PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee v. RICHARD O.

SARCIA,
appelant

GR NO. 169641, SEPTEMBER 10, 2009

R.A. No. 9344 The Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 repealed paragraphs 2 and 3 of
Art. 12 of the RPC which covered the exempting circumstance of minors.

Facts: On 1996, Sarcia allegedly raped AAA, a 5 year old at the time. On 2000, AAA’s
father filed a complaint against Sarcia for acts of lasciviousness. The Office of the Prosecutor
at Ligao, Albay upgraded the charges to rape. At trial, the prosecution presented AAA,
AAA’s father, AAA’s minor cousin, and Dr. Manatlao as oral testifiers. While the defense
had Sarcia, who denied the allegations. On 2003, the RTC found Sarcia GUILTY of rape.
The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC but modified the penalty to DEATH. According to
the testimonies, AAA was playing with her cousin and two other kids in the front yard of
Saling Crisologo’s house when Sarcia arrived and invited AAA to the backyard of the house.
AAA agreed and went with Sarcia. AAA’s cousin followed them and witnessed Sarcia
removing AAA’s shorts and underwear while Sarcia removed his trousers and brief. Then
Sarcia made AAA lie down and there began the consummation of rape. According to the
cousin, Sarcia made and up and down movement (“nagdapadapa tabi”). The cousin rushed to
the house of AAA and told AAA’s mother which disregarded the statement and said that they
were too young to talk about such matters. After Sarcia achieved satisfaction, he made AAA
put her clothes back on and left. The cousin returned and accompanied AAA back home.
When AAA’s mother was helping AAA take a bath, she noticed a grating sensation in AAA’s
private part. AAA underwent a physical examination and it produced a medico-legal
certificate stating that there were no scars and wounds but there was a complete perforation
of the hymen which may mean that it was subjected to a certain trauma or pressure. This may
mean a medical instrument or penis. The defense claimed that the rape charge was only
initiated to make his life miserable and for an earlier murder of Mae Christine Camu charge
against him by Salvacion Bobier, her grandmother, be stronger. AAA’s parents are related to
Salvacion.
Issues: Whether or not, Sarcia can be considered a minor at the time of the commission of the
crime and the provisions of R.A. 9344 be applied to his case?
Held: YES, Sarcia can be considered a minor at the time of the commission of the crime and
the provisions of R.A. 9344 or the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act can govern over his case.
According to Art. 68 of the RPC, “when the offender is a minor under 18 years, the penalty
next lower than that prescribed by law shall be imposed.” In the facts, on 1996, Sarcia turned
18 years of age and since the trial court was not able to determine the exact date and time of
the offense, all doubts should be resolved to the favor of the accused. Meaning, the offense
may have happened before Sarcia turned 18. The penalty of DEATH is then modified to
RECLUSION PERPETUA.
 R.A. 9344 took effect on May 20, 2006. The RTC and CA decision were on 2003 and
2005 respectively. The provisions of this Act expressly provides for its RETROACTIVE
APPLICATION. Wherein Sec. 38 and 40 of this Act states,
“Sec. 38. Automatic Suspension of Sentence. – Once the child who is under eighteen (18)
years of age at the time of the commission of the offense is found guilty of the offense charged, the
court shall determine and ascertain any civil liability which may have resulted from the offense
committed. However, instead of pronouncing the judgment of conviction, the court shall place the
child in conflict with the law under suspended sentence, without need of application: Provided,
however, That suspension of sentence shall still be applied even if the juvenile is already eighteen
(18) of age or more at the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt.”
“Sec. 40. Return of the Child in Conflict with the Law to Court. – If the court finds that the
objective of the disposition measures imposed upon the child in conflict with the law have not been
fulfilled, or if the child in conflict with the law has willfully failed to comply with the condition of
his/her disposition or rehabilitation program, the child in conflict with the law shall be brought before
the court for execution of judgment. If said child in conflict with the law has reached eighteen (18)
years of age while under suspended sentence, the court shall determine whether to discharge the child
in accordance with this Act, to order execution of sentence, or to extend the suspended sentence for a
certain specified period or until the child reaches the maximum age of twenty-one (21) years.”

Although, since Sarcia is now around 31 years of age, these provisions are now
considered moot and academic. But he is entitled to Sec. 51 of the same act which states,

“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.”

Thus,

“WHEREFORE, the decision of the CA dated July 14, 2005 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No.
00717 is hereby AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS: (1) the penalty of death
imposed on accused-appellant is reduced to reclusion perpetua;53 and (2) accused-appellant
is ordered to pay the victim the amount of ₱75,000.00 and ₱30,000.00 as moral damages and
exemplary damages, respectively. The award of civil indemnity in the amount of ₱75,000.00
is maintained. However, the case shall be REMANDED to the court a quo for appropriate
disposition in accordance with Sec. 51 of R.A. 9344.”