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 RA 9344 superseded PD 603 but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