Rennie Declarador vs Hon. Gubaton et. Al.

arraignment he pleaded not guilty but re-entered

his plea of guilty to avail the benefits of firs time
GR 159208 (August 18, 2006)
offenders. Subsequently, he applied for probation
Facts: but was denied. In his petition for certiorari, the
court said that probation and suspension of
Accused was 17 years old when he stabbed sentence are different and provisions in PD 603 or
his female teacher in high school 15 times which RA 9344 cannot be invoked to avail probation. It is
resulted to the latter’s death. Based on the specifically stated that in drug trafficking,
evidence and his plea of guilt, accused was application for probation should be denied. As a
convicted of murder with qualifying circumstance side issue, the court discussed the availment of
of evident premeditation but the court considered suspension of sentence under RA 9344.
accused’s minority as a special mitigating
circumstance thus his sentence was lowered. ISSUE
Instead of reclusion perpetua, the maximum term Whether suspension of sentence under RA
of imprisonment of reclusion temporal was given 9344 can still be invoked given the fact that the
in view of the mitigating circumstance. Further the accused is now 21 years old.
sentence was suspended and commitment to youth
rehabilitation center was ordered. This is pursuant HELD
with PD 603 as amended. NO. The suspension of sentence under
Petitioner, however, claimed that under Section 38 of Rep. Act No. 9344 could no longer be
Art. 192 of PD 603 and AM 02-1-18-SC, the retroactively applied for petitioner’s benefit.
sentence should not have been suspended since the Section 38 of Rep. Act No. 9344 provides that once
juvenile convicted committed an offense a child under 18 years of age is found guilty of the
punishable by death, life imprisonment or offense charged, instead of pronouncing the
reclusion perpetua. judgment of conviction, the court shall place the
child in conflict with the law under suspended
ISSUE sentence. Section 40 of Rep. Act No. 9344, however,
Whether the accused’s sentence should be provides that once the child reaches 18 years of
suspended since the crime committed is age, the court shall determine whether to discharge
punishable by reclusion perpetua but due to the the child, order execution of sentence, or extend
mitigating circumstance of minority the sentence the suspended sentence for a certain specified
given was reduced to reclusion temporal given the period or until the child reaches the maximum
fact that RA 9344 took effect. age of 21 years. Petitioner has already reached 21
years of age or over and thus, could no longer be
HELD considered a child for purposes of applying Rep.
No. The basis of the exclusion of Act 9344. Thus, the application of Sections 38 and
suspension of sentence is the imposable penalty for 40 appears moot and academic as far as his case is
the crime regardless of the actual penalty given. concerned.
Under the RPC, the imposable penalty is reclusion
perpetua to death. RA 9344 superseded PD 603 but
retained the provisions regarding disqualifications
in the suspension of sentence such as the case at Valcesar Estioca vs. People of the Philippines
bar. Thus, the suspension of sentence was GR 173876 (June 27, 2008)
improper.
Facts
A number of persons were accused of
conspiring and robbing an elementary school. One
Michael Padua vs People of the Philippines of which is Boniao who was 14 years old at the
time of the commission of the crime. They were
GR 168546 (July 23, 2008)
found guilty by the lower court. When the case was
Facts: appealed to the CA, RA 9344 took effect and Boniao
was acquitted since he was a minor at the time of
Petitioner, who was then 17 years old, was the crime but without prejudice to his civil liability.
involved in selling illegal drugs. Initially in his Custody was given to his parents.
ISSUE give life to the full intent of the law. Civil liability
however, is not extinguished.
Whether RA 9344 can retroact to Boniao’s
case.
HELD. Robert Sierra vs People of the Philippines GR
182941 (July 3, 2009)
Yes, the reckoning point in considering
minority is the time of the commission of the crime. Facts
In this case Boniao is 14 years old hence exempted
from criminal liability without prejudice to his civil Petitioner was 15 years old when he raped
liability. Art 22 of the Revised Penal Code provides a minor. He was convicted of rape and was
that penal laws may be given retroactive effect if imposed a penalty of imprisonment of reclusion
they are in favour of the acused. perpetua and a fine. He elevated the case to CA and
during the pendence of the case, RA 9344 took
effect. CA affirmed the conviction and denied the
defense of minority since the age was not
established by presenting the birth certificate but
Joemar Ortega vs. People of the Philippines. only alleged in the testimonial of the petitioner and
GR. 151085 (August 20, 2008) his mother. According to them the burden of proof
of age is upon the prosecution.
Facts:
ISSUES
Petitioner was 13 years old when he raped
Who has the burden of proof in
a 6 year old girl This act was committed sometime
establishing the age of the accused?
in 1996. The lower courts convicted him of rape
with criminal and civil liability imposed. During the Whether the law be given retroactive
pendency of appeal in the Supreme Court, RA 9344 application.
was passed which provided that at the time of the
HELD:
commission of the crime, a child whose age was 15
years old and below will be exempted from The duty to establish the age of the
criminal liability. accused is not on the prosecution but on the
accused. Age can be established by birth certificate.
