JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT

Ortega v. People
FACTS
Joemar Ortega was a 14 year old who was charged with the crime of rape in two separate
informations, for raping a minor who was then about 8 years of age. In 1999, the RTC convicted
Ortega of two counts of rape. While the case was pending with the Supreme Court, Congress
passed R.A. 9344 (2006), which provided under Section 64, that cases of children 15 years old
and below at the time of the commission of the crime shall immediately be dismissed.
OSG argued that Ortega was no longer covered by Sec 64 because as early as 1999, he ws
already convicted by the RTC, which conviction was affirmed by the CA. With Ortega now
approximately 25 years old, he no longer qualifies as a child as defined by R.A. 9344. The OSG
claimed that the retroactive effect of Sec 64 is applicable only if the child-accused is still below
18 years old as explained under Sec 67 and 68. OSG also asserted that Ortega may avail of Sec
38 which allows automatic suspension of sentence if found guilty. Lastly, it argued that while
laws favorable to the accused may be given retroactive application, the principle does not apply
if the law itself provides conditions for its application.
ISSUE
Whether or not Ortega is exempted from criminal liability.
HELD YES
- Sec 6 explicitly provides that children 15 or under the time of the commission of the
offense are exempt from criminal liability.
- Sec 64 provides that cases of 15 yo and below at the time of the commission of the
offense shall be immediately dismissed and the child shall be referred to the
appropriate local social welfare and development officer.
- What is controlling, with respect to the exemption from criminal liability of the CICL is
not the CICLs age at the time of the promulgation of judgment but the CICLs age at the
time o the commission of the offense.
- R.A. 9344 should also be applied retroactively, under the well-entrenched principle in
criminal law that penal laws which are favorable to the accused are given retroactive
effect.
- The deliberations of the bill in the Senate also reflects the intention to give R.A. 9344
retroactive application:
o The moment the law becomes effective, all CICLs who were convicted in the
present Penal Code will be immediately released.
- Ortega was only 13 years old at the time of the commission of the alleged rape. This was
proven by the certificate of live birth, Ortegas own testimony and the testimony of his
mother. He is therefore exempted from criminal liability.
- While the law exempts him from criminal liability for 2 counts of rape, Sec 6 provides
that there is no concomitant exemption from civil liability. Ortega is liable to
complainant for:
o Actual or compensatory damages P100,000
o Moral damages P50,000 for each count of rape.
- The wisdom of the law is not subject to review by this Court. Any perception that the
result reached here appears unjust should be addressed to Congress.
People v. Arpon
FACTS
8 counts of rape in separate informations were charged against Arpon. The RTC subsequently
found him guilty of 1 count of statutory rape and 7 counts of rape against a minor. On
reconsideration, Arpon argued that the trial court failed to consider his minority as a privileged
mitigating circumstance since he was only 13 and 17 when the incidents of rape occurred in
1995 (1 count) and 1999 (7 counts).
ISSUE
Whether or not Arpon can be granted the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority.
HELD YES
This matter was not among the issues raised before the SC. In this case, Arpon testified that he
was only 13 years old when the first incident of rape happened. Other than his testimony, no
other evidence was presented to prove the date of his birth. However, there was neither any
objection to the testimony on the part of the prosecution, nor contrary evidence to dispute it.
Thus, the RTC and CA should have appreciated Arpons minority in ascertaining the appropriate
penalty.
Although the acts of rape were committed before 9344 took effect, 9344 is still applicable given
that Sec 68 provides for its retroactive application.
First count of rape
For the first count of rape, allegedly committed in 1995 when the accused sufficiently
established that he was only 13 years old. Since the prosecution failed to prove the exact year
of this first incident (whether it was on 1995 or 1998), doubt should be resolved in favor of the
accused. The SC thus exempts Arpon for criminal liability for the first count of rape. But he still
remains civilly liable.
Second and third counts of rape
For the second and third counts of rape committed in 1999, Arpon was already 17 years old.
The SC here found that Arpon acted with discernment. Arpon threatened to kill the minors
mother if she told her about the sexual assault, an effort to conceal his unlawful act which
proved he knew what he did was wrong and was aware of its consequences.
- Discernment mental capacity of a minor to fully appreciate the consequences of his
unlawful act. Such capacity may be known and should be determined by taking into
consideration all the facts and circumstances afforded by the records of each case.
The proper penalty imposable is reclusion perpetua for each count. Had the trial court correctly
appreciated in favor of Arpon the circumstance of minority, Arpon would have been entitled to
the automatic suspension of sentence ofr the second and third counts of rape under Sec 38 of
9344. But it can no longer be applied because Arpon is now 27 years old and Sec 40 puts a limit
to the application of a suspended sentence, namely when the child reaches 21. Nevertheless,
Sec 51 provides that he may be made to serve his sentence in an agricultural camp and other
training facilities in lieu of confinement in a regular penal institution.
Civil liability for the second and third counts of rape is not affected.

