the
extended by R.A. No. 7610, as mandated by the Constitution.[40] As defined OSG contends that the RTC appropriately applied the Indeterminate
in the law, child abuse includes physical abuse of the child, whether the Sentence Law, citing our ruling in People v. Simon.[45]
same is habitual or not. The act of appellant falls squarely within this
definition. We, therefore, cannot accept appellant's contention. We agree with the OSG.

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

Human Rights Law – Assignment No. 2 (Rights of Children) Page 6 of 44


Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, the Court likewise applied the same
first clause of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. This case should be no
exception.

In the absence of any modifying circumstances, and because it is favorable


to appellant, we find the penalty of four (4) years, nine (9) months and eleven
(11) days of prision correccional, as minimum, to six (6) years, eight (8)
months and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum, proper.

As a final word, we reiterate our view in Araneta,[50] to wit:

Republic Act No. 7610 is a measure geared towards the


implementation of a national comprehensive program for the
survival of the most vulnerable members of the population,
the Filipino children, in keeping with the Constitutional
mandate under Article XV, Section 3, paragraph 2, that The
State shall defend the right of the children to assistance,
including proper care and nutrition, and special
protection from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty,
exploitation, and other conditions prejudicial to their
development. This piece of legislation supplies the
inadequacies of existing laws treating crimes committed
against children, namely, the Revised Penal Code and
Presidential Decree No. 603 or the Child and Youth Welfare
Code. As a statute that provides for a mechanism for strong
deterrence against the commission of child abuse and
exploitation, the law has stiffer penalties for their
commission, and a means by which child traffickers could
easily be prosecuted and penalized.[51]

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals Decision dated


February 20, 2007 in CA-G.R. CR No. 27817 is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION that appellant Leonilo Sanchez is hereby sentenced to four
(4) years, nine (9) months and eleven (11) days of prision correccional, as
minimum, to six (6) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of prision mayor,
as maximum. Costs against appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Human Rights Law – Assignment No. 2 (Rights of Children) Page 7 of 44


[2] capable of two or more explanations, one consistent with the innocence of the
accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the
FIRST DIVISION test of moral certainty and will not justify a conviction.

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

Human Rights Law – Assignment No. 2 (Rights of Children) Page 8 of 44


against innocent individuals. Perhaps the time has come for Congress to review this Upang ireklamo yong sumapak sa akin sina
matter and institute the safeguards necessary for the attainment of its laudable ends. Raul[,] Boyet [at] Cris at yong dalawang sumapak ay
hindi ko kilala. Nang yari ito kaninang 10:p.m. araw
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of ng [M]artes taong kasalukuyan at yong labi ko
Appeals. pumutok at yong kabilang mata ko ay namaga sa
bandang kanan. Ang iyong kaliwang mukha at pati
CORONA, J.: yong likod ko ay may tama sa sapak.

Patunay dito ang aking lagda.


Petitioner Julius Amanquiton was a purok leader of Barangay Western
Bicutan, Taguig, Metro Manila. As a purok leader and barangay tanod, he
Dossen Banaga (sgd.)
was responsible for the maintenance of cleanliness, peace and order of the
community.
Thereafter, an Information for violation of Section 10 (a), Article VI,
RA[5] 7160[6] in relation to Section 5 (j) of R.A. 8369 was filed against
At 10:45 p.m. on October 30, 2001, petitioner heard an explosion. He,
petitioner, Amante and Gepulane. The Information read:
together with two auxiliary tanod, Dominador Amante[1] and a certain
Cabisudo, proceeded to Sambong Street where the explosion took place.
The undersigned 2nd Assistant Provincial Prosecutor
Thereafter, they saw complainant Leoselie John Baaga being chased by a
accuses Julius Amanquiton, Dominador Amante and Gil
certain Gil Gepulane. Upon learning that Baaga was the one who threw the
Gepulane of the crime of Violations of Section 10 (a) Article
pillbox[2] that caused the explosion, petitioner and his companions also went
VI, Republic Act No. 7610 in relation to Section 5 (j) of R.A.
after him.
No. 8369 committed as follows:
On reaching Baagas house, petitioner, Cabisudo and Amante knocked on
That on the 30th day of October, 2001, in the Municipality of
the door. When no one answered, they decided to hide some distance away.
Taguig, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction
After five minutes, Baaga came out of the house. At this juncture, petitioner
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused in
and his companions immediately apprehended him. Baaga's aunt, Marilyn
conspiracy with one another, armed with nightstick, did then
Alimpuyo, followed them to the barangay hall.
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault
and use personal violence, a form of physical abuse, upon
Baaga was later brought to the police station. On the way to the police
the person of Leoselie John A. [Baaga], seventeen (17)
station, Gepulane suddenly appeared from nowhere and boxed Baaga in the
years old, a minor, by then and there manhandling him and
face. This caused petitioner to order Gepulanes apprehension along with
hitting him with their nightsticks, thus, constituting other acts
Baaga. An incident report was made.[3]
of child abuse, which is inimical or prejudicial to childs
development, in violation of the above-mentioned law.
During the investigation, petitioner learned Baaga had been previously
mauled by a group made up of a certain Raul, Boyet and Cris but failed to
CONTRARY TO LAW.
identify two others. The mauling was the result of gang trouble in a certain
On arraignment, petitioner and Amante both pleaded not guilty. Gepulane
residental compound in Taguig City. Baagas mauling was recorded in a
remains at-large.
barangay blotter which read:
During the trial, the prosecution presented the following witnesses: Dr.
10-30-201
Paulito Cruz, medico-legal officer of the Taguig-Pateros District Hospital who
Time: 10-15 p.m.
attended to Baaga on October 30, 2001, Baaga himself, Alimpuyo and
RECORD purposes
Rachelle Baaga (complainants mother).
Dumating dito sa Barangay Head Quarters si
The defense presented the testimonies of petitioner, Amante and Briccio
Dossen[4] Baaga is Alimpuyo 16 years old student nakatira sa
Cuyos, then deputy chief barangay tanod of the same barangay. Cuyos
10 B Kalachuchi St. M.B.T. M.M.
testified that the blotter notation entered by Gepulane and Baaga was signed

Human Rights Law – Assignment No. 2 (Rights of Children) Page 9 of 44


in his presence and that they read the contents thereof before affixing their administered as a cash fund by the DSWD. IT IS SO
signatures. ORDERED.

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

Human Rights Law – Assignment No. 2 (Rights of Children) Page 10 of 44


not fortify Baagas claim that petitioner mauled him, for the following reasons: development. This piece of legislation supplies the
Dr. Cruz merely attended to Baagas injuries, while Rachelle testified that she inadequacies of existing laws treating crimes committed
saw Baaga only after the injuries have been inflicted on him. against children, namely, the Revised Penal Code and
Presidential Decree No. 603 or the Child and Youth Welfare
We note furthermore that, Baaga failed to controvert the validity of the Code. As a statute that provides for a mechanism for strong
barangay blotter he signed regarding the mauling incident which happened deterrence against the commission of child abuse and
prior to his apprehension by petitioner. Neither did he ever deny the exploitation, the law has stiffer penalties for their
allegation that he figured in a prior battery by gang members. commission, and a means by which child traffickers could
easily be prosecuted and penalized. Also, the definition of
All this raises serious doubt on whether Baagas injuries were really inflicted child abuse is expanded to encompass not only those
by petitioner, et al., to the exclusion of other people. In fact, petitioner specific acts of child abuse under existing laws but includes
testified clearly that Gepulane, who had been harboring a grudge against also other acts of neglect, abuse, cruelty or exploitation and
Baaga, came out of nowhere and punched Baaga while the latter was being other conditions prejudicial to the childs development.[20]
brought to the police station. Gepulane, not petitioner, could very well have
caused Baaga's injuries. However, 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
Alimpuyo admitted that she did not see who actually caused the convict him of the crime. The right of an accused to liberty is as important as
bloodied condition of Baagas face because she had to first put down the a minors right not to be subjected to any form of abuse. Both are enshrined
baby she was then carrying when the melee started.[17] More importantly, in the Constitution. One need not be sacrificed for the other.
Alimpuyo stated that she was told by Baaga that, while he was allegedly
being held by the neck by petitioner, others were hitting him. Alimpuyo was There is no dearth of law, rules and regulations protecting a child from any
obviously testifying not on what she personally saw but on what Baaga told and all forms of abuse. While unfortunately, incidents of maltreatment of
her. children abound amidst social ills, care has to be likewise taken that wayward
youths should not be cuddled by a misapplication of the law. Society, through
While we ordinarily do not interfere with the findings of the lower its laws, should correct the deviant conduct of the youth rather than take the
courts on the trustworthiness of witnesses, when there appear in the records cudgels for them. Lest we regress to a culture of juvenile delinquency and
facts and circumstances of real weight which might have been overlooked or errant behavior, laws for the protection of children against abuse should be
misapprehended, this Court cannot shirk from its duty to sift fact from fiction. applied only and strictly to actual abusers.

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

Human Rights Law – Assignment No. 2 (Rights of Children) Page 11 of 44


WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The August 28, 2008
decision and January 15, 2009 resolution of Court of Appeals are
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Julius Amanquiton is hereby
ACQUITTED of violation of Section 10 (a), Article VI of RA 7160.

SO ORDERED.

Human Rights Law – Assignment No. 2 (Rights of Children) Page 12 of 44


[3] the crime committed and in considering the resulting civil liability that R.A. No.
9344 does not remove.

