Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 179090
June 5, 2009
The Facts
Appellant was charged with the crime of Other Acts of
HUMAN RIGHTS
HUMAN RIGHTS
HUMAN RIGHTS
HUMAN RIGHTS
HUMAN RIGHTS
HUMAN RIGHTS
Code. The OSG states that the RTC correctly 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 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 attendant
mitigating and/or aggravating circumstances. Thus, the
OSG prays that the instant petition be denied and the
assailed CA Decision be modified as aforementioned but
affirmed in all other respects.35
Our Ruling
The instant Petition is bereft of merit.
Under Subsection (b), Section 3 of R.A. No. 7610, child
abuse refers to the maltreatment of a child, whether
habitual or not, which includes any of the following:
HUMAN RIGHTS
HUMAN RIGHTS
v. Simon.45
We agree with the OSG.
Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as
amended, provides:
SECTION 1. Hereafter, in imposing a prison sentence for
an offense punished by the Revised Penal Code, or its
amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to
an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which
shall be that which, in view of the attending
circumstances, could be properly imposed under the
rules of the said Code, and the minimum of which shall
be within the range of the penalty next lower to that
prescribed by the Code for the offense; and if the
offense is punished by any other law, the court shall
sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the
maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum
fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less
than the minimum term prescribed by the same.
HUMAN RIGHTS
SO ORDERED.
As a final word, we reiterate our view in Araneta,50 to
wit:
HUMAN RIGHTS
10
FACTS:
ISSUE:
The
undersigned,
Second
Assistant
Provincial
Prosecutor, hereby accuses Leonilo Sanchez alias Nilo of
Lajog, Clarin, Bohol of the crime of Other Acts of Child
Abuse, committed as follows:
HUMAN RIGHTS
11
just to show that these three acts are different from one
another and from the act prejudicial to the childs
development. Contrary to petitioners assertion, an
accused can be prosecuted and be convicted under
Section 10(a), Article VI of Republic Act No. 7610 if he
commits any of the four acts therein. The prosecution
need not prove that the acts of child abuse, child cruelty
and child exploitation have resulted in the prejudice of
the child because an act prejudicial to the development
of the child is different from the former acts.
HUMAN RIGHTS
12
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 186080
HUMAN RIGHTS
13
10-30-201
Time: 10-15 p.m.
RECORD purposes
Dumating dito sa Barangay Head Quarters si Dossen 4
Baaga is Alimpuyo 16 years old student nakatira sa 10
B Kalachuchi St. M.B.T. M.M.
Upang ireklamo yong sumapak sa akin sina Raul[,]
Boyet [at] Cris at yong dalawang sumapak ay hindi ko
kilala. Nang yari ito kaninang 10:p.m. araw ng [M]artes
taong kasalukuyan at yong labi ko pumutok at yong
kabilang mata ko ay namaga sa bandang kanan. Ang
iyong kaliwang mukha at pati yong likod ko ay may
tama sa sapak.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
On arraignment, petitioner and Amante both pleaded
not guilty. Gepulane remains at-large.
HUMAN RIGHTS
14
SO ORDERED.
Amanquitons motion for reconsideration was denied. 8
HUMAN RIGHTS
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
HUMAN RIGHTS
16
HUMAN RIGHTS
17
HUMAN RIGHTS
18
July 3, 2009
HUMAN RIGHTS
19
DECISION
BRION, J.:
On or about August 5, 2000, in Pasig City and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, a
minor, 15 years old, with lewd designs and by means of
force, violence and intimidation, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual
intercourse with his (accused) sister, AAA, thirteen
years of age, against the latters will and consent.
Contrary to law.6
HUMAN RIGHTS
20
SO ORDERED.8
We note that, in the meantime, Rep. Act No. 9344 took
effect on May 20, 2006. Section 38 of the law reads:
SO ORDERED.10
In ruling that the petitioner was not exempt from
criminal liability, the CA held:
HUMAN RIGHTS
21
HUMAN RIGHTS
22
crime.
