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 RA 9344 superseded PD 603 but retained the provisions regarding disqualifications in the suspension of sentence such as the case at bar.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