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

Human Rights Law – Assignment No. 2 (Rights of Children) Page 13 of 44


therefor. In the present case, the prosecution completed its evidence and had done cannot but be in error in not appreciating and giving evidentiary value to the
everything that the law requires it to do. The burden of evidence has now shifted to petitioner’s and CCC’s testimonies relating to the former’s age.
the defense which now claims, by an affirmative defense, that the accused, even if
guilty, should be exempt from criminal liability because of his age when he Same; Same; Same; Republic Act No. 9344 has retroactive application—what
committed the crime. The defense, therefore, not the prosecution, has the burden of is controlling with respect to the exemption from criminal liability of the accused is
showing by evidence that the petitioner was 15 years old or less when he committed not his age at the time of the promulgation of judgment but his age at the time of the
the rape charged. This conclusion can also be reached by considering that minority commission of the offense.—That the petitioner committed the rape before R.A. No.
and age are not elements of the crime of rape; the prosecution therefore has no duty 9344 took effect and that he is no longer a minor (he was already 20 years old when
to prove these circumstances. To impose the burden of proof on the prosecution he took the stand) will not bar him from enjoying the benefit of total exemption that
would make minority and age integral elements of the crime when clearly they are Section 6 of R.A. No. 9344 grants. As we explained in discussing Sections 64 and 68
not. If the prosecution has a burden related to age, this burden relates to proof of the of R.A. No. 9344 in the recent case of Ortega v. People, 562 SCRA 450 (2008),
age of the victim as a circumstance that qualifies the crime of rape. Section 64 of the law categorically provides that cases of children 15 years old and
below, at the time of the commission of the crime, shall immediately be dismissed
Same; Same; Same; Section 7, Republic Act No. 9344, while a relatively new and the child shall be referred to the appropriate local social welfare and
law (having been passed only in 2006), does not depart from the jurisprudence development officers (LSWDO). What is controlling, therefore, with respect to the
existing at that time on the evidence that may be admitted as satisfactory proof of the exemption from criminal liability of the CICL, is not the CICL’s age at the time of
accused’s minority and age.—Section 7, R.A. No. 9344, while a relatively new law the promulgation of judgment but the CICL’s age at the time of the commission of
(having been passed only in 2006), does not depart from the jurisprudence existing at the offense. In short, by virtue of R.A. No. 9344, the age of criminal irresponsibility
that time on the evidence that may be admitted as satisfactory proof of the accused’s has been raised from 9 to 15 years old. The retroactive application of R.A. No. 9344
minority and age. In the 1903 case of U.S. v. Bergantino, 3 Phil. 59 (1903), we is also justified under Article 22 of the RPC, as amended, which provides that penal
accepted testimonial evidence to prove the minority and age of the accused in the laws are to be given retroactive effect insofar as they favor the accused who is not
absence of any document or other satisfactory evidence showing the date of birth. found to be a habitual criminal. Nothing in the records of this case indicates that the
This was followed by U.S. v. Roxas, 5 Phil. 186 (1905), where the defendant’s petitioner is a habitual criminal.
statement about his age was considered sufficient, even without corroborative
evidence, to establish that he was a minor of 16 years at the time he committed the Same; Qualified Rape; Guidelines in Appreciating the Age of the Complainant
offense charged. Subsequent-ly, in People v. Tismo, 204 SCRA 535 (1991), the in Qualified Rape.—The relationship between the petitioner and AAA, as siblings,
Court appreciated the minority and age of the accused on the basis of his claim that does not appear to be a disputed matter. Their mother, CCC, declared in her
he was 17 years old at the time of the commission of the offense in the absence of testimony that AAA and the petitioner are her children. The prosecution and the
any contradictory evidence or objection on the part of the prosecution. Then, defense likewise stipulated in the proceedings below that the relationship exists. We
in People v. Villagracia, 226 SCRA 374 (1993), we found the testimony of the find, however, that AAA’s minority, though alleged in the Information, had not been
accused that he was less than 15 years old sufficient to establish his minority. We sufficiently proven. People v. Pruna, 390 SCRA 577 (2002), laid down these
reiterated these dicta in the cases of People v. Morial, 368 SCRA 96 guidelines in appreciating the age of the complainant: In order to remove any
(2001),and David v. Court of Appeals, 290 SCRA 727 (1998), and ruled that the confusion that may be engendered by the foregoing cases, we hereby set the
allegations of minority and age by the accused will be accepted as facts upon the following guidelines in appreciating age, either as an element of the crime or as a
prosecution’s failure to disprove the claim by contrary evidence. qualifying circumstance. 1. The best evidence to prove the age of the offended party
is an original or certified true copy of the certificate of live birth of such party. 2. In
Same; Same; Same; Witnesses; The testimony that the accused was 15 years the absence of a certificate of live birth, similar authentic documents such as
old when the crime took place should be read to mean that he was not more than 15 baptismal certificate and school records which show the date of birth of the victim
years old as this is the more favorable reading that Republic Act No. 9344 directs.— would suffice to prove age. 3. If the certificate of live birth or authentic document is
We also stress that the last paragraph of Section 7 of R.A. No. 9344 provides that shown to have been lost or destroyed or otherwise unavailable, the testimony, if clear
any doubt on the age of the child must be resolved in his favor. Hence, any doubt in and credible, of the victim’s mother or a member of the family either by affinity or
this case regarding the petitioner’s age at the time he committed the rape should be consanguinity who is qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree such as the
resolved in his favor. In other words, the testimony that the petitioner as 15 years old exact age or date of birth of the offended party pursuant to Section 40, Rule 130 of
when the crime took place should be read to mean that he was not more than 15 the Rules on Evidence shall be sufficient under the following circumstances: a. If the
years old as this is the more favorable reading that R.A. No. 9344 directs. Given the victim is alleged to be below 3 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that
express mandate of R.A. No. 9344, its implementing rules, and established she is less than 7 years old; b. If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of age and
jurisprudence in accord with the latest statutory developments, the CA therefore what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 12 years old; c. If the victim is

Human Rights Law – Assignment No. 2 (Rights of Children) Page 14 of 44


alleged to be below 12 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less
than 18 years old. 4. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic document, AAA subsequently disclosed the incident to Elena Gallano (her teacher) and
or the testimony of the victim’s mother or relatives concerning the victim’s age, the to Dolores Mangantula (the parent of a classmate), who both accompanied
complainant’s testimony will suffice provided that it is expressly and clearly AAA to the barangayoffice. AAA was later subjected to physical examination
admitted by the accused. 5. It is the prosecution that has the burden of proving the that revealed a laceration on her hymen consistent with her claim of sexual
age of the offended party. The failure of the accused to object to the testimonial abuse. On the basis of the complaint and the physical findings, the petitioner
evidence regarding age shall not be taken against him. The records fail to show any was charged with rape under the following Information:
evidence proving the age of AAA. They do not likewise show that the petitioner ever
expressly and clearly admitted AAA’s age at the time of the rape. Pursuant to Pruna, On or about August 5, 2000, in Pasig City and within the
neither can his failure to object to AAA’s testimony be taken against him. jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, a minor, 15
years old, with lewd designs and by means of force, violence
Same; Aggravating Circumstances; Dwelling; Damages; Exemplary Damages; and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
Even if dwelling as an aggravating circumstance was not alleged in the Information, feloniously have sexual intercourse with his (accused) sister,
established jurisprudence holds that it may nevertheless be appreciated as basis for AAA, thirteen years of age, against the latters will and
the award of exemplary damages.—We uphold the grant of moral damages of consent.
P50,000.00 but increase the awarded exemplary damages P30,000.00, both pursuant
to prevailing jurisprudence. Moral damages are automatically awarded to rape Contrary to law.[6]
victims without the necessity of proof; the law assumes that the victim suffered
moral injuries entitling her to this award. Article 2230 of the Civil Code justifies the
award of exemplary damages because of the presence of the aggravating The petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge and raised the
circumstances of relationship between AAA and petitioner and dwelling. As defenses of denial and alibi. He claimed that he was selling cigarettes at the
discussed above, the relationship (between the parties) is not disputed. We appreciate time of the alleged rape. He also claimed that AAA only invented her story
dwelling as an aggravating circumstance based on AAA’s testimony that the rape because she bore him a grudge for the beatings he gave her. The parties
was committed in their house. While dwelling as an aggravating circumstance was mother (CCC) supported the petitioners story; she also stated that AAA was
not alleged in the Information, established jurisprudence holds that it may a troublemaker. Both CCC and son testified that the petitioner was fifteen
nevertheless be appreciated as basis for the award of exemplary damages. (15) years old when the alleged incident happened.[7]

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

Human Rights Law – Assignment No. 2 (Rights of Children) Page 15 of 44


Justice and Welfare Act of 2006)[9] to exempt him from criminal liability Upon suspension of sentence and after considering the
considering that he was only 15 years old at the time the crime was various circumstances of the child, the court shall
committed. impose the appropriate disposition measures as
provided in the Supreme Court on Juveniles in Conflict
The CA nevertheless affirmed the petitioners conviction with modification as with the Law.
to penalty as follows:
The law merely amended Article 192 of P.D. No.
WHEREFORE, finding that the trial court did not err in 603, as amended by A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC, in that the
convicting Robert Sierra, the assailed Decision is hereby suspension of sentence shall be enjoyed by the juvenile
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that Robert Sierra has to even if he is already 18 years of age or more at the time
suffer the penalty of imprisonment of RECLUSION of the pronouncement of his/her guilt. The other
TEMPORAL MAXIMUM. The award of damages are disqualifications in Article 192 of P.D. No. 603, as
likewise affirmed. amended, and Section 32 of A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC have
not been deleted from Section 38 of Republic Act No.
SO ORDERED.[10] 9344. Evidently, the intention of Congress was to
maintain the other disqualifications as provided in Article
In ruling that the petitioner was not exempt from criminal liability, the 192 of P.D. No. 603, as amended, and Section 32 of
CA held: A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC. Hence, juveniles who have been
convicted of a crime the imposable penalty for which is
As to the penalty, We agree with the Office of the Solicitor reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or reclusion
General that Robert is not exempt from liability. First, it was perpetua to death or death, are disqualified from having
not clearly established and proved by the defense that their sentences suspended.[11]
Robert was 15 years old or below at the time of the
commission of the crime. It was incumbent for the defense to
present Roberts birth certificate if it was to invoke Section 64 The CA denied the petitioners subsequent motion for
of Republic Act No. 9344. Neither is the suspension of reconsideration; hence, the present petition.
sentence available to Robert as the Supreme Court, in one THE ISSUES
case, clarified that:
The petitioner no longer assails the prosecutions evidence on his
We note that, in the meantime, Rep. Act No. 9344 guilt of the crime charged; what he now assails is the failure of the CA to
took effect on May 20, 2006. Section 38 of the law apply paragraph 1, Section 6[12]of R.A. No. 9344 under the following issues:
reads:
(1) Whether or not the CA erred in not applying the provisions of R.A.
SEC. 38. Automatic Suspension of Sentence. Once the No. 9344 on the petitioners exemption from criminal liability;
child who is under eighteen (18) years of age at the time
of the commission of the offense is found guilty of the (2) Whether or not the CA erred in ruling that it was incumbent for the
offense charged, the court shall determine and ascertain defense to present the petitioners birth certificate to invoke
any civil liability which may have resulted from the Section 64 of R.A. No. 9344 when the burden of proving his age
offense committed. However, instead of pronouncing the lies with the prosecution by express provisions of R.A. No. 9344;
judgment of conviction, the court shall place the child in and
conflict with the law under suspended sentence, without
need of application: Provided, however, That suspension (3) Whether or not the CA erred in applying the ruling in Declarador
of sentence shall still be applied even if the juvenile is v. Hon. Gubaton[13] thereby denying the petitioner the benefit of
already eighteen (18) years of age or more at the time of exemption from criminal liability under R.A. No. 9344.
the pronouncement of his/her guilt.
The threshold issue in this case is the determination of who bears
the burden of proof for purposes of determining exemption from criminal

Human Rights Law – Assignment No. 2 (Rights of Children) Page 16 of 44


liability based on the age of the petitioner at the time the crime was
committed. While the defense, on appeal, raises a new ground i.e., exemption
from criminal liability under R.A. No. 9344 that implies an admission of guilt,
The petitioner posits that the burden of proof should be on the this consideration in no way swayed the conclusion we made above, as the
prosecution as the party who stands to lose the case if no evidence is defense is entitled to present all alternative defenses available to it, even
presented to show that the petitioner was not a 15-year old minor entitled to inconsistent ones. We note, too, that the defenses claim of exemption from
the exempting benefit provided under Section 6 of R.A. No. 9344.[14] He liability was made for the first time in its appeal to the CA. While this may
additionally claims that Sections 3,[15] 7,[16] and 68[17] of the law also provide a initially imply an essential change of theory that is usually disallowed on
presumption of minority in favor of a child in conflict with the law, so that any appeal for reasons of fairness, [22] no essential change is really involved as
doubt regarding his age should be resolved in his favor. the claim for exemption from liability is not incompatible with the evidence
submitted below and with the lower courts conclusion that the petitioner is
The petitioner further submits that the undisputed facts and evidence guilty of the crime charged. An exempting circumstance, by its nature, admits
on record specifically: the allegation of the Information, the testimonies of the that criminal and civil liabilities exist, but the accused is freed from criminal
petitioner and CCC that the prosecution never objected to, and the findings liability; in other words, the accused committed a crime, but he cannot be
of the RTC established that he was not more than 15 years old at the time of held criminally liable therefor because of an exemption granted by law.In
the commission of the crime. admitting this type of defense on appeal, we are not unmindful, too, that the
appeal of a criminal case (even one made under Rule 45) opens the whole
The Peoples Comment, through the Office of the Solicitor General case for review, even on questions that the parties did not raise.[23] By
(OSG), counters that the burden belongs to the petitioner who should have mandate of the Constitution, no less, we are bound to look into every
presented his birth certificate or other documentary evidence proving that his circumstance and resolve every doubt in favor of the accused.[24] It is with
age was 15 years or below. The OSG also stressed that while petitioner is these considerations in mind and in obedience to the direct and more specific
presumed to be a minor, he is disqualified to have his sentence suspended commands of R.A. No. 9344 on how the cases of children in conflict with the
following the ruling in Declarador v. Hon. Gubaton.[18] law should be handled that we rule in this Rule 45 petition.