Madali v. People
FACTS
Raymund, Rodel and Bernardino were charged before the RTC with the crime of murder.
Because of the prosecutions failure to prove treachery and evident premeditation, they were
only convicted of homicide. RTC also appreciated the privileged mitigating circumstance of
minority in favor of the three accused. Bernardino applied for probation, thus only Raymund
and Rodel elevated their convictions to the CA.
The CA affirmed the findings of the RTC, however pursuant to 9344 which was passed on 2006,
and exempts from criminal liability a minor 15 years or below at the time of the commission of
the offense, Raymunds (14) case was dismissed. Rodels (16) conviction was sustained, but the
imposition of the penalty was suspended pursuant to 9344.
ISSUE
Whether or not Raymond and Rodel are exempt from criminal liability.
HELD
Raymond YES
He was only 14 years old at the time he committed the crime. Under Sec 6 and 20 of 9344 he
should be exempt from criminal liability and released to the custody of his parents and
guardian. 9344 should be given retroactive application in favor of Raymond who was not shown
to be a habitual criminal. While Raymund is exempt from criminal liability, his civil liability is not
extinguished pursuant to Sec 6 of 9344.
Rodel NO
He was 16 years old at the time of the commission of the crime. The Court of Appeals was
correct in ruling that Rodel acted with discernment. He, together with his cohorts, warned
Jovencio not to reveal their hideous act to anyone, otherwise they would kill him. He knew
therefore that killing the victim was a condemnable act and should be kept in secrecy. He fully
appreciated the consequences of his unlawful act.
Under Art 68 of the RPC, the penalty to be imposed upon a person under 18 but above 15 shall
be the penalty next lower than that prescribed by the law but always in the proper period. The
penalty that should be enforced is prision mayor.
However, the sentence to be imposed against Rodel should be suspended pursuant to 38 of
9344.

Llave v. People
FACTS
An information was filed against Neil Llave for the rape of a 7 year old. Llave was 12 years old
during the commission of the crime. He testified that he was one of the three outstanding
students in grade school, and received multiple academic awards. The RTC convicted Llave of
the crime charged with prision mayor. It declared that based on the evidence of the
prosecution that Llave pushed the victim towards the vacant house and sexually abused her, he
acted with discernment. It also considered Llaves declaration that he had been a consistent
honor student. This was affirmed by the CA and on reconsideration, Llave tried to argue that
the prosecution failed to adduce evidence that he acted with discernment, hence he should be
acquitted. The CA denied this motion, reasoning that Llaves conduct during and after the crime
betrays the theory that as a minor, he does not have the mental faculty to grasp the propriety
and consequences of the act he made. The fact that upon discovery, Llave fled the scene and
hid in his grandmothers house intimates that he knew he did something that merited
punishment. The fact that Llave is a recipient of several academic awards further reinforces the
finding that he is possessed of intelligence well beyond his years and is thus, poised to
distinguish, better at least than other minors his age could, which conduct is right and which is
morally reprehensible.

ISSUE
Whether or not Neil, who was a minor above 9 years but below 15 years of age at the time of
the crime, acted with discernment when he raped the victim.