ISSUE:
Sec. 7 provides that in the absence of such
Whether criminal liability attaches document, age may be based from the information
although there were already convictions in the of the child, testimonies of other persons, physical
lower court. Stated otherwise, whether the appearance and other relevant evidence. Also in
retroactive effect of the law is not applicable in the case of doubt, minority should be in favour of the
case at bar. child. In the case at bar, minority was established
by the testimonies of the petitioner and his mother.
HELD.
This was not objected by the prosecution and did
NO. Although there is a crime committed, not even presented contrary evidence. Thus,
no criminal liability attaches. Sec. 15 of RA 9344 minority is established.
exempts a child below fifteen from criminal
The law should be given retroactive
liability if at the time of the commission of the
application since this favors the accused as
crime he is below fifteen (15) years of age. Upon
provided for in the Revised Penal Code – penal
assessment, the offender will be released to the
laws favouring the accused should be given
custody of his parents or be referred to prevention
retroactive effect. Hence the accused is considered
programs. It is given a retroactive since penal laws
a minor with an age of not above 15 years old. The
which are favourable to the accused are give
case is dismissed and the petitioner is referred to
retroactive effect(Art 22 of the Revised Penal code)
the appropriate local social welfare.
Even if the crime committed is heinous as
in this case –rape- criminal liability does not attach.
The flaw in the logic of the law should be Raymund Madali and Rodel Madali vs. People of
addressed in Congress and not in courts. This is to the Philippines
GR 180380 (August 4, 2009)
Facts: distinguish as to which crimes the suspension of
sentence is applicable. It applies even to heinous
Petitioners inflicted physical injuries to the
crimes such as in this case even if the child in
victim which caused the latter’s death. At the time
conflict with the law is already 18 years of age or
of the crime, Raymund and Rodel were minors – 14
more at the time of the pronouncement of his guilt.
years old and 16 years old respectively. The lower
However, Sec. 40 limits the suspension of sentence
court found them guilty of homicide. Petitioners
until the child reaches the maximum age of 21.
elevated the case to the CA and during the
pendency of the appeal, RA 9344 took effect. Though the accused is already 31 years
old, he is entitled to appropriate disposition under
ISSUE
Sec. 51 of RA 9344 where in lieu of confinement in
Whether petitioners should be exempted a regular penal institution, he may be ordered to
from criminal liability. serve in an agricultural camp and other training
facilities that may be established, maintained,
HELD
supervised and controlled by the BUCOR, in
Yes. At the time of the commission of the coordination with the DSWD.
crime, petitioners were minors. By provisions of
The civil liability remains the same and
RA 9344, they are exempted from liability but not
unaffected.
from criminal liability. Their exemption however
differs. In the case of Raymund, the case is
dismissed as to him since he was below 15 years
Robert Remiendo vs. People of the Philippines
old. He is to be released and custody is given to the
GR 184874 (October 9, 2009)
parents by virtue of RA 9344 Secs. 6 and 20 –
setting the minimum age of criminal responsibility Facts:
and who will have custody respectively. In the case
of Rodel, who was 16 years old at that time, It is Petitioner was a minor whose age is above
necessary to determine whether he acted with 15 but below 18 years old when he raped a minor
discernment or not. Sec 6 provides that children when the latter was left alone in her house. In
above 15 but below 18 will be exempt from violating the minor, he threatened to kick the latter
criminal liability unless he acted with discernment. if she would shout for help. Petitioner was
He, however, should be subjected to an convicted of rape but on appeal invoked a
intervention program. Sec 38 provides for the suspension of sentence pursuant to RA 9344. By
automatic suspension of sentence. the time he was convicted by the trial court and
before the case was elevated to the CA, he was
already 22 years old.
People of the Philippines vs. Richard Sarcia Issues:
GR 169641 (September 10, 2009) Whether petitioner is exempt from
criminal liability.
Facts:
Whether petitioner is entitled to a
Accused was 17 years old when he raped
suspension of sentence under Sec. 38 and 40 of RA
the victim who was then a minor. He was convicted
9344.
of rape with a penalty of death which was affirmed
by the Court of Appeals in 2005. During the Held:
pendency of the appeal in the Supreme Court, RA
No. Since his age is above 15 and below
9344 took effect. Before the promulgation of SC
18, the finding of discernment is necessary to
decision, accused was already 31 years old.
determine if he would be exempt from criminal
ISSUE liability. In this case, his act of waiting for the
victim’s parents to leave the house before defiling
Whether SEC 38 and 40 of RA 9344 to the
the latter and threatening to kick her if she should
suspension of sentence apply to the instant case.
shout prove that petitioner can differentiate what
HELD is right and wrong.