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]

Human Rights Law – Assignment No. 2 (Rights of Children) Page 17 of 44


More importantly in the context of this case, this law modifies as well the this burden relates to proof of the age of the victim as a circumstance that
minimum age limit of criminal irresponsibility for minor offenders; it changed qualifies the crime of rape.[32]
what paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as
amended, previously provided i.e., from under nine years of age and above Testimonial Evidence is Competent Evidence
nine years of age and under fifteen (who acted without discernment) to to Prove the Accuseds Minority and Age
fifteen years old or under and above fifteen but below 18 (who acted without
discernment) in determining exemption from criminal liability. In providing
exemption, the new law as the old paragraphs 2 and 3, Article 12 of the RPC The CA seriously erred when it rejected testimonial evidence showing that
did presumes that the minor offenders completely lack the intelligence to the petitioner was only 15 years old at the time he committed the crime.
distinguish right from wrong, so that their acts are deemed involuntary ones Section 7 of R.A. No. 9344 expressly states how the age of a child in conflict
for which they cannot be held accountable.[27] The current law also drew its with the law may be determined:
changes from the principle of restorative justice that it espouses; it considers SEC. 7. Determination of Age. - x x x The age of a child
the ages 9 to 15 years as formative years and gives minors of these ages a may be determined from the child's birth certificate,
chance to right their wrong through diversion and intervention measures.[28] baptismal certificate or any other pertinent documents.
In the present case, the petitioner claims total exemption from criminal In the absence of these documents, age may be based
liability because he was not more than 15 years old at the time the rape took on information from the child himself/herself,
place. The CA disbelieved this claim for the petitioners failure to present his testimonies of other persons, the physical appearance
birth certificate as required by Section 64 of R.A. No. 9344.[29] The CA also of the child and other relevant evidence. In case of
found him disqualified to avail of a suspension of sentence because the doubt as to the age of the child, it shall be resolved in
imposable penalty for the crime of rape is reclusion perpetua to death. his/her favor. [Emphasis supplied]

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);

Human Rights Law – Assignment No. 2 (Rights of Children) Page 18 of 44


(c) Evaluating the physical appearance (e.g. height, time he committed the rape should be resolved in his favor. In other words,
built) of the child; and the testimony that the petitioner as 15 years old when the crime took place
(d) Obtaining other relevant evidence of age. should be read to mean that he was not more than 15 years old as this is the
xxx more favorable reading that R.A. No. 9344 directs.

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.

Human Rights Law – Assignment No. 2 (Rights of Children) Page 19 of 44


proved is that she is less than 18 years
The RTC and CA found, based on item (1) of Article 266-B of the old.
RPC, as amended, that the petitioner is guilty of qualified rape because of his
relationship with AAA within the second civil degree of consanguinity and the 4. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic
latters minority.[44] Both courts accordingly imposed the civil liability document, or the testimony of the victims mother or
corresponding to qualified rape. relatives concerning the victims age, the complainants
testimony will suffice provided that it is expressly and
The relationship between the petitioner and AAA, as siblings, does clearly admitted by the accused.
not appear to be a disputed matter. Their mother, CCC, declared in her
testimony that AAA and the petitioner are her children. The prosecution and 5. It is the prosecution that has the burden of proving
the defense likewise stipulated in the proceedings below that the relationship the age of the offended party. The failure of the
exists. We find, however, that AAAs minority, though alleged in the accused to object to the testimonial evidence
Information, had not been sufficiently proven.[45] People v. Pruna[46] laid down regarding age shall not be taken against him.
these guidelines in appreciating the age of the complainant: [Emphasis supplied]

In order to remove any confusion that may be


engendered by the foregoing cases, we hereby set the The records fail to show any evidence proving the age of AAA. They
following guidelines in appreciating age, either as an element do not likewise show that the petitioner ever expressly and clearly admitted
of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance. AAAs age at the time of the rape. Pursuant to Pruna, neither can his failure
to object to AAAs testimony be taken against him.
1. The best evidence to prove the age of the offended
party is an original or certified true copy of the certificate Thus, the required concurrence of circumstances that would upgrade
of live birth of such party. the crime to qualified rape i.e., relationship within the third degree of
consanguinity and minority of the victim does not exist. The crime for which
2. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, similar the petitioner should have been found criminally liable should therefore only
authentic documents such as baptismal certificate and be simple rape pursuant to par. 1, Article 266-A of the RPC, not qualified
school records which show the date of birth of the victim rape. The civil liability that can be imposed on the petitioner follows the
would suffice to prove age. characterization of the crime and the attendant circumstances.

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

Human Rights Law – Assignment No. 2 (Rights of Children) Page 20 of 44


In light of the above discussion and our conclusions, we see no need
to discuss the petitions third assignment of error.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is


GRANTED. The Decision dated February 29, 2008 and Resolution dated
May 22, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.-CR.-H.C. No. 02218 are
REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

Pursuant to Section 64 of R.A. No. 9344, Criminal Case No. 120292-


H for rape filed against petitioner Robert Sierra y Caneda is hereby
DISMISSED. Petitioner is REFERRED to the appropriate local social welfare
and development officer who shall proceed in accordance with the provisions
of R.A. No. 9344. Petitioner is ORDERED topay the victim, AAA, P50,000.00
as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as
exemplary damages.

Unless there are other valid causes for petitioners continued


detention, we hereby ORDER his IMMEDIATE RELEASE under the above
terms.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Director of the Bureau of


Corrections in Muntinlupa City for its immediate implementation. The Director
of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to report to this Court within five days
from receipt of this Decision the action he has taken.

Let a copy of this Decision be likewise furnished the Juvenile Justice


and Welfare Council.

SO ORDERED.

Human Rights Law – Assignment No. 2 (Rights of Children) Page 21 of 44


[4] taken to mean exactly what it says.—The law is clear and leaves no room for
interpretation. Any person convicted for drug trafficking or pushing, regardless of
the penalty imposed, cannot avail of the privilege granted by the Probation Law or
SECOND DIVISION P.D. No. 968. The elementary rule in statutory construction is that when the words
and phrases of the statute are clear and unequivocal, their meaning must be
determined from the language employed and the statute must be taken to mean
G.R. No. 168546 July 23, 2008
exactly what it says. If a statute is clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it must be
given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation. This is what is
MICHAEL PADUA, Petitioner, known as the plain-meaning rule or verba legis. It is expressed in the maxim, index
vs. animi sermo, or speech is the index of intention. Furthermore, there is the
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. maxim verba legis non est recedendum, or from the words of a statute there should
be no departure.
DECISION
Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 (R.A. No. 9344); Suspension of
Actions; Certiorari; Requisites.—For certiorari to prosper, the following Sentence; Section 38 of Rep. Act No. 9344 provides that once a child under 18 years
requisites must concur: (1) the writ is directed against a tribunal, a board or any of age is found guilty of the offense charged, instead of pronouncing the judgment of
officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (2) such tribunal, board or conviction, the court shall place the child in conflict with the law under suspended
officer has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of sentence while Section 40 provides that once the child reaches 18 years of age, the
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (3) there is no appeal or court shall determine whether to discharge the child, order execution of sentence, or
any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. extend the suspended sentence for a certain specified period or until the
child reaches the maximum age of 21 years.—Suspension of sentence under Section
Same; Same; Jurisdictions; Words and Phrases; “Without Jurisdiction,” 38 of Rep. Act No. 9344 could no longer be retroactively applied for petitioner’s
“Excess of Jurisdiction,” and “Grave Abuse of Discretion,” Defined.—“Without benefit. Section 38 of Rep. Act No. 9344 provides that once a child under 18 years of
jurisdiction” means that the court acted with absolute lack of authority. There is age is found guilty of the offense charged, instead of pronouncing the judgment of
“excess of jurisdiction” when the court transcends its power or acts without any conviction, the court shall place the child in conflict with the law under suspended
statutory authority. “Grave abuse of discretion” implies such capricious and sentence. Section 40 of Rep. Act No. 9344, however, provides that once the child
whimsical exercise of judgment as to be equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction. reaches 18 years of age, the court shall determine whether to discharge the child,
In other words, power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of order execution of sentence, or extend the suspended sentence for a certain specified
passion, prejudice, or personal hostility, and such exercise is so patent or so gross as period or until the child reaches the maximum age of 21 years. Petitioner has already
to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal either to perform the reached 21 years of age or over and thus, could no longer be considered a child for
duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. 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.
Criminal Law; Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (R.A. No. 9165);
Probation; Statutory Construction; It is clear under Section 24 of Rep. Act No. 9165 PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of
that any person convicted of drug trafficking cannot avail of the privilege of Appeals.
probation.—Padua was charged and convicted for violation of Section 5, Article II of
Rep. Act No. 9165 for selling dangerous drugs. It is clear under Section 24 of Rep. QUISUMBING, J.:
Act No. 9165 that any person convicted of drug trafficking cannot avail of the
privilege of probation, to wit: SEC. 24. Non-Applicability of the Probation Law for
Drug Traffickers and Pushers.—Any person convicted for drug trafficking or This petition for review assails the Decision[1] dated April 19, 2005
pushing under this Act, regardless of the penalty imposed by the Court, cannot and Resolution[2] dated June 14, 2005, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
avail of the privilege granted by the Probation Law or Presidential Decree No. SP No. 86977 which had respectively dismissed Michael Paduas petition for
968, as amended.
certiorari and denied his motion for reconsideration. Paduas petition for
Same; Same; Same; Same; The elementary rule in statutory construction is certiorari before the Court of Appeals assailed the Orders dated May 11,
that when the words and phrases of the statute are clear and unequivocal, their
meaning must be determined from the language employed and the statute must be

Human Rights Law – Assignment No. 2 (Rights of Children) Page 22 of 44


2004[3] and July 28, 2004[4] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 168, and enter a plea of guilty to avail of the benefits granted to first-time offenders
Pasig City, which had denied his petition for probation. under Section 70[10] of Rep. Act No. 9165. The prosecutor interposed no
objection.[11] Thus, the RTC on the same date issued an Order[12] stating that
The facts, culled from the records, are as follows: the former plea of Padua of not guilty was considered withdrawn. Padua was
re-arraigned and pleaded guilty. Hence, in a Decision[13] dated February 6,
2004, the RTC found Padua guilty of the crime charged:
On June 16, 2003, petitioner Michael Padua and Edgar Allan Ubalde
were charged before the RTC, Branch 168, Pasig City of violating Section In view of the foregoing, the Court finds accused
5,[5] Article II of Republic Act No. 9165,[6] otherwise known as the Michael Padua y Tordel guilty of [v]iolation of Sec. 5 Art. II of
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, for selling dangerous drugs.[7] R.A. No. 9165 in relation to R.A. No. 8369 Sec. 5 par. (a)
and (i) thereof, and therefore, sentences him to suffer an
The Information reads: indeterminate sentence of six (6) years and one (1) day of
Prision Mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four
The Prosecution, through the undersigned Public (4) months of reclusion temporal as maximum and a fine of
Prosecutor, charges Edgar Allan Ubalde y Velchez a.k.a. Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).
Allan and Michael Padua y Tordel a.k.a. Mike, with the
crime of violation of Sec. 5, Art. II, Republic Act No. 9165 in No subsidiary imprisonment, however, shall be
relation to R.A. [No.] 8369, Sec. 5 par. (a) and (i), committed imposed should [the] accused fail to pay the fine pursuant to
as follows: Art. 39 par. 3 of the Revised Penal Code.