The Peoples Comment, through the Office of the
Solicitor General (OSG), counters that the burden
belongs to the petitioner who should have presented his
birth certificate or other documentary evidence proving
that his age was 15 years or below. The OSG also
stressed that while petitioner is presumed to be a
minor, he is disqualified to have his sentence
suspended following the ruling in Declarador v. Hon.
Gubaton.18
HUMAN RIGHTS
23
criminal case (even one made under Rule 45) opens the
whole case for review, even on questions that the
parties did not raise.23 By mandate of the Constitution,
no less, we are bound to look into every circumstance
and resolve every doubt in favor of the accused. 24 It is
with these considerations in mind and in obedience to
the direct and more specific commands of R.A. No. 9344
on how the cases of children in conflict with the law
should be handled that we rule in this Rule 45 petition.
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 with the law
or a child at risk by providing a 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
supervision orders, counseling, probation, foster care,
education and vocational training programs and other
alternatives to institutional care.26 More importantly in
the context of this case, this law modifies as well the
minimum age limit of criminal irresponsibility for minor
offenders; it changed 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 nine years of age and under fifteen"
(who acted without discernment) to "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 did
presumes that the minor offenders completely lack
the intelligence to distinguish right from wrong, so that
their acts are deemed involuntary ones for which they
cannot be held accountable. 27 The current law also drew
its changes from the principle of restorative justice that
it 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 measures.28
HUMAN RIGHTS
24
more than 15 years old at the time the rape took place.
The CA disbelieved this claim for the petitioners failure
to present his birth certificate as required by Section 64
of R.A. No. 9344.29 The CA also found him disqualified to
avail of a suspension of sentence because the
imposable penalty for the crime of rape is reclusion
perpetua to death.
Burden of Proof
Burden of proof, under Section 1, Rule 131 of the Rules
on Evidence, refers to the duty of a party to present
evidence on the facts in 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
prosecution which has the duty to prove all the
essential ingredients of the 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, the burden of evidence shifts to
the defense to disprove what the prosecution 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 therefor. In
the present case, the prosecution completed its
evidence and had done everything that the law requires
it to do. The burden 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
criminal liability because of his age when he committed
the crime. The defense, therefore, not the prosecution,
has the burden of showing by evidence that the
petitioner was 15 years old or less when he committed
HUMAN RIGHTS
25
xxx
(2) x x x
(3) When the above documents cannot be obtained or
pending receipt of such documents, the law
enforcement officer shall exhaust other measures to
determine age by:
(a) Interviewing the child and obtaining information that
indicate age (e.g. date of birthday, grade level in
school);
(b) Interviewing persons who may have knowledge that
indicate[s] age of the child (e.g. relatives, neighbors,
teachers, classmates);
HUMAN RIGHTS
26
HUMAN RIGHTS
27
Civil Liability
The last paragraph of Section 6 of R.A. No. 9344
provides that the accused shall continue to be civilly
liable despite his exemption from criminal liability;
hence, the petitioner is civilly liable to AAA despite his
exemption from criminal liability. The extent of his civil
liability depends on the crime he would have been liable
for had he not been found to be exempt from criminal
liability.
The RTC and CA found, based on item (1) of Article 266B of the 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
latters minority.44 Both courts accordingly imposed the
civil liability corresponding to qualified rape.
HUMAN RIGHTS
28
HUMAN RIGHTS
29
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 168546
HUMAN RIGHTS
DECISION
30
QUISUMBING, J.:
Contrary to law.8
HUMAN RIGHTS
31
SO ORDERED.14
Padua subsequently filed a Petition for Probation 15 dated
February 10, 2004 alleging that he is a minor and a
first-time offender who desires to avail of the benefits of
probation under Presidential Decree No. 968 16 (P.D. No.