The application of suspension of sentence Furthermore, Sec. 38 and 40, suspension
is now moot and academic. Sec 38 does not of sentence, can no longer be availed since by the
time his sentence was imposed by the trial court, The RTC appreciated the new evidence
he was already 22 years old. Sec 40 provides that and reduced the penalty. The Court of Appeals
“If the child in conflict with the law has reached affirmed the decision.
eighteen (18) years of age while under suspended
ISSUE: Whether or not accused appellant Jacinto
sentence, the court shall determine whether to
should be convicted of rape.
discharge the child in accordance with this Act, to
order execution of sentence, or to extend the What is the imposable penalty on the appellant?
suspended sentence for a certain period or until
HELD/RATIO: Yes, SC confirms conviction.
the child reaches the maximum age of twenty-one
However due to the retroactive effect of RA
(21) years”.
9344, and it being proven that Jacinto was a
G.R. No. 182239               March 16, 2011 minor at the time the crime was committed
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff- The rape that took place has been
Appellee, vs. HERMIE M. JACINTO, Accused- sufficiently proven in the court. Therefore, the
Appellant. Supreme Court found sufficient ground for
conviction.
FACTS:
In 2003, at the time of the commission of
Accused-appellant Hermie Jacinto, is the crime, Jacinto was 17 years old. Though the RA
charged and convicted in the lower courts of raping 9344 took effect only in 2006, it is given a
a 5-year old child, AAA. retroactive effect.
Jacinto is neighbors with the family of AAA Sec. 6 of Republic Act No. 9344 exempts a
for a long time and he was friends with the victim’s child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen
father. The victim AAA knew Jacinto well, as she (18) years of age from criminal liability, unless the
calls him kuya. child is found to have acted with discernment, in
On January 2003, the victim’s father sent which case, "the appropriate proceedings" in
his other daughter, CCC, to the store to buy accordance with the Act shall be observed.
cigarettes and the victim followed her older sister In the present case, Jacinto showed
but did not return with the latter. The father discernment in committing the crime as proven by
thought that she was left behind to watch the facts that he choose an isolated and dark place
television at another house. A witness saw Jacinto to perpetrate the crime, to prevent detection and
with the victim later on, at the store where the he boxed the victim to weaken her defense. These
latter was seated in his lap. are indicative of then 17 year-old appellant’s
The victim testified that when she left the mental capacity to fully understand the
store with the accused Jacinto, he had carnal consequences of his unlawful action.
knowledge of her. She went home crying after the To give meaning to the legislative intent of
incident. the Act, the promotion of the welfare of a child in
The victim’s father confronted Jacinto and conflict with the law should extend even to one
called the police. AAA underwent a physical check- who has exceeded the age limit of twenty-one (21)
up which leads to findings that she had been raped. years, so long as he/she committed the crime when
he/she was still a child. The offender shall be
For his defense, Jacinto interposed an alibi, entitled to the right to restoration, rehabilitation
that he attended a birthday party at the time of the and reintegration in accordance with the Act in
incident and that the victim merely followed him order that he/she is given the chance to live a
when he went to the store. normal life and become a productive member of
The RTC found Jacinto guilty beyond the community. The age of the child in conflict with
reasonable doubt. Thereafter, the defense moved the law at the time of the promulgation of the
to reopen the trial for reception of newly judgment of conviction is not material. What
discovered evidence. It is stated that appellant matters is that the offender committed the offense
Jacinto was born on March 1, 1985. This means when he/she was still of tender age.
that at the time of the alleged commission of the RA No. 9344 warrants the suspension of
crime, he was merely 17 years old. sentence of a child in conflict with the law
notwithstanding that he/she has reached the age of
majority at the time the judgment of conviction is The RTC and the CA did not appreciate Monreal’s
pronounced. According to the law, the appellant minority at the time of the commission of the
may be confined in an agricultural camp or any murder probably because his birth certificate was
other training facility in accordance with Sec. 51 of not presented at the trial. Yet, it cannot be doubted
Republic Act No. 9344. that Monreal was a minor below 18 years of age
when the crime was committed on April 18, 1994.
G.R. No. 173822               October 13, 2010

SALVADOR ATIZADO and SALVADOR His counter-affidavit, the police blotter and trial
MONREAL, Petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE records show that Monreal was a minor at the time
PHILIPPINES, Respondent. of the commission. Monreal’s minority was legally
sufficient, for it conformed with the norms
FACTS: subsequently set under Section 7 of Republic Act
No. 9344:
Petitioners Atixado and Monreal are
accused of killing and murdering one Rogelio Llona
on April 1994. It was said that both petitioners Section 7. Determination of Age. - The child
barged in on the house of one Desder, where the in conflict with the law shall enjoy the
victim was a guest and suddenly shot at Llona with presumption of minority. He/She shall
their guns. After the shooting, they fled. enjoy all the rights of a child in conflict
with the law until he/she is proven to be
For their defense, the petitioners interposed that eighteen (18) years old or older. 
they were at their family residence and drinking
gin. In all proceedings, law enforcement officers,
The RTC convicted Atizado and Monreal for the prosecutors, judges