On or about June 6, 2003, in Pasig City, and within SO ORDERED.[14]


the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused,
Edgar Allan Ubalde y Velchez and Michael Padua y
Tordel, a minor, seventeen (17) years old, conspiring
and confederating together and both of them Padua subsequently filed a Petition for Probation[15] dated February
mutually helping and aiding one another, not being 10, 2004 alleging that he is a minor and a first-time offender who desires to
lawfully authorized to sell any dangerous drug, did avail of the benefits of probation under Presidential Decree No. 968[16] (P.D.
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
sell, deliver and give away to PO1 Roland A. Panis, No. 968), otherwise known as The Probation Law of 1976 and Section 70 of
a police poseur-buyer, one (1) folded newsprint Rep. Act No. 9165. He further alleged that he possesses all the qualifications
containing 4.86 grams of dried marijuana fruiting and none of the disqualifications under the said laws.
tops, which was found positive to the tests for
marijuana, a dangerous drug, in violation of the said
[17]
law. The RTC in an Order dated February 10, 2004 directed the
Probation Officer of Pasig City to conduct a Post-Sentence Investigation and
Contrary to law.[8]
submit a report and recommendation within 60 days from receipt of the order.
The City Prosecutor was also directed to submit his comment on the said
When arraigned on October 13, 2003, Padua, assisted by his petition within five days from receipt of the order.
[9]
counsel de oficio, entered a plea of not guilty.
On April 6, 2004, Chief Probation and Parole Officer Josefina J.
During the pre-trial conference on February 2, 2004, however, Paduas Pasana submitted a Post-Sentence Investigation Report to the RTC
counsel manifested that his client was willing to withdraw his plea of not guilty recommending that Padua be placed on probation.[18]

Human Rights Law – Assignment No. 2 (Rights of Children) Page 23 of 44


However, on May 11, 2004, public respondent Pairing Judge Agnes by the Probation Law or Presidential Decree
No. 968, as amended. (underlining supplied)
Reyes-Carpio issued an Order denying the Petition for Probation on the
ground that under Section 24[19] of Rep. Act No. 9165, any person convicted WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for
of drug trafficking cannot avail of the privilege granted by the Probation Law. Probation filed by Michael Padua y Tord[e]l should be, as it
is hereby DENIED.
The court ruled thus:
SO ORDERED.[20]
Before this Court now is the Post-Sentence
Investigation Report (PSIR) on minor Michael Padua y
Tordel prepared by Senior Parole and Probation Officer
Teodoro Villaverde and submitted by the Chief of the Pasig Padua filed a motion for reconsideration of the order but the same
City Parole and Probation Office, Josefina J. Pasana. was denied on July 28, 2004. He filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
with the Court of Appeals assailing the order, but the Court of Appeals, in a
In the aforesaid PSIR, Senior PPO Teodoro
Villaverde recommended that minor Michael Padua y Tordel Decision dated April 19, 2005, dismissed his petition. The dispositive portion
be placed on probation, anchoring his recommendation on of the decision reads:
Articles 189 and 192 of P.D. 603, otherwise known as the
Child and Welfare Code, as amended, which deal with the WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition
suspension of sentence and commitment of youthful is hereby DENIED for lack of merit and ordered DISMISSED.
offender. Such articles, therefore, do not find application in
this case, the matter before the Court being an application [21]
SO ORDERED.
for probation by minor Michael Padua y Tordel and not the
suspension of his sentence.
Padua filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court of Appeals
On the other hand, Section 70 is under Article VIII of
R.A. 9165 which deals with the Program for Treatment and decision but it was denied. Hence, this petition where he raises the following
Rehabilitation of Drug Dependents. Sections 54 to 76, all issues:
under Article VIII of R.A. 9165 specifically refer to violations
of either Section 15 or Section 11. Nowhere in Article VIII I.
was [v]iolation of Section 5 ever mentioned.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
More importantly, while the provisions of R.A. 9165, AFFIRMING THE DENIAL OF THE PETITION FOR
particularly Section 70 thereof deals with Probation or PROBATION WHICH DEPRIVED PETITIONERS RIGHT AS
Community Service for First- Time Minor Offender in Lieu of A MINOR UNDER ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. [02-1-
Imprisonment, the Court is of the view and so holds that 18-SC] OTHERWISE KNOWN AS [THE] RULE ON
minor Michael Padua y Tordel who was charged and JUVENILES IN CONFLICT WITH THE LAW.
convicted of violating Section 5, Article II, R.A. 9165, cannot
avail of probation under said section in view of the provision II.
of Section 24 which is hereunder quoted: WHETHER OR NOT [THE] ACCUSED[S] RIGHT [TO BE
RELEASED UNDER RECOGNIZANCE] HAS BEEN
Sec. 24. Non-Applicability of the VIOLATED OR DEPRIVED IN THE LIGHT OF R.A. 9344
Probation Law for Drug Traffickers and OTHERWISE KNOWN AS AN ACT ESTABLISHING A
Pushers. Any person convicted for drug COMPREHENSIVE JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE
trafficking or pushing under this Act, SYSTEM, CREATING THE JUVENILE JUSTICE AND
regardless of the penalty imposed by the WELFARE COUNCIL UNDER DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Court, cannot avail of the privilege granted

Human Rights Law – Assignment No. 2 (Rights of Children) Page 24 of 44


APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR AND OTHER Without jurisdiction means that the court acted with absolute lack of
PURPOSES.[22]
authority. There is excess of jurisdiction when the court transcends its power
or acts without any statutory authority. Grave abuse of discretion implies
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing public such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as to be equivalent to
respondent, opted to adopt its Comment[23] as its Memorandum. In its lack or excess of jurisdiction. In other words, power is exercised in an
Comment, the OSG countered that arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal
hostility, and such exercise is so patent or so gross as to amount to an
I. evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal either to perform the duty
THE TRIAL COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEALS HAVE enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.[28]
LEGAL BASIS IN APPLYING SECTION 24, ARTICLE II OF
R.A. 9165 INSTEAD OF SECTION 70, ARTICLE VIII OF
THE SAME LAW. A review of the orders of the RTC denying Paduas petition for
probation shows that the RTC neither acted without jurisdiction nor with grave
II.
abuse of discretion because it merely applied the law and adhered to principles
SECTION 32 OF A.M. NO. 02-1-18-SC OTHERWISE of statutory construction in denying Paduas petition for probation.
KNOWN AS THE RULE ON JUVENILES IN CONFLICT
WITH THE LAW HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE INSTANT
CASE.[24] Padua was charged and convicted for violation of Section 5, Article II
of Rep. Act No. 9165 for selling dangerous drugs. It is clear under Section 24
of Rep. Act No. 9165 that any person convicted of drug trafficking cannot
Simply, the issues are: (1) Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing
avail of the privilege of probation, to wit:
Paduas petition for certiorari assailing the trial courts order denying his
petition for probation? (2) Was Paduas right under Rep. Act No. 9344,[25] the SEC. 24. Non-Applicability of the Probation Law for
Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, violated? and (3) Does Section Drug Traffickers and Pushers. Any person convicted for
32[26] of A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC otherwise known as the Rule on Juveniles in drug trafficking or pushing under this Act, regardless of
the penalty imposed by the Court, cannot avail of the
Conflict with the Law have application in this case? privilege granted by the Probation Law or Presidential
Decree No. 968, as amended. (Emphasis supplied.)
As to the first issue, we rule that the Court of Appeals did not err in
dismissing Paduas petition for certiorari.
The law is clear and leaves no room for interpretation. Any person
convicted for drug trafficking or pushing, regardless of the penalty imposed,
For certiorari to prosper, the following requisites must concur: (1) the cannot avail of the privilege granted by the Probation Law or P.D. No. 968.
writ is directed against a tribunal, a board or any officer exercising judicial or The elementary rule in statutory construction is that when the words and
quasi-judicial functions; (2) such tribunal, board or officer has acted without phrases of the statute are clear and unequivocal, their meaning must be
or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to determined from the language employed and the statute must be taken to
lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (3) there is no appeal or any plain, speedy mean exactly what it says.[29] If a statute is clear, plain and free from
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[27] ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted
interpretation. This is what is known as the plain-meaning rule or verba legis.

Human Rights Law – Assignment No. 2 (Rights of Children) Page 25 of 44


It is expressed in the maxim, index animi sermo, or speech is the index of Furthermore, suspension of sentence under Section 38[37] of Rep.
intention.[30] Furthermore, there is the maxim verba legis non est Act No. 9344 could no longer be retroactively applied for petitioners benefit.
recedendum, or from the words of a statute there should be no departure.[31] 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
Moreover, the Court of Appeals correctly pointed out that the judgment of conviction, the court shall place the child in conflict with the law
[38]
intention of the legislators in Section 24 of Rep. Act No. 9165 is to provide under suspended sentence. Section 40 of Rep. Act No. 9344, however,
stiffer and harsher punishment for those persons convicted of drug trafficking provides that once the child reaches 18 years of age, the court shall
or pushing while extending a sympathetic and magnanimous hand in Section determine whether to discharge the child, order execution of sentence, or
70 to drug dependents who are found guilty of violation of Sections 11[32] and extend the suspended sentence for a certain specified period or until the
15[33] of the Act. The law considers the users and possessors of illegal drugs child reaches the maximum age of 21 years. Petitioner has already
as victims while the drug traffickers and pushers as predators. Hence, while reached 21 years of age or over and thus, could no longer be considered a
drug traffickers and pushers, like Padua, are categorically disqualified from child[39] for purposes of applying Rep. Act 9344. Thus, the application of
availing the law on probation, youthful drug dependents, users and possessors Sections 38 and 40 appears moot and academic as far as his case is
alike, are given the chance to mend their ways.[34] The Court of Appeals also concerned.
correctly stated that had it been the intention of the legislators to exempt from
the application of Section 24 the drug traffickers and pushers who are minors WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated
and first time offenders, the law could have easily declared so.[35] April 19, 2005 and the Resolution dated June 14, 2005 of the Court of
Appeals are AFFIRMED.
The law indeed appears strict and harsh against drug traffickers and drug
pushers while protective of drug users. To illustrate, a person arrested for SO ORDERED.
using illegal or dangerous drugs is meted only a penalty of six months
rehabilitation in a government center, as minimum, for the first offense under
Section 15 of Rep. Act No. 9165, while a person charged and convicted of
selling dangerous drugs shall suffer life imprisonment to death and a fine
ranging from Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten Million
Pesos (P10,000,000.00) under Section 5, Rep. Act No. 9165.

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.