HELD YES
Art. 12 par 3 of the RPC provides that a person over 9 yers of age and under 15 is exempt from
criminal liability, UNLESS he acted with DISCERNMENT. The reason for this is the complete
absence of intelligence, freedom of action of the offender, which is an essential element of a
felony either by dolus or culpa.
Intelligence is the power necessary to determine the morality of human acts to distinguish a
licit from an illicit act. Discernment is the mental capacity to understand the difference
between right and wrong. The prosecution has the BURDEN OF PROOF to show that the
accused acted with discernment by evidence of physical appearance, attitude, deportment not
only before and during the commission of the act but also after and during the trial.
These circumstances include the gruesome nature of the crime and the minors cunning and
shrewdness.
In this case, Neil, with methodical fashion, dragged the resisting victim behind the pile of hollow
blocks near the vacant house to INSURE that passersby would not be able to discover his acts.
When he was discovered by the witness, he hastily fled the scene to escape arrest. He hid in his
grandmothers house to avoid being arrested by policemen and remained there until brgy
tanods arrived and took him to custody.
The SC also appreciated the fact that Neil was an outstanding grade school student and
received awards. As the OSG argues, he possessed intelligence far beyond his age. It cant be
denied that he had mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong.

Sierra v. People
FACTS
Robert was charged before the RTC with the rape of his 13 year old sister. He was 15 when the
alleged rape was committed. The RTC convicted him of rape to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment of reclusion perpetua.
The CA affirmed this decision but modified the penalty to reclusion temporal maximum. The CA
denied Robert claim that he was exempt from criminal liability considering that he was only 15
years old. CA said it was not clearly established by the defense that Robert was 15 yo or below;
the defense should have shown Roberts birth certificate. CA also said that the automatic
suspension of sentence cannot be applied in this case. Juveniles who have been convicted of a
crime the imposable penalty of which is reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, or reclusion
perpetua to death, or death are disqualified from having their sentences suspended.
The defense argues that the burden of proof should be on the prosecution as the party who
stands to lose the case if no evidence is presented to show that Robert was not a 15 yo. The
defense also claims that 9344 provides a presumption of minority in favor of a CICL, so that any
doubt regarding his age should be resolved in his favor. The evidence on the record (the
allegation of the Information, testimonies of Robert and his mother that the prosecution never
objected to, and the findings of the RTC) sufficiently established that Robert was not more than
15 years old at the time of the commission of the crime.
The prosecution on the other hand, through OSG, counters that the burden belongs to the
defense who should have presented Roberts birth certificate or other documentary evidence
to prove he was 15 years or below. OSG also said that while Robert is presumed to be a minor,
he is disqualified to have his sentence suspended following the ruling in Declarador v. Gubaton

ISSUE
Who has burden of proof with respect to Roberts age for purposes of determining exemption
from criminal liability under 9344?

HELD THE DEFENSE

Burden of proof
In the present case, the prosecution completed its evidence and had done everything that the
law requires it to do. The burden has now shifted to the defense who now invokes the
exempting circumstance of minority because of his age when he committed the crime.
Minority and age are not elements of the crime of rape. The prosecution therefore has no duty
to prove these circumstances. To impose the burden on the prosecution would make minority
and age integral elements of the crime when clearly they are not.

Proving Accuseds Minority and Age

The court gives evidentiary weight to testimonial evidence on the accuseds minority and age
upon the concurrence of the following conditions:
1. The absence of any other satisfactory evidence such as birth certificate, baptismal
certificate, or similar documents that would prove the date of birth of the accused.
2. The presence of testimony from the accused 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.
3. The lack of any contrary evidence showing that the testimonies are untrue.
These conditions were all present in this case.
9344 also provides that any doubt on the age of the child must be resolved in his favor. In this
case, the testimony that Robert is a 15 year old when the crime took place should be read to
mean that he was not more than 15 years old, as this is the more favorable reading.