968), otherwise known as "The Probation Law of 1976"
and Section 70 of Rep. Act No. 9165. He further alleged
that he possesses all the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications under the said laws.
HUMAN RIGHTS
32
DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.21
Padua filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court of
Appeals decision but it was denied. Hence, this petition
where he raises the following issues:
I.
II.
WHETHER OR NOT [THE] ACCUSED[S] RIGHT [TO BE
RELEASED
UNDER
RECOGNIZANCE]
HAS
BEEN
VIOLATED OR DEPRIVED IN THE LIGHT OF R.A. 9344
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS AN ACT ESTABLISHING A
COMPREHENSIVE JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE
SYSTEM, CREATING THE JUVENILE JUSTICE AND
WELFARE COUNCIL UNDER DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR AND OTHER
PURPOSES.22
20
HUMAN RIGHTS
33
I.
The trial court and the Court of Appeals have legal basis
in applying Section 24, Article II of R.A. 9165 instead of
Section 70, Article VIII of the same law.
II.
Section 32 of A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC otherwise known as
the "Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law" has no
application to the instant case.24
Simply, the issues are: (1) Did the Court of Appeals err
in dismissing 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
"Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006," violated? and
(3) Does Section 3226 of A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC otherwise
known as the "Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the
Law" have application in this case?
HUMAN RIGHTS
34
HUMAN RIGHTS
35
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
SO ORDERED.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
HUMAN RIGHTS
36
DECISION
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
This is an appeal from the Decision1 of the Court of
Appeals in CAG.R. CR.-H.C. No. 03473 dated August 16,
2011, which affirmed with modification the Judgment 2 of
Branch 94, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City
dated December 11, 2007 in Criminal Case Nos. Q-0091967 to Q-00-91971 finding accused-appellant Milan
Roxas y Aguiluz guilty of five counts of rape against
AAA,3 a minor who was 9 years old at the time of the
first rape and 10 years old at the time of the succeeding
four rapes.
Five Informations were filed against accused-appellant
Roxas, charging him as follows:
1. Crim. Case No. Q-00-91967: That on or about the 9th
day of August 1998 in Quezon City, Philippines, the
above-named accused with force and intimidation did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
commit acts of sexual assault at knifepoint upon the
person of [AAA] his own niece a minor 10 years of age
by then and there blindfolding her, then removed her
shorts and underwear then accused inserted his penis
inside her vagina and thereafter had carnal knowledge
of her against her will and without her consent. 4
June 4, 2014
HUMAN RIGHTS
37
HUMAN RIGHTS
Her
38
uncle,
accused-appellant,
overheard
their
HUMAN RIGHTS
39
[AAA]s ordeal did not stop there. She was raped for the
fourth time on 28 July 1998 at her paternal
grandparents house.1wphi1 She and the accused
were incidentally alone in the living room on the second
floor of the house. He asked her to go with him inside
the bedroom of her grandparents, but she did not get
up from her seat. So accused-appellant pulled her
toward the bedroom. She tried to free herself, but he
poked a pointed instrument at her.
HUMAN RIGHTS
40
HUMAN RIGHTS
41
be "flimsy."
Accused-appellant Roxas elevated the case to the Court
of Appeals, where the case was docketed as CA-G.R.
CR.-H.C. No. 03473. Accused-appellant Roxas submitted
the following Assignment of Errors in the appellate
court:
HUMAN RIGHTS
42
HUMAN RIGHTS
43
court:
We shall now discuss the criminal liability of accusedappellant Roxas. As stated above, the trial court
imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each
count of rape.
HUMAN RIGHTS
44
xxxx
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of
rape is committed with any of the following attendant
circumstances:
HUMAN RIGHTS
45
In the case at bar, the allegation that AAA was accusedappellant Roxass "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
HUMAN RIGHTS
46
consistency
with
prevailing
jurisprudence,
we
HUMAN RIGHTS
47
HUMAN RIGHTS
48
HUMAN RIGHTS
49
HUMAN RIGHTS
50