Human Rights Law – Assignment No. 2 (Rights of Children) Page 26 of 44


[5] mother and brothers were not present when the five rapes allegedly occurred, and
therefore any testimony on their part as to whether or not the complained acts
actually happened is hearsay.
FIRST DIVISION
Criminal Law; Rape; Qualifying Circumstances; Minority and Relationship;
The allegation that AAA was accused-appellant Roxas’s “niece” in each Information
G.R. No. 200793 June 4, 2014 is insufficient to constitute the qualifying circumstances of minority and
relationship.—The allegation that AAA was accused-appellant Roxas’s “niece” in
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, each Information is therefore insufficient to constitute the qualifying circumstances
vs. of minority and relationship. Instead, the applicable qualifying circumstance is that
MILAN ROXAS y AGUILUZ, Accused-Appellant. 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
DECISION 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
Statutory Construction; When the law is clear and free from any doubt or qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship.
ambiguity, there is no room for construction or interpretation.—In determining age
for purposes of exemption from criminal liability, Section 6 clearly refers to the age APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals.
as determined by the anniversary of one’s birth date, and not the mental age as
argued by accused-appellant Roxas. When the law is clear and free from any doubt LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
or ambiguity, there is no room for construction or interpretation. Only when the law
is ambiguous or of doubtful meaning may the court interpret or construe its true 1
This is an appeal from the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. CR.-
intent. H.C. No. 03473 dated August 16, 2011, which affirmed with modification the
Judgment2 of Branch 94, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City dated
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; Child-Witness; When the offended party December 11, 2007 in Criminal Case Nos. Q-00-91967 to Q-00-91971
is of tender age and immature, courts are inclined to give credit to her account of finding accused-appellant Milan Roxas y Aguiluz guilty of five counts of rape
what transpired, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the shame to against AAA,3 a minor who was 9 years old at the time of the first rape and
which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not true.—We have 10 years old at the time of the succeeding four rapes.
repeatedly held that testimonies of child-victims are normally given full weight and
credit, since when a girl, particularly if she is a minor, says that she has been raped,
Five Informations were filed against accused-appellant Roxas, charging him
she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has in fact been committed.
as follows:
When the offended party is of tender age and immature, courts are inclined to give
credit to her account of what transpired, considering not only her relative
vulnerability but also the shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to 1. Crim. Case No. Q-00-91967: That on or about the 9th day of
which she testified is not true. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth August 1998 in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused
and sincerity. with force and intimidation did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously commit acts of sexual assault at knifepoint upon the
Same; Same; Same; When it comes to evaluating the credibility of the person of [AAA] his own niece a minor 10 years of age by then and
testimonies of the witnesses, great respect is accorded to the findings of the trial there blindfolding her, then removed her shorts and underwear then
judge who is in a better position to observe the demeanor, facial expression, and accused inserted his penis inside her vagina and thereafter had
manner of testifying of witnesses, and to decide who among them is telling the carnal knowledge of her against her will and without her consent. 4
truth.—When it comes to evaluating the credibility of the testimonies of the
witnesses, great respect is accorded to the findings of the trial judge who is in a 2. Crim. Case No. Q-00-91968:
better position to observe the demeanor, facial expression, and manner of testifying
of witnesses, and to decide who among them is telling the truth. As the trial court That on or about the 28th day of July 1998 in Quezon City,
further observed, the defense witnesses were not eyewitnesses. A witness can testify Philippines, the above-named accused with force and
only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which are intimidation did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
derived from his own perception, except as provided in the Rules of Court. AAA’s

Human Rights Law – Assignment No. 2 (Rights of Children) Page 27 of 44


feloniously commit acts of sexual assault at knifepoint upon The prosecution’s factual account based on the testimony of AAA was
the person of [AAA] his own niece a minor 10 years of age concisely stated by the Office of the Solicitor General in its Appellee’s Brief,
by then and there blindfolding her and removing her shorts as follows:
and underwear and inserting his penis inside her vagina and
thereafter had carnal knowledge of her against her will and On 16 September 1997, [AAA], who was then 9 years of age, was at her
without her consent.5 grandmother [CCC]’s house located on [XXX], Quezon City. In the morning
of said date, she was at the dirty kitchen with her aunt [ZZZ] who was then
3. Crim. Case No. Q-00-91969: washing clothes. Her aunt asked her if she had already taken a bath, she
replied in the negative.
That on or about the 16th day of September 1997 in Quezon
City, Philippines, the above-named accused with force and Her uncle, accused-appellant, overheard their conversation so he
intimidation did then and there willfully, unlawfully and volunteered to give [AAA] a bath. Subsequently, he brought her upstairs to
feloniously commit acts of sexual assault at knifepoint upon the bathroom.
the person of [AAA] his own niece a minor 9 years of age by
then and there laying her on the chairs inside the bathroom, While inside the bathroom, accused-appellant told [AAA] to turn around. After
then blindfolded her and then removed her shorts and she complied with his directive, he blindfolded her. [AAA] started to wonder
underwear then accused inserted his penis inside her vagina what the accused-appellant was doing so she told him that he was supposed
and thereafter had carnal knowledge of her against her will to give her a bath. Accused-appellant told her that they would play first for a
and without her consent.6 while.

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.

Human Rights Law – Assignment No. 2 (Rights of Children) Page 28 of 44


Thereafter, he moved on top of her and inserted his penis in her vagina. statement of the antecedent facts as contained in the Appellant’s Brief is
Again, she did not report the incident because of accused-appellant’s threats reproduced here:
should she report the incident to anybody.
Accused Milan Roxas denied having raped [AAA] on all the five (5) counts of
Another incident of rape took place on 11 May 1998while [AAA] was again at rape.
her paternal grandparents’ house. On the said date, she was alone in the
living room on the second floor of the house when accused-appellant called [DDD], brother of herein private complainant, testified that his aunt in the
her. She did not accede to his bidding because she was scared of him. maternal side, [Tita YYY], induced him by giving toys if he would tell his
Thereafter, he shouted at her and demanded that she come near him, so she father that the accused was raping his sister, [AAA]. Upon prodding of his
went to him. maternal aunt, [DDD],who was only eight (8) years old then, told his father
that he saw the accused rape his sister. His father ran amuck which led to
He brought her inside her grandmother’s bedroom and upon reaching the the filing of the instant case.
room, he immediately blindfolded her and poked a bladed weapon on her
neck. He turned her around three (3) times, removed her shorts and On subsequent days, while [DDD]and [AAA] were in a grocery store buying
underwear, laid her down the bed, moved on top of her, and inserted his something, their [Tito XXX], [Tito WWW] and [Tita YYY] arrived on board an
penis in her vagina. Again, the accused-appellant threatened her so she did FX vehicle. [Tita YYY] told [DDD] that they will be going to buy toys. [DDD]
not report what had happened. said that he will first ask permission from his grandfather, but [Tita YYY] said
that it would only take a few minutes and they will bring them home
[AAA]’s ordeal did not stop there. She was raped for the fourth time on 28 afterwards. [AAA] was brought to SSDD, a place under the administration of
July 1998 at her paternal grandparents’ house.1âwphi1 She and the accused the DSWD, while [DDD] was brought to Caloocan. On the following day, he
were incidentally alone in the living room on the second floor of the house. was brought to Muñoz, in a rented house of his [Tita YYY] and her husband.
He asked her to go with him inside the bedroom of her grandparents, but she [DDD] stayed there for almost a year. He was forbidden to go outside as the
did not get up from her seat. So accused-appellant pulled her toward the door was always locked. When [his Tita VVV] arrived from Japan they went
bedroom. She tried to free herself, but he poked a pointed instrument at her. to Tarlac where his paternal grandmother fetched him.

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

Human Rights Law – Assignment No. 2 (Rights of Children) Page 29 of 44


was one rape case filed on September 22, 1999 which was dismissed Php75,000.00, to pay moral damages in the sum of Php50,000.00,
because [AAA] retracted her statements. As told to [BBB] by her daughter and to pay the costs.
[AAA], she was not raped by herein accused. She told a lie and made the
false accusation against the accused, because she does not want to put the To credit in favor of the herein accused the full period of his detention in
blame on any of her maternal relatives. [AAA] was greatly indebted to her accordance with law. Resultantly, all pending incidents are deemed moot and
maternal grandmother and her maternal uncles and aunts because they had academic.12
taken care of her since she was three (3) years old.
The RTC held that accused-appellant Roxas is not exempt from criminal
Dr. Agnes Aglipay, Regional Psychiatrist of the Bureau of Jail Management responsibility on the ground that he cannot be considered a minor or an
and Penology testified that based on her examination of the accused, she imbecile or insane person, since Dr. Aglipay merely testified that he was an
concluded that he is suffering from a mild mental retardation with a mental eighteen-year old with a mental development comparable to that of children
age of nine (9) to ten (10) years old. She observed that the subject was between nine to ten years old. The RTC found the testimony of AAA credible,
aware that he was being accused of rape, but he had consistently denied the and found the testimonies of the defense witnesses to be "flimsy."
allegations against him.11 (Citations omitted.)
Accused-appellant Roxas elevated the case to the Court of Appeals, where
The RTC of Quezon City rendered its Judgment on December 11, 2007, the case was docketed as CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 03473. Accused-appellant
finding accused-appellant Roxas guilty as charged in each of the five Roxas submitted the following Assignment of Errors in the appellate court:
Informations filed against him. The dispositive portion reads:
I
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding
the accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt in all five (5) counts of rape THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL WEIGHT
as recited in the information[s] and sentences accused MILAN ROXAS: AND CREDENCE TO THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT’S
TESTIMONY.
1) In Crim. Case No. Q-00-91967 – to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua, to indemnify the offended party [AAA] the sum of II
Php75,000.00, to pay moral damages in the sum of Php50,000.00,
and to pay the costs;
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING
ACCUSEDAPPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
2) In Crim. Case No. Q-00-91968 – to suffer the penalty of reclusion OF THE CRIME CHARGED.13
perpetua, to indemnify the offended party [AAA] the sum of
Php75,000.00, to pay moral damages in the sum of Php50,000.00,
and to pay the costs; On August 16, 2011, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed Decision,
modifying the Judgment of the RTC as follows:
3) In Crim. Case No. Q-00-91969 – to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua, to indemnify the offended party [AAA] the sum of WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Judgment dated 11 December
Php75,000.00, to pay moral damages in the sum of Php50,000.00, 2007 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 94, in the case
and to pay the costs; entitled People of the Philippines vs. Milan Roxas y Aguiluz", docketed
therein as Criminal Case Nos. Q-00-91967 to Q-00-91971, is AFFIRMED
with modification that accused-appellant is ordered to pay private
4) In Crim. Case No. Q-00-91970 – to suffer the penalty of reclusion complainant on each count civil indemnity in the amount of ₱75,000.00,
perpetua, to indemnify the offended party [AAA] the sum of moral damages in the amount of ₱75,000.00, and exemplary damages in the
Php75,000.00, to pay moral damages in the sum of Php50,000.00, amount of ₱30,000.00, for each count of rape. 14 Hence, accused-appellant
and to pay the costs; and Roxas interposed this appeal, where he, in his Supplemental Brief, presented
an Additional Assignment of Error:
5) In Crim. Case No. Q-00-91971 – to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua, to indemnify the offended party [AAA] the sum of

Human Rights Law – Assignment No. 2 (Rights of Children) Page 30 of 44


THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN We note that she recounted her ordeal in a logical, straightforward,
AFFIRMING THE TRIAL COURT’S DECISION GIVING CREDENCE TO spontaneous and frank manner, without any artificialities or pretensions that
THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT’S TESTIMONY.15 would tarnish the veracity of her testimony. She recalled the tragic
experience and positively identified accused-appellant as the one who
Accused-appellant Roxas claims that the testimony of AAA is replete with ravished her on five occasions. Her testimony was unshaken by a grueling
inconsistencies and narrations that are contrary to common experience, cross-examination and there is no impression whatsoever that the same is a
human nature and the natural course of things.16 Accused-appellant Roxas mere fabrication. For her to come out in the open and publicly describe her
likewise points out that under Republic Act No. 9344 or the Juvenile Justice harrowing experience at a trial can only be taken as a badge of her sincerity
and Welfare Act of 2006, minors fifteen (15) years old and below are exempt and the truth of her claims.20
from criminal responsibility. Accused-appellant Roxas claims that since he
has a mental age of nine years old, he should also be "exempt from criminal We further underscore that AAA was merely 14 years old at the time she
liability although his chronological age at the time of the commission of the testified.21 We have repeatedly held that testimonies of child-victims are
crime was already eighteen years old."17 normally given full weight and credit, since when a girl, particularly if she is a
minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary
In the matter of assigning criminal responsibility, Section 6 of Republic Act to show that rape has in fact been committed. When the offended party is of
No. 934418 is explicit in providing that: tender age and immature, courts are inclined to give credit to her account of
what transpired, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the
shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is
SEC. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. — A child fifteen (15) years
not true. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. 22
of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt
from criminal liability. However, the child shall be subjected to an intervention
program pursuant to Section 20 of this Act. It is likewise axiomatic that when it comes to evaluating the credibility of the
testimonies of the witnesses, great respect is accorded to the findings of the
trial judge who is in a better position to observe the demeanor, facial
A child is deemed to be fifteen (15) years of age on the day of the fifteenth
expression, and manner of testifying of witnesses, and to decide who among
anniversary of his/her birthdate.
them is telling the truth.23 As the trial court further observed, the defense
witnesses were not eyewitnesses. A witness can testify only to those facts
A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age shall which he knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from
likewise be exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to an intervention 24
his own perception, except as provided in the Rules of Court. AAA’s mother
program, unless he/she has acted with discernment, in which case, such and brothers were not present when the five rapes allegedly occurred, and
child shall be subjected to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with therefore any testimony on their part as to whether or not the complained
this Act. acts actually happened is hearsay.