Retroactive Application of 9344

Robert was 20 years old when he took the stand, but this, nor the fact that he committed the
rape before 9344 took effect, will not bar him from enjoying the benefit of total exemption
under Sec 6. Sec 64 provides that cases of children 15 years old and below at the time of the
commission of the crime shall immediately be dismissed and referred to the appropriate local
social welfare and development officers.
What is controlling, therefore, with respect to the exemption from criminal liability of the CICLs
age is not the CICLs age at the time of the promulgation of judgment but the CICLs age at the
time of the commission of the offense.
Under Art 22 of the RPC, penal laws are to be given retroactive effect insofar as they favor the
accused who is not found to be a habitual criminal. Nothing in the records indicate that Robert
is a habitual criminal.

Civil liability
Sec 6 provides that the accused shall continue to be civilly liable despite his exemption from
criminal liability. Hence Robert is civilly liable to the victim 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 him guilty of qualified rape because of his relationship with the victim
within the second civil degree of consanguinity and the latters minority. But the SC found that
there was no evidence on the record proving the age of the victim. There was no showing that
Robert ever expressly and clearly admitted the victims age at the time of the rape. Thus,
petitioner cannot be held liable for qualified rape. The crime he would have been liable for is
only simple rape.
The SC granted moral damages of 50k, exemplary damages of 30k. Exemplary damages were
awarded because of the presence of the aggravating circumstances of relationship and dwelling
(since the rape was committed in their house). Dwelling was not alleged in the Information but
jurisprudence holds that it may nevertheless be appreciated as a basis for the award of
exemplary damages.
Civil indemnity is 50k being appropriate for simple rape.

People v. Jacinto
FACTS
Hermie Jacinto was charged with the rape of a 5 year old minor before the RTC. He was 17
years old at the time of the commission of the offense. The RTC convicted him of rape,
subsequently reducing the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua because of the presence
of the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority. He was already 25 years old by the time
the case reached the Supreme Court.

ISSUE
Whether or not 9344 should be applied despite the fact that the crime was committed 3 years
before 9344 was enacted on April 28, 2006 YES
Whether or not Jacinto should be afforded an automatic suspension of sentence NO

HELD
Imposable Penalty
9344 exempts a child above 15 but below 18 from criminal liability UNLESS the child is found to
have acted with discernment. In this case, Jacinto acted with discernment in choosing an
isolated and dark place to perpetrate the crime and prevent detection and boxing the victim to
weaken her defense. Ordinarily the rape of a child below 7 years old is punished by death. But
9346 has prohibited the imposition of death penalty. The privileged mitigating circumstance of
minority of the appellant is also considered. Thus, the appellant should be meted the penalty of
reclusion perpetua. (The court in this case still used death as the reckoning point in the
graduation of penalties).

Automatic suspension of sentence

The suspension of sentence lasts only until the CICL reaches the maximum age of 21 years.
Unfortunately, appellant is now 25 years and thus cannot be granted automatic suspension of
sentence.
Despite that, he is still entitled to the right to restoration, rehabilitation and reintegration in
accordance with the Act in order that he is given the chance to live a normal life and become a
productive member of the community. The age of the CICL at the time of the promulgation of
judgment of conviction is not material. What matters is that he committed the offense when he
was still of tender age.
Thus, pursuant to Sec 51, appellant may be confined with an agricultural camp or any other
training facility.

DOCTRINES
- Sec 6 exempts a child above 15 years but below 18 years from criminal liability. Unless
the child is found to have acted with discernment, in which case the appropriate
proceedings in accordance with 9344 shall be observed.
- Discernment is that mental capacity of a minor to fully appreciate the consequences of
his unlawful act. Such capacity may be known and should be determined by taking in
consideration all the facts and circumstances afforded by the records in each case. The
surrounding circumstances must demonstrate that the minor know what he was doing
and that it was wrong. Such circumstance includes the gruesome nature of the crime
and the minors cunning and shrewdness.
- Since 9344 does not distinguish between a minor who has been convicted of a capital
offense and another who has been convicted of a lesser offense, the Court should not
also distinguish and should apply the automatic suspension of sentence to a child in
conflict with the law who has been found guilty of a heinous crime.
- To give meaning to the legislative intent of the act, the promotion promotion of the
welfare of a CICL should extend even to one who has exceeded the age limit of 21 years
so long as he committed the crime when he was still a child. He 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 lie a normal life and become a productive member of
the community.