Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Case Digest RA 9344 and Jurisprudence
Case Digest RA 9344 and Jurisprudence
Lucia Chan was a fish dealer based in Manila and was expecting fish deliveries from
her suppliers in the
province. On August 11, 1998, Theng Dilangalen and another person arrived at her
house to inquire about a
certain passport allegedly misplaced in one of the fish delivery boxes. The
passport was not found. The next
day, Dilangalen with another person, Tony Abao returned to the house. On the same
evening, Dilangalen
returned to the house with an unidentified person and kidnapped Chan. Chan was
forced to board a van and
taken to a certain house and was transferred to another house. The group demanded
P400,000 as ransom
and instructed Chan’s son to deliver it at Chowking, Buendia Avenue. On August 14,
1998, the group took
the ransom money but were intercepted by the police. On October 16, 1998, the RTC
held the group
including Perepenian who was 17 years old, for Kidnapping for Ransom. On June 28,
2005, the CA affirmed
the conviction but modified Perepenian’s conviction from penalty of death to
penalty of reclusion perpetua
considering that she was only 17 years old at the time the offense was committed.
ISSUE:
w/n the criminal liability of Perpenian is proper pursuant to RA 9344?
HELD:
No. According to RA 9344, there is a need to determine whether Perenian acted with
or without
discernment. The Court took note of the RTC’s observation during Perenian’s trial
that she lied about her real
name, age, address because she was scared of being identified with the group. The
lying and the fear of
being identified with people whom she knew had done wrong are indicative of
discernment. She knew,
therefore, that there was an ongoing crime being committed at the resort while she
was there. It is apparent
that she was fully aware of the consequences of the unlawful act. Her minority
cannot be considered as an
exempting circumstance but a privileged mitigating circumstance under Art. 68 of
the RPC. Pursuant to
section 40, RA 9344, sentence cannot be suspended as the maximum age is 21 years
old, where as Pernian
was 31 years old at the promulgation of judgment.
However, the Court held that the prosecution did not present sufficient evidence to
hold her liable as a
principal since Perpenian entered the room where Chan was being held and just
conversed with the other
members of the group that was not related to the kidnapping. However, for being
present and giving moral
support, she liable as an accomplice.
As an accomplice, the imposable penalty under the RPC is Reclusion Temporal and
applying the privileged
mitigating circumstance of minority, the penalty of Prision Mayor should be
imposed. Under the
indeterminate sentence law, the Court imposed a minimum of 6 months and one day of
Prision Correcional
to 6 years and one day of Prision Mayor as maximum. The Court held that while
section 51 of RA 9344
would have been applicable in confining Pernian in an agricultural camp, Pernian
had already served her
actual term and exceeded the imposable penalty for her offense and ordered her
immediate release from
detention.
People vs Mantalaba
Facts:
•
•
•
•
•
ISSUE: 1. Is he Guilty?
2.
Can he avail automatic suspension of his sentence, following
RA9344
HELD: Yes. Guilt beyond reasonable doubt proved through
evidence procured from buy-bust operation and
testimony of witnesses, plus all the requirements for the proper
chain of custody had been observed.
The appellant, who is now beyond the age of twenty-one (21)
years can no longer avail of the provisions of
Sections 38 and 40 of RA 9344 as to his suspension of
sentence, because such is already moot and academic.
It is
highly noted that this would not have happened if the CA, when
this case was under its jurisdiction, suspended the
sentence of the appellant. The records show that the
appellant filed his notice of appeal at the age of
19 (2005),
hence, when RA 9344 became effective in 2006, appellant was
20 years old, and the case having been elevated to
the CA, the latter should have suspended the sentence of
the appellant because he was already entitled to the
provisions of Section 38 of the same law, which now allows
the suspension of sentence of minors regardless of the
penalty imposed as opposed to the provisions of Article
192 of P.D. 603. Nevertheless, the appellant shall be
entitled to appropriate disposition under Section 51
of RA No. 9344, which provides for the confinement
of
convicted children in Agricultural Camps and other Training
Facilities.
People vs Court of Appeals
February 25, 2015
Facts: AAA, a 16 year old from Lanao del Norte, graduated highschool in
March 25, 2004 and celebrated the night out with friends, including the
defendants: Carampatana, Alquizola (watcher of Alquizola Lodging House),
and Oporto (also a minor). They drank shots of Emperador Brandy with
Pepsi. AAA, refusing at first, consumed more or less five glasses of
Emperador Brandy.
AAA, laid her head on Oporto’s lap, after feeling dizzy. Oporto started
kissing her, which angered AAA, but her companions just laughed at this.
The accused continued to kiss and give her shots of liquor. Things
escalated and the next thing AAA knew was she found herself naked on a
bed, in Alquizola Lodging House, with Oporto on top of her, kissing her and
having intercourse with her. Carampatana and Alquizola were also in the
room. She cried and fell asleep. She woke up again and this time
Carampatana was having intercourse with her. When she went home that
morning, she told her parents she was raped. Her mother beat her but also
sent her to the hospital for an examination. Hospital noted that there were
old lacerations found in AAA’s hymen (suggesting this was not her first time
for intercourse) and semen.
The RTC found Carampatana, Alquizola (as an accomplice by providing the
venue), and Oporto guilty of rape. The CA reversed the RTC decision and
based their reason entirely on the defendants’ testimonies (that AAA was
promiscuous and consented to the sexual acts by not showing physical
resistance, discounting the fact that they got her intoxicated deliberately).