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:

Human Rights Law – Assignment No. 2 (Rights of Children) Page 31 of 44


2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two
and or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.

3. When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented. xxxx


The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed
Whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or with any of the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances:
by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
1) When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a
xxxx parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity
within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed victim[.]
with any of the following attendant circumstances:
While it appears that the circumstance of minority under Article 335 (old rape
1. When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a provision) and Article 266-B was sufficiently proven, the allegation of the
parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity relationship between AAA and accused-appellant Roxas is considered
within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the insufficient under present jurisprudence. This Court has thus held:
victim.
However, as regards the allegation in the Information that appellant is an
The succeeding counts of rape were committed after the effectivity of uncle of the victim, we agree with the Court of Appeals that the same did not
Republic Act No. 8353 on October 22,1997, which transported the rape sufficiently satisfy the requirements of Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code,
provision of the Revised Penal Code to Title 8 under Crimes against i.e., it must be succinctly stated that appellant is a relative within the 3rd civil
Persons, and amended the same to its present wording: degree by consanguinity or affinity. It is immaterial that appellant admitted
that the victim is his niece. In the same manner, it is irrelevant that "AAA"
testified that appellant is her uncle. We held in People v. Velasquez:
Article 266-A. Rape, When And How Committed. — Rape is committed —

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

Human Rights Law – Assignment No. 2 (Rights of Children) Page 32 of 44


information. In the case at bar, the allegation that accused-appellant is the
uncle of private complainants was not sufficient to satisfy the special
qualifying circumstance of relationship. It was necessary to specifically allege
that such relationship was within the third civil degree. Hence, accused-
appellant can only be convicted of simple rape on two counts, for which the
penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua in each case. 25

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.

For consistency with prevailing jurisprudence, we reduce the awards of civil


indemnity and moral damages to ₱50,000.00 each, for each count of rape.
The award of exemplary damages in the amount of ₱30,000.00 for each
count, on the other hand, is in line with recent
jurisprudence.26 WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 03473 dated August 16, 2011 is hereby AFFIRMED with
the MODIFICATION that the amount of civil indemnity and moral damages
awarded to the complainant are reduced to ₱50,000.00 each, for each count
of rape, plus legal interest upon the amounts of indemnity and damages
awarded at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this
judgment.

SO ORDERED.

Human Rights Law – Assignment No. 2 (Rights of Children) Page 33 of 44


[6] basic reason behind the enactment of the exempting circumstances embodied in
Article 12 of the RPC; the complete absence of intelligence, freedom of action, or
THIRD DIVISION intent, or on the absence of negligence on the part of the accused. In expounding on
intelligence as the second element of dolus, Albert has stated: “The second element
of dolus is intelligence; without this power, necessary to determine the morality of
G.R. No. 151085 August 20, 2008
human acts to distinguish a licit from an illicit act, no crime can exist, and because . .
. the infant (has) no intelligence, the law exempts (him) from criminal liability.” It is
JOEMAR ORTEGA, petitioner, for this reason, therefore, why minors nine years of age and below are not capable of
vs. performing a criminal act.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
Same; Exempting Circumstances; Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006
DECISION (R.A. 9344); By virtue of R.A. No. 9344, the age of criminal irresponsibility has been
raised from 9 to 15 years old; Penal laws which are favorable to the accused are
Criminal Law; Rape; In rape, actual penetration of the victim’s organ or given retroactive effect.—Section 64 of the law categorically provides that cases of
rupture of the hymen is not required—the slightest touching of the lips of the female children 15 years old and below, at the time of the commission of the crime, shall
organ or of the labia of the pudendum constitutes rape.—In sum, we are convinced immediately be dismissed and the child shall be referred to the appropriate local
that petitioner committed the crime of rape against AAA. In a prosecution for rape, social welfare and development officer (LSWDO). What is controlling, therefore,
the complainant’s candor is the single most important factor. If the complainant’s with respect to the exemption from criminal liability of the CICL, is not the CICL’s
testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused can be convicted solely on that age at the time of the promulgation of judgment but the CICL’s age at the time of the
basis. The RTC, as affirmed by the CA, did not doubt AAA’s credibility, and found commission of the offense. In short, by virtue of R.A. No. 9344, the age of criminal
no ill motive for her to charge petitioner of the heinous crime of rape and to irresponsibility has been raised from 9 to 15 years old. Given this precise statutory
positively identify him as the malefactor. Both courts also accorded respect to BBB’s declaration, it is imperative that this Court accord retroactive application to the
testimony that he saw petitioner having sexual intercourse with his younger sister. aforequoted provisions of R.A. No. 9344 pursuant to the well-entrenched principle in
While petitioner asserts that AAA’s poverty is enough motive for the imputation of criminal law—favorabilia sunt amplianda adiosa restrigenda. Penal laws which are
the crime, we discard such assertion for no mother or father like MMM and FFF favorable to the accused are given retroactive effect. This principle is embodied in
would stoop so low as to subject their daughter to the tribulations and the Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides: Art. 22. Retroactive effect of
embarrassment of a public trial knowing that such a traumatic experience would penal laws.—Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the
damage their daughter’s psyche and mar her life if the charge is not true. We find persons
petitioner’s claim that MMM inflicted the abrasions found by Dr. Jocson in the guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of
genitalia of AAA, in order to extort money from petitioner’s parents, highly Article 62 of this Code, although at the time of the publication of such laws, a final
incredible. Lastly, it must be noted that in most cases of rape committed against sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same.
young girls like AAA who was only 6 years old then, total penetration of the victim’s
organ is improbable due to the small vaginal opening. Thus, it has been held that Same; Same; Same; Statutory Construction; Intent is the soul of the law.—The
actual penetration of the victim’s organ or rupture of the hymen is not required. Court is bound to enforce this legislative intent, which is the dominant factor in
Therefore, it is not necessary for conviction that the petitioner succeeded in having interpreting a statute. Significantly, this Court has declared in a number of cases, that
full penetration, because the slightest touching of the lips of the female organ or of intent is the soul of the law, viz.: The intent of a statute is the law. If a statute is valid
the labia of the pudendum constitutes rape. it is to have effect according to the purpose and intent of the lawmaker. The intent is
the vital part, the essence of the law, and the primary rule of construction is to
Same; Same; Exempting Circumstances; One who acts by virtue of any of the ascertain and give effect to the intent. The intention of the legislature in enacting a
exempting circumstances, although he commits a crime, by the complete absence of law is the law itself, and must be enforced when ascertained, although it may not be
any of the conditions which constitute free will or voluntariness of the act, no consistent with the strict letter of the statute. Courts will not follow the letter of a
criminal liability arises—while there is a crime committed, no criminal liability statute when it leads away from the true intent and purpose of the legislature and to
attaches.—For one who acts by virtue of any of the exempting circumstances, conclusions inconsistent with the general purpose of the act. Intent is the spirit which
although he commits a crime, by the complete absence of any of the conditions gives life to a legislative enactment. In construing statutes the proper course is to
which constitute free will or voluntariness of the act, no criminal liability arises. start out and follow the true intent of the legislature and to adopt that sense which
Therefore, while there is a crime committed, no criminal liability attaches. Thus, harmonizes best with the context and promotes in the fullest manner the apparent
in Guevarra v. Almodovar, 169 SCRA 476 (1989), we held: [I]t is worthy to note the policy and objects of the legislature.

Human Rights Law – Assignment No. 2 (Rights of Children) Page 34 of 44


Same; Same; Same; Same; Penal laws are construed liberally in favor of the Before this Court is a Petition[1] for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the
accused.—Penal laws are construed liberally in favor of the accused. In this case, the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking the reversal of the Court of Appeals (CA)
plain meaning of R.A. No. 9344’s unambiguous language, coupled with clear Decision[2] dated October 26, 2000 which affirmed in toto the Decision[3] of the
lawmakers’ intent, is most favorable to herein petitioner. No other interpretation is Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacolod City, Branch 50, dated May 13, 1999,
justified, for the simple language of the new law itself demonstrates the legislative convicting petitioner Joemar Ortega[4] (petitioner) of the crime of Rape.
intent to favor the CICL.
The Facts
Same; Same; Same; Same; While R.A. No. 9344 exempts children 15 years old
and below from criminal liability, Section 6 thereof expressly provides that there is Petitioner, then about 14 years old,[5] was charged with the crime of Rape in
no concomitant exemption from civil liability.—While the law exempts petitioner two separate informations both dated April 20, 1998, for allegedly raping
from criminal liability for the two (2) counts of rape committed against AAA, AAA,[6] then about eight (8) years of age. The accusatory portions thereof
Section 6 thereof expressly provides that there is no concomitant exemption from respectively state:
civil liability. Accordingly, this Court sustains the ruling of the RTC, duly affirmed
by the CA, that petitioner and/or his parents are liable to pay AAA P100,000.00 as Criminal Case No. 98-19083
civil indemnity. This award is in the nature of actual or compensatory damages, and
is mandatory upon a conviction for rape. That sometime in August, 1996, in the Municipality of XXX,
Province of YYY, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
Same; Rape; Damages; Moral damages are granted in recognition of the this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means
victim’s injury necessarily resulting from the odious crime of rape.—The RTC erred of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there, (sic)
in not separately awarding moral damages, distinct from the civil indemnity awarded willfully, unlawfully and feloniously (sic) had carnal
to the rape victim. AAA is entitled to moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 knowledge of and/or sexual intercourse with the said AAA, a
for each count of rape, pursuant to Article 2219 of the Civil Code, without the minor, then about 6 years old, against her will.
necessity of additional pleading or proof other than the fact of rape. Moral damages
are granted in recognition of the victim’s injury necessarily resulting from the odious CONTRARY TO LAW.[7]
crime of rape.

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.

