G.R. No.

169641 September 10, 2009

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
RICHARD O. SARCIA, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS:
The crime of rape was allegedly committed sometime in
1996 against AAA, a five (5) year old girl. After almost four
(4) years, AAA’s father filed a complaint for acts of
lasciviousness against herein accused-appellant on July 7,
2000. Upon review of the evidence, the Office of the
Provincial Prosecutor at Ligao, Albay upgraded the charge to
rape.

The facts was culled from the record that on December 16,
1996, five-year-old [AAA], together with her [cousin and two
other playmates], was playing in the yard of Saling Crisologo
near a mango tree.

Suddenly, appellant appeared and invited [AAA] to go with

him to the backyard of Saling Crisologo’s house. She agreed.
Unknown to appellant, [AAA’s cousin] followed them.

Upon reaching the place, appellant removed [AAA’s] shorts

and underwear. He also removed his trousers and brief.
Thereafter, he ordered [AAA] to lie down on her back. Then,
he lay on top of her and inserted his penis into [AAA’s]
private organ. Appellant made an up-and-down movement
("Nagdapadapa tabi"). [AAA] felt severe pain inside her
private part and said "aray." She also felt an intense pain
inside her stomach.

[AAA’s cousin], who positioned herself around five (5)

meters away from them, witnessed appellant’s dastardly
act.

ISSUE:
Whether the penalty for the crime of rape be mitigated
because of minority of the accused at the time of the
commission of the offense.

RULING:
Yes. Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
Republic Act No. 7659, was the governing law at the time
the accused-appellant committed the rape in question.
Under the said law, the penalty of death shall be imposed
when the victim of rape is a child below seven years of age.
In this case, as the age of AAA, who was five (5) years old
at the time the rape was committed, was alleged in the
information and proven during trial by the presentation of
her birth certificate, which showed her date of birth as
January 16, 1991, the death penalty should be imposed.

However, this Court finds ground for modifying the penalty

imposed by the CA. We cannot agree with the CA’s
conclusion that the accused-appellant cannot be deemed a
minor at the time of the commission of the offense to entitle
him to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority
pursuant to Article 68(2) of the Revised Penal Code. When
accused appellant testified on March 14, 2002, he admitted
that he was 24 years old, which means that in 1996, he was
18 years of age. As found by the trial court, the rape
incident could have taken place "in any month and date in
the year 1996." Since the prosecution was not able to prove
the exact date and time when the rape was committed, it is
not certain that the crime of rape was committed on or after
he reached 18 years of age in 1996. In assessing the
attendance of the mitigating circumstance of minority, all
doubts should be resolved in favor of the accused, it being
more beneficial to the latter. In fact, in several cases, this
Court has appreciated this circumstance on the basis of a
lone declaration of the accused regarding his age.