CA also stressed that AAA’s mother’s unusual reaction of hitting her was
inconsistent with that of a parent who found out her daughter was raped.
Issue: WON the CA acted in grave abuse of its discretion
Held: YES. The CA decision is a patent nullity for lack of due process. The
CA acted in grave abuse of its discretion when the prosecution’s right to
due process was denied or that the trial conducted was a sham. “It appears
that in reaching its judgment, the CA merely relied on the evidence
presented by the defense and utterly disregarded that of the prosecution.”
The CA easily swept under the rug the observations of the RTC and made
its own flimsy findings to justify its decision of acquittal.
First, the appellate court held that AAA was, in fact, conscious during the
whole ordeal. The fact that she never showed any physical resistance,
never cried out for help, and never fought against the private respondents,
bolsters the claim of the latter that the sexual acts were indeed consensual.
But the CA seemed to forget that AAA was heavily intoxicated at the
time of the assault. the elements of rape are: (1) the offender had carnal
knowledge of the victim; and (2) such act was accomplished through force
or intimidation; or when the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious; or when the victim is under twelve years of age.34 Here, the
accused intentionally made AAA consume hard liquor more than she could
handle. They still forced her to drink even when she was already obviously
inebriated. They never denied having sexual intercourse with AAA, but the
latter was clearly deprived of reason or unconscious at the time the private
respondents ravished her. The CA, however, readily concluded that she
agreed to the sexual act simply because she did not shout or offer any
physical resistance, disregarding her testimony that she was rendered weak
and dizzy by intoxication, thereby facilitating the commission of the crime.
The defense’s testimonies were seemingly unusual and incredible. The
defense of consensual copulation was belatedly invoked and seemed to
have been a last ditch effort to avoid culpability. The SC also noted the
defense having a rehearsed witness.
SC revered the CA decision but this time finding all three guilty of
conspiracy to rape AAA. Since Oporto was a minor during the time he raped
AAA, RA 9344 must apply to him. For this reason, the case is remanded to
the lower court for proper application.
Sec. 51. Confinement of Convicted Children in Agricultural Camps and
Other Training Facilities.—A child in conflict with the law may, after
conviction and upon order of the court, be made to serve his/her sentence,
in lieu of confinement in a regular penal institution, in an agricultural camp
and other training facilities that may be established, maintained, supervised
and controlled by the BUCOR, in coordination with the DSWD.
FACTS:
Petitioners Atizado 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. After the shooting, they fled. The whole incident
was over in a 5 minutes.
For their defense, the petitioners interposed the alibi that they were
at their family residence.
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 appears that Salvador Monreal was a minor of 17
years at the time of the commission of the crime, as
proved by his counter-affidavit, the police blotter, and
the testimony of one of the defense witnesses, and also
the fact that the RTC minutes on the trial hearing on
March 9, 1999 stated that Monreal was 22 years old
(thus making his age at the commission of the offense 17
years old), including the fact that the main
prosecution witness, Mirandilla, stated that Monreal was a
teenager and young looking at the fateful day.
However no Birth Certificate was ever presented during trial.
RTC found him guilty and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua,
which the CA affirmed.
ISSUE:
Whether the lower courts erred in imposing the
penalty of reclusion perpetua to Monreal despite his
minority at the time of the offense.
HELD:
Yes, the penalty imposed on Monreal is incorrect in view
of his minority.
COMMENTS:
This case illustrates the application of retroactivity of the law
insofar as it benefits the minor even though he
is already serving his sentence. This is but proper given
the benevolent purpose of the law, which is to
express the application of restorative justice to
children in conflict with the law. Restorative justice is
a
system focusing on the rehabilitation of the offender and
their reintegration into society.
Furthermore, this case illustrates the mandate of the
courts, and the prosecution, in exerting all efforts to
ascertain the age of the accused. Even despite the failure
of presenting a birth certificate, the fact of minority
can be established by other facts, and should be properly
appreciated by the courts.
However, despite the express provision of the law, personally
it seems more appropriate to limit the extent of
the application of this leniency to minors depending on
the severity of the crime committed. In this case,
willingly committing and conspiring to commit murder, using
treacherous tactics, without provocation
whatsoever, is a heinous crime that deserves the maximum extent
of punishment of the law. However, such
matter is best left to the discretion and wisdom of the
legislature.
G.R. No. 176102
November 26, 2014
I.
W/N Petitioner was entitled to the benefits of probation and
suspension of sentence under Republic Act
No. 9344?
II.
W/N imposing the penalty of imprisonment contravened the
provisions of Republic Act No. 9344 and
other international agreements?
No, the penalty of imprisonment did not violate the
provisions of RA 9344 because the penalty was
imposed as a last recourse after holding him to be
disqualified from probation and from the suspension of
his sentence, and the term of his imprisonment was for the
shortestduration permitted by the law.
International agreements on the administration of juvenile
justice are also consistent in recognizing that
imprisonment is a valid form of disposition, provided it
is imposed as a last resort and for the minimum
necessary period. Following Section 51 of Republic Act
No. 9344, the petitioner, although he has to serve
his sentence, may serve it in an agricultural camp or
other training facilities to be established,
maintained, supervised and controlled by the Bureau of Corrections,
in coordination with the Department
of Social Welfare and Development, in a manner
consistent with the offender child’s best interest. Such
service of sentence will be in lieu of service in the
regular penal institution.