Version of the Prosecution


NACHURA, J.: On February 27, 1990, AAA was born to spouses FFF and MMM.[10] Among
her siblings CCC, BBB, DDD, EEE and GGG, AAA is the only girl in the

Human Rights Law – Assignment No. 2 (Rights of Children) Page 35 of 44


family. Before these disturbing events, AAA's family members were close with a heavy heart, examined AAA's vagina and she noticed that the same
friends of petitioner's family, aside from the fact that they were good was reddish and a whitish fluid was coming out from it. Spouses FFF and
neighbors. However, BBB caught petitioner raping his younger sister AAA MMM were not able to sleep that night. The following morning, at about four
inside their own home. BBB then informed their mother MMM who in turn o'clock, MMM called Luzviminda and petitioner to come to their house. MMM
asked AAA.[11] There, AAA confessed that petitioner raped her three (3) times confronted Luzviminda about what petitioner did to her daughter, and
on three (3) different occasions. consequently, she demanded that AAA should be brought to a doctor for
examination.[18]
The first occasion happened sometime in August 1996. MMM left her MMM, together with Luzviminda, brought AAA to Dr. Lucifree Katalbas[19] (Dr.
daughter AAA, then 6 years old and son BBB, then 10 years old, in the care Katalbas), the Rural Health Officer of the locality who examined AAA and
of Luzviminda Ortega[12](Luzviminda), mother of petitioner, for two (2) nights found no indication that she was molested.[20] Refusing to accept such
because MMM had to stay in a hospital to attend to her other son who was findings, on December 12, 1996, MMM went to Dr. Joy Ann Jocson (Dr.
sick.[13] During the first night at petitioner's residence, petitioner entered the Jocson), Medical Officer IV of the Bacolod City Health Office. Dr. Jocson
room where AAA slept together with Luzviminda and her daughter. Petitioner made an unofficial written report[21] showing that there were abrasions on
woke AAA up and led her to the sala. There petitioner raped AAA. The both right and left of the labia minora and a small laceration at the posterior
second occasion occurred the following day, again at the petitioner's fourchette. She also found that the minor injuries she saw on AAA's genitals
residence. Observing that nobody was around, petitioner brought AAA to were relatively fresh; and that such abrasions were superficial and could
their comfort room and raped her there. AAA testified that petitioner inserted disappear after a period of 3 to 4 days. Dr. Jocson, however, indicated in her
his penis into her vagina and she felt pain. In all of these instances, petitioner certification that her findings required the confirmation of the Municipal
warned AAA not to tell her parents, otherwise, he would spank her.[14] AAA Health Officer of the locality.
did not tell her parents about her ordeal.
Subsequently, an amicable settlement[22] was reached between the two
The third and last occasion happened in the evening of December 1, 1996. families through the DAWN Foundation, an organization that helps abused
Petitioner went to the house of AAA and joined her and her siblings in women and children. Part of the settlement required petitioner to depart from
watching a battery-powered television. At that time, Luzviminda was their house to avoid contact with AAA.[23] As such, petitioner stayed with a
conversing with MMM. While AAA's siblings were busy watching, certain priest in the locality. However, a few months later, petitioner went
petitioner called AAA to come to the room of CCC and BBB. AAA obeyed. home for brief visits and in order to bring his dirty clothes for laundry. At the
While inside the said room which was lighted by a kerosene lamp, petitioner sight of petitioner, AAA's father FFF was infuriated and confrontations
pulled AAA behind the door, removed his pants and brief, removed AAA's occurred. At this instance, AAA's parents went to the National Bureau of
shorts and panty, and in a standing position inserted his penis into the vagina Investigation (NBI) which assisted them in filing the three (3) counts of rape.
of AAA.[15] AAA described petitioner's penis as about five (5) inches long and However, the prosecutor's office only filed the two (2) instant cases.
the size of two (2) ballpens. She, likewise, narrated that she saw pubic hair
on the base of his penis.[16] Version of the Defense

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

Human Rights Law – Assignment No. 2 (Rights of Children) Page 36 of 44


AAA up in a playful act, at the instance of which BBB ran and reported the stayed with a certain priest in the locality for almost two (2) years. But almost
matter to MMM, who at the time was with Luzviminda, saying that petitioner every Saturday, petitioner would come home to visit his parents and to bring
and AAA were having sexual intercourse;[26] petitioner explained to MMM hisdirty clothes for laundry. Every time petitioner came home, FFF bad-
that they were only playing, and that he could not have done to AAA what he mouthed petitioner, calling him a rapist. Confrontations occurred until an
was accused of doing, as they were together with her brothers, and he altercation erupted wherein FFF allegedly slapped Luzviminda.
treated AAA like a younger sister;[27] BBB was lying; AAA's parents and his Subsequently, AAA's parents filed the instant cases.[29]
parents did not get angry at him nor did they quarrel with each other;
petitioner and his parents peacefully left AAA's house at about nine o'clock in The RTC's Ruling
the evening; however, at about four o'clock in the morning, petitioner and his
parents were summoned by MMM to go to the latter's house; upon arriving On May 13, 1999, the RTC held that petitioner's defenses of denial cannot
there they saw BBB being maltreated by his father as AAA pointed to BBB prevail over the positive identification of petitioner as the perpetrator of the
as the one who molested her; and MMM and Luzviminda agreed to bring crime by AAA and BBB, who testified with honesty and credibility. Moreover,
AAA to a doctor for examination.[28] the RTC opined that it could not perceive any motive for AAA's family to
impute a serious crime of Rape to petitioner, considering the close relations
Luzviminda corroborated the testimony of her son. She testified that: her son of both families. Thus, the RTC disposed of this case in this wise:
was a minor at the time of the incident; CCC and BBB were the children of
MMM in her firstmarriage, while AAA and the rest of her FOR ALL THE FOREGOING, the Court finds the accused
Joemar Ortega Y Felisario GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt as Principal by Direct Participation of the crime of
siblings were of the second marriage; CCC and BBB are half-brothers of RAPE as charged in Criminal Cases Nos. 98-19083 and 98-
AAA; when MMM entrusted AAA and her brothers to her sometime in August 19084 and there being no aggravating or mitigating
of 1996, she slept with AAA and her youngest daughter in a separate room circumstance, he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of Two
from petitioner; on December 1, 1996, she was at AAA's house watching (2) Reclusion Temporal in its medium period. Applying the
television and conversing with MMM, while FFF and Loreto were having a Indeterminate Sentence Law, the accused shall be
drinking spree in the kitchen; from where they were seated, she could clearly imprisoned for each case for a period of Six (6) years and
see all the children, including petitioner and AAA, playing and dancing in the One (1) day of Prision Mayor, as minimum, to Fifteen (15)
dining area; she did not hear any unusual cry or noise at the time; while they years of Reclusion Temporal, as maximum. The accused is
were conversing, BBB came to MMM saying that petitioner and AAA were condemned to pay the offended party AAA, the sum of
having sexual intercourse; upon hearing such statement, Luzviminda and P100,000.00 as indemnification for the two (2) rapes (sic).
MMM immediately stood up and looked for them, but both mothers did not
find anything unusual as all the children were playing and dancing in the
dining area; Luzviminda and MMM just laughed at BBB's statement; the Aggrieved, petitioner appealed the RTC Decision to the CA.[30]
parents of AAA, at that time, did not examine her in order to verify BBB's
statement nor did they get angry at petitioner or at them; and they peacefully Taking into consideration the age of petitioner and upon posting of the
left AAA's house. However, the following day, MMM woke Luzviminda up, corresponding bail bond for his provisional liberty in the amount of
saying that FFF was spanking BBB with a belt as AAA was pointing to BBB P40,000.00, the RTC ordered the petitioner's release pending appeal.[31]
nor to petitioner as the one who molested her. At this instance, Luzviminda
intervened, telling FFF not to spank BBB but instead, to bring AAA to a
doctor for examination. Luzviminda accompanied MMM to Dr. Katalbas who The CA's Ruling
found no indication that AAA was molested. She also accompanied her to
Dr. Jocson. After getting the results of the examination conducted by Dr. On October 26, 2000, the CA affirmed in toto the ruling of the RTC, holding
Jocson, they went to the police and at this instance only did Luzviminda that the petitioner's defense of denial could not prevail over the positive
learn that MMM accused petitioner of raping AAA. Petitioner vehemently identification of the petitioner by the victim AAA and her brother BBB, which
denied to Luzviminda that he raped AAA. Thereafter, MMM and Luzviminda were categorical, consistent and without any showing of ill motive. The CA
went to their employer who recommended that they should seek advice from also held that the respective medical examinations conducted by the two
the Women's Center. At the said Center, both agreed on an amicable doctors were irrelevant, as it is established that the slightest penetration of
settlement wherein petitioner would stay away from AAA. Thus, petitioner the lips of the female organ consummates rape; thus, hymenal laceration is

Human Rights Law – Assignment No. 2 (Rights of Children) Page 37 of 44


not an element of rape. Moreover, the CA opined that petitioner acted with value which if considered might affect the result of the case. Petitioner
discernment as shown by his covert acts. Finally, the CA accorded great stresses that from the testimonies of AAA and BBB, it can be deduced that
weight and respect to the factual findings of the RTC, particularly in the penetration was achieved; thus, AAA felt pain. Petitioner contends that
evaluation of the testimonies of witnesses. assuming the allegations of AAA are true that petitioner inserted his fingers
and his penis into her vagina, certainly such acts would leave certain
Petitioner filed his Motion for Reconsideration[32] of the assailed Decision abrasions, wounds and/or lacerations on the genitalia of AAA, taking into
which the CA denied in its Resolution[33] dated November 7, 2001. consideration her age at the time and the alleged size of petitioner's penis.
However, such allegation is completely belied by the medical report of Dr.
Hence, this Petition based on the following grounds: Katalbas who, one day after the alleged rape, conducted a medical
examination on AAA and found that there were no signs or indications that
I. AAA was raped or molested. Petitioner submits that the CA committed a
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS HAS grave error when it disregarded such medical report since it disproves the
OVERLOOKED CERTAIN FACTS OF SUBSTANCE AND allegation of the existence of rape and, consequently, the prosecution failed
VALUE WHICH IF CONSIDERED MIGHT AFFECT THE to prove its case; thus, the presumption of innocence in favor of the petitioner
RESULT OF THE CASE. subsists. Moreover, petitioner opines that like AAA, petitioner is also a child
of the barrio who is innocent, unsophisticated and lacks sexual experience.
As such, it is incredible and contrary to human reason that a 13- year-old boy
II. would commit such act in the very dwelling of AAA, whose reaction to pain,
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED at the age of six, could not be controlled or subdued. Petitioner claims that
GRAVE ERROR WHEN IT FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE poverty was MMM's motive in filing the instant case, as she wanted to extort
MEDICAL FINDINGS OF DR. LUCIFREE KATALBAS. money from the parents of the petitioner. Petitioner points out that the
medical report of Dr. Jocson indicated that the abrasions that were inflicted
on the genitalia of AAA were relatively fresh and the same could disappear
III. within a period of 3 to 4 days. Considering that Dr. Jocson conducted the
medical examination on December 12, 1996, or after the lapse of eleven (11)
THE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER COURT, AFFIRMED BY days after the alleged incident of rape, and that AAA's parents only filed the
THE APPELLATE COURT, THAT PETITIONER- instant case after almost a year, in order to deter Luzviminda from filing a
APPELLANT IN FACT COMMITTED AND IS CAPABLE OF case of slander by deed against FFF, it is not inconceivable that MMM
COMMITTING THE ALLEGED RAPE WITHIN THE inflicted said abrasions on AAA to prove their case and to depart from the
RESIDENCE OF THE VICTIM WHERE SEVERAL OF THE initial confession of AAA that it was actually BBB who raped her. Finally,
ALLEGED VICTIM'S FAMILY MEMBERS AND THEIR petitioner submits that AAA and BBB were merely coached by MMM to
RESPECTIVE MOTHERS WERE PRESENT IS fabricate these stories.[35]
IMPROBABLE AND CONTRARY TO HUMAN
EXPERIENCE. On the other hand, respondent People of the Philippines through the Office
of the Solicitor General (OSG) contends that: the arguments raised by the
IV. petitioner are mere reiterations of his disquisitions before the CA; the RTC,
as affirmed by the CA, did not rely on the testimonies of both doctors since
THE HONORABLE APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN despite the absence of abrasions, rape is consummated even with the
UPHOLDING THE FACTS SET FORTH BY THE ALLEGED slightest penetration of the lips of the female organ; what is relevant in this
VICTIM REGARDING THE CIRCUMSTANCES case is the reliable testimony of AAA that petitioner raped her in August and
ATTENDING THE COMMISSION OF RAPE SOMETIME IN December of 1996; even in the absence of force, rape was committed
AUGUST 1996.[34] considering AAA's age at that time; as such, AAA did not have any ill motive
in accusing petitioner; and it is established that the crime of rape could be
committed even in the presence of other people nearby. Moreover, the OSG
Petitioner argues that, while it is true that the factual findings of the CA are relies on the doctrine that the evaluation made by a trial court is accorded the
conclusive on this Court, we are not prevented from overturning such highest respect as it had the opportunity to observe directly the demeanor of
findings if the CA had manifestly overlooked certain facts of substance and a witness and to determine whether said witness was telling the truth or not.

