B2022 REPORTS ANNOTATED
Llave v People Llave v People
I. Recit-ready summary
Petitioner Neil Llave, who was 12 years old at the time of the
commission of the crime was convicted of the crime of rape. He was found
to have raped DebbielyNeilyn, who was only 7 years old at that time. Neil
Llave claims that he deprived of his right to preliminary investigation and
that, if ever it is proven that he committed rape, that he did so without
discernment. SC held that the the lower court and the appellate court are
both correct in holding that he was guilty of the crime of rape. Neil was not
deprived of his right to preliminary investigation since it was his procedural
lapse that caused such failure. Moreover, it was sufficiently proven that
Neil acted with discernment. SC held that he was methodical; he ensured
that he will not be found out, he immediately tried to escape, and he hid
from the police to avoid arrest. His various accolades also prove such
discernment.
II. Facts of the case
This is a case for review on the decision of RTC and CA convicting
petitioner Neil Llave of the crime of rape. An info charged petitioner of, who
was 12 years old at the time of the commission of the crime, raping minor
DebbielyNeilyn Santos, who was 7 years old at the time.
PROSECUTION’S VERSION:
After arriving home at 6:00 pm, coming back from school,
DebbielyNeilyn changed her clothes and went to her mom’s store. Her mom
asked her to bring the container of unsold quail eggs. As Debbielyn was on
her way home, near the vacant lot, Neil pulled her behind a pile of hollow
blocks (in front of the vacant house), and proceeded to rape her. Teofisto
came out of his house, hearing a girl’s cries and saw Debbielyn and Neil. He
shouted at the latter who fled from the scene. Teofisto told Debbielyn to tell
her parents about what happened. Debbielyn told her dad and proceeded to
the police station.
Dr. Castillo declared on the witness stand that she found no injury on
the hymen and perineum, but found scanty yellowish discharge between the
labia minora. There was also a fresh abrasion of the perineal skin at 1 o'clock
position near the anal opening. She found no spermatozoa in the vaginal area
or injury at the external genitalia; neither did she find any other injury or
G.R. NO: 166040
ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: Juvenile Delinquent
April 26, 2006
abrasion on the other parts of the victim's body. But she concluded that the
victim’s claims were consistent with her finding.
ACCUSED’S VERSION:
Petitioner denied having raped Debbielyn. He declared that at 6:30
pm, he was outside their house to buy rice in the carinderia when he saw
Debbielyn. He was also told to pass by Cadena de Amor Street in going to
his aunt's house; his mother prodded him to go to his aunt's house. Later,
Domingo and Barangay Tanod Jorge Dominguez arrived at his aunt's house
and brought him to the barangay hall. He did not know of any reason why
DebbielyNeilyn and her parents would charge him with rape. While
confined at the Pasay City Youth Home, he had a crush on “Issa” a young
female inmate. Using a piece of broken glass (bubog) about half-an-inch
long, he inscribed her name on his right thigh, left leg and left arm.
Accused’s point of content: Debbielyn’s testimonies were inconsistent
because there was no report of injury on the victim’s genitalia but
Debbielyn said that she felt pain in her vagina. That mere touching of the
female organ doesn’t consummate rape. That Debbielyn was coached by
her parents to implicate Neil and that she didn’t even know the meaning of
the word “rape.”
RTC and CA rendered Neil guilty of rape based on the evidence of the
prosecution. They rendered him to have acted in discernment. When he fled
the scene and hid in his grandmother's house, he betrayed the fact that he
knew he did something that merits punishment.
III. Issue/s
1. WON he was deprived of his right to preliminary investigation. NO
2. WON he had canal knowledge of Debbielyn, if yes, WON it was
with discernment YES
IV. Ratio/Legal Basis
FIRST ISSUE:
The record shows that petitioner was lawfully arrested without a
warrant. His failure to file a motion for a preliminary investigation within
five days from finding out that an Information had been filed against him
effectively operates as a waiver of his right to such preliminary investigation
PONENTE: Callejo, Sr. J
DIGEST MAKER: Alec
 B2022 REPORTS ANNOTATED April 26, 2006

Llave v People Llave v People

SECOND ISSUE:
Prosecution was able to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Court has already ruled that no matter how slight the penetration is, the fact
that Debbielyn felt pains, points to the consummation of rape. She may not
have had knowledge of the extent of the penetration; however, her
straightforward testimony shows that the rape passed the stage of
consummation. While it is true that Dr. Castillo did not find any abrasion or
laceration on in Debbielyn’s genitalia, this does not disprove sexual abuses,
especially when the victim is a young girl as in this case. SC also found
unmeritorious Neil’s claim that Debbielyn was coach by her parents. This
was disproved by her straightforward and spontaneous testimony and her
remaining steadfast despite rigorous and intensive cross-examination. She
spontaneously pointed to and identified the petitioner as the perpetrator. SC
also dismissed Neil’s claim that the parents’ testimony was just a fabrication
and because of ill-motive against him. Petitioner admitted in no uncertain
terms that the spouses had no ill-motive against him
Trial court correctly ruled that the petitioner acted with discernment.
Article 12, paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code provides that a person over
nine years of age and under fifteen is exempt from criminal liability, unless
he acted with discernment. The basic reason behind the exempting
circumstance is complete absence of intelligence. The surrounding
circumstances must demonstrate that the minor knew what he was doing and
that it was wrong. Such circumstance includes the gruesome nature of the
crime and the minor's cunning and shrewdness.
V. Disposition
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED for
lack of merit. The decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 26962
is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION that the award of exemplary
damages is DELETED.
VI. Notes
Minor details sir might ask:
DebbielyNeilyn – studies at Villamor Air Base Elementary School in
Pasay City 6 and attended classes from 12:00 noon to 6:00 p.m,
Domingo, (DebbielyNeilyn’s fatherx) – jeepney driver
Marilou (DebbielyNeilyn’s mother) – sold quail eggs at a neary church
Teofisto (neighbor) – barbecue vendor, start selling at 6:30 pm, house
was adjacent to DebbielyNeilyn’s, house next to his is vacant
Neil.- freshman at Pasay City South High School, one of the three
outstanding students in grade school and received awards such as Best in
Mathematics, finish a computer course and received a Certificate of
Completion from the Philippine Air Force Management Information Center

Prosecution was able to prove that 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 dastardly
acts. When he was discovered by Teofisto who shouted at him, the petitioner
hastily fled from the scene to escape arrest. Upon the prodding of his father
and her mother, he hid in his grandmother's house to avoid being arrested by
policemen and remained thereat until barangay tanods arrived and took him
into custody. Also, the fact that he had been an outstanding grade school
student and even received awards, and that, while in Grade I, he was the best
in his class in his academic subjects and at the age of 12, he finished a
computer course, proves discernment.

G.R. NO: 166040 PONENTE: Callejo, Sr. J

ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: Juvenile Delinquent DIGEST MAKER: Alec