Human Rights Law – Assignment No. 2 (Rights of Children) Page 38 of 44


Lastly, the OSG claims that petitioner acted with discernment when he SECTION 66. Inventory of "Locked-up" and Detained
committed the said crime, as manifested in his covert acts.[36] Children in Conflict with the Law. The PNP, the BJMP and
the BUCOR are hereby directed to submit to the JJWC,
However, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9344,[37] or the Juvenile Justice and within ninety (90) days from the effectivity of this Act, an
Welfare Act of 2006, was enacted into law on April 28, 2006 and it took effect inventory of all children in conflict with the law under their
on May 20, 2006.[38] The law establishes a comprehensive system to custody.
manage children in conflict with the law[39] (CICL) and children at risk[40] with
child-appropriate procedures and comprehensive programs and services SECTION 67. Children Who Reach the Age of Eighteen
such as prevention, intervention, diversion, rehabilitation, re-integration and (18) Years Pending Diversion and Court Proceedings. If a
after-care programs geared towards their development. In order to ensure its child reaches the age of eighteen (18) years pending
implementation, the law, particularly Section 8[41] thereof, has created the diversion and court proceedings, the appropriate diversion
Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council (JJWC) and vested it with certain authority in consultation with the local social welfare and
duties and functions[42] such as the formulation of policies and strategies to development officer or the Family Court in consultation with
prevent juvenile delinquency and to enhance the administration of juvenile the Social Services and Counseling Division (SSCD) of the
justice as well as the treatment and rehabilitation of theCICL. The law also Supreme Court, as the case may be, shall determine the
appropriate disposition. In case the appropriate court
executes the judgment of conviction, and unless the child in
provides for the immediate dismissal of cases of CICL, specifically Sections conflict with the law has already availed of probation under
64, 65, 66, 67 and 68 of R.A. No. 9344's Transitory Provisions.[43] Presidential Decree No. 603 or other similar laws, the child
may apply for probation if qualified under the provisions of
The said Transitory Provisions expressly provide: the Probation Law.

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

Human Rights Law – Assignment No. 2 (Rights of Children) Page 39 of 44


charge petitioner of the heinous crime of rape and to positively identify him with the petitioner now approximately 25 years old, he no longer qualifies as
as the malefactor. Both courts also accorded respect to BBB's testimony that a child as defined by R.A. No. 9344. Moreover, the OSG claimed that the
he saw petitioner having sexual intercourse with his younger sister. While retroactive effect of Section 64 of R.A. No. 9344 is
petitioner asserts that AAA's poverty is enough motive for the imputation of applicable only if the child-accused is still below 18 years old as explained
the crime, we discard such assertion for no mother or father like MMM and under Sections 67 and 68 thereof. The OSG also asserted that petitioner
FFF would stoop so low as to subject their daughter to the tribulations and may avail himself of the provisions of Section 38[51] of R.A. No. 9344
the embarrassment of a public trial knowing that such a traumatic experience providing for automatic suspension of sentence if finally found guilty. Lastly,
would damage their daughter's psyche and mar her life if the charge is not the OSG argued that while it is a recognized principle that laws favorable to
true.[45] We find petitioner's claim that MMM inflicted the abrasions found by the accused may be given retroactive application, such principle does not
Dr. Jocson in the genitalia of AAA, in order to extort money from petitioners apply if the law itself provides for conditions for its application.
parents, highly incredible. Lastly, it must be noted that in most cases of rape
committed against young girls like AAA who was We are not persuaded.
only 6 years old then, total penetration of the victim's organ is improbable
due to the small vaginal opening. Thus, it has been held that actual Section 6 of R.A. No. 9344 clearly and explicitly provides:
penetration of the victim's organ or rupture of the hymen is not required.[46]
Therefore, it is not necessary for conviction that the petitioner succeeded in SECTION 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. A
having full penetration, because the slightest touching of the lips of the child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of the
female organ or of the labia of the pudendum constitutes rape.[47] commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal
liability. However, the child shall be subjected to an
However, for one who acts by virtue of any of the exempting circumstances, intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of this Act.
although he commits a crime, by the complete absence of any of the
conditions which constitute free will or voluntariness of the act, no criminal A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18)
liability arises.[48] Therefore, while there is a crime committed, no criminal years of age shall likewise be exempt from criminal liability
liability attaches. Thus, in Guevarra v. Almodovar,[49] we held: and be subjected to an intervention program, unless he/she
has acted with discernment, in which case, such child shall
[I]t is worthy to note the basic reason behind the enactment be subjected to the appropriate proceedings in accordance
of the exempting circumstances embodied in Article 12 of with this Act.
the RPC; the complete absence of intelligence, freedom
of action, or intent, or on the absence of negligence on The exemption from criminal liability herein established does
the part of the accused. In expounding on intelligence as not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be
the second element of dolus, Albert has stated: enforced in accordance with existing laws.

"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

Human Rights Law – Assignment No. 2 (Rights of Children) Page 40 of 44


accused are given retroactive effect.[53] This principle is embodied in Article Senator Pangilinan. Yes. Mr. President, just a clarification.
22 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides: When we speak here of children who do not have criminal
liability under this law, we are referring here to those who
Art. 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws. Penal laws shall currently have criminal liability, but because of the
have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the persons retroactive effect of this measure, will now be exempt. It
guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is quite confusing.
is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, although at
the time of the publication of such laws, a final sentence Senator Santiago. That is correct.
has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same.
Senator Pangilinan. In other words, they should be released
either to their parents or through a diversion program, Mr.
We also have extant jurisprudence that the principle has been given President. That is my understanding.
expanded application in certain instances involving special laws.[54] R.A. No.
9344 should be no exception. Senator Santiago. Yes, that is correct. But there will have to
be a process of sifting before that. That is why I was
In fact, the legislative intent for R.A. No. 9344's retroactivity is even patent proposing that they should be given to the DSWD, which
from the deliberations on the bill in the Senate, quoted as follows: will conduct the sifting process, except that apparently, the
DSWD does not have the physical facilities.
Sections 67-69 On Transitory Provisions
Senator Pangilinan. Mr. President, conceptually, we have
Senator Santiago. In Sections 67 to 69 on Transitory no argument. We will now have to just craft it to ensure that
Provisions, pages 34 to 35, may I humbly propose that we the input raised earlier by the good Senator is included and
should insert, after Sections 67 to 69, the following the capacity of the DSWD to be able to absorb these
provision: individuals. Likewise, the issue should also be incorporated
in the amendment.
ALL CHILDREN WHO DO NOT HAVE CRIMINAL
LIABILITY UNDER THIS LAW PENDING THE CREATION The President. Just a question from the Chair. The moment
OF THE OFFICE OF JUVENILE WELFARE AND this law becomes effective, all those children in conflict
RESTORATION (OJWR) AND THE LOCAL COUNCIL FOR with the law, who were convicted in the present Penal
THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN (LCPC) WITHIN A Code, for example, who will now not be subject to
YEAR, SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY TRANSFERRED TO incarceration under this law, will be immediately
DSWD INSTITUTIONS, AND DSWD SHALL UNDERTAKE released. Is that the understanding?
DIVERSION PROGRAMS FOR THEM, PRIORITIZING
THE YOUNGER CHILDREN BELOW 15 YEARS OF AGE Senator Pangilinan. Yes, Mr. President.
AND THE LIGHTER OFFENSES.
Senator Santiago. They would immediately fall under . . . .
The only question will be: Will the DSWD have enough
facilities for these adult offenders? Senator Pangilinan. The diversion requirements, Mr.
President.
Senator Pangilinan, Mr. President, according to the CWC,
the DSWD does not have the capability at the moment. It Senator Santiago. Yes.
will take time to develop the capacity.
The President. But since the facilities are not yet available,
Senator Santiago. Well, we can say that they shall be what will happen to them?
transferred whenever the facilities are ready.
Senator Santiago. Well, depending on their age, which has
not yet been settled . . . . . provides, for example, for

Human Rights Law – Assignment No. 2 (Rights of Children) Page 41 of 44


conferencing family mediation, negotiation, apologies,
censure, et cetera. These methodologies will apply. They do Senator Pimentel. Of cases that are still to be prosecuted.
not necessarily have to remain in detention.
Senator Pangilinan. Yes.
Senator Pangilinan. Yes, that is correct, Mr. President. But it
will still require some sort of infrastructure, meaning,
manpower. The personnel from the DSWD will have to
address the counseling. So, there must be a transition in Senator Pimentel. What about those that have already been
terms of building the capacity and absorbing those who will prosecuted? I was trying to cite the instance of juvenile
benefit from this measure. offenders erroneously convicted as adults awaiting
execution.

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.

Human Rights Law – Assignment No. 2 (Rights of Children) Page 42 of 44


general purpose of the act. Intent is the spirit which gives Charged under R.A. No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
life to of 2002, it was found that:
a legislative enactment. In construing statutes the proper
course is to start out and follow the true intent of the The passage of Republic Act No. 9344 or the Juvenile
legislature and to adopt that sense which harmonizes best Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 raising the age of criminal
with the context and promotes in the fullest manner the irresponsibility from 9 years old to 15 years old has
apparent policy and objects of the legislature.[57] compounded the problem of employment of children in the
drug trade several times over. Law enforcement authorities,
Barangay Kagawads and the police, most particularly,
complain that drug syndicates have become more
aggressive in using children 15 years old or below as
Moreover, penal laws are construed liberally in favor of the accused.[58] In couriers or foot soldiers in the drug trade. They claim that
this case, the plain meaning of R.A. No. 9344's unambiguous language, Republic Act No. 9344 has rendered them ineffective in the
coupled with clear lawmakers' intent, is most favorable to herein petitioner. faithful discharge of their duties in that they are proscribed
No other interpretation is justified, for the simple language of the new law from taking into custody children 15 years old or below who
itself demonstrates the legislative intent to favor the CICL. openly flaunt possession, use and delivery or distribution of
illicit drugs, simply because their age exempts them from
It bears stressing that the petitioner was only 13 years old at the time of the criminal liability under the new law. [60]
commission of the alleged rape. This was duly proven by the certificate of
live birth, by petitioner's own testimony, and by the testimony of his mother.
Furthermore, petitioners age was never assailed in any of the proceedings The Court is fully cognizant that our decision in the instant case effectively
before the RTC and the CA. Indubitably, petitioner, at the time of the exonerates petitioner of rape, a heinous crime committed against AAA who
commission of the crime, was below 15 years of age. Under R.A. No. 9344, was only a child at the tender age of six (6) when she was raped by the
he is exempted from criminal liability. petitioner, and one who deserves the laws greater protection. However, this
consequence is inevitable because of the language of R.A. No. 9344, the
However, while the law exempts petitioner from criminal liability for the two wisdom of which is not subject to review by this Court.[61] Any perception that
(2) counts of rape committed against AAA, Section 6 thereof expressly the result reached herein appears unjust or unwise should be addressed to
provides that there is no concomitant exemption from civil liability. Congress. Indeed, the Court has no discretion to give statutes a meaning
Accordingly, this Court sustains the ruling of the RTC, duly affirmed by the detached from the manifest intendment and language of the law. Our task is
CA, that petitioner and/or his parents are liable to pay AAA P100,000.00 as constitutionally confined only to applying the law and jurisprudence to the
civil indemnity. This award is in the nature of actual or compensatory proven facts, and we have done so in this case.[62]
damages, and is mandatory upon a conviction for rape.

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.

Human Rights Law – Assignment No. 2 (Rights of Children) Page 43 of 44


Human Rights Law – Assignment No. 2 (Rights of Children) Page 44 of 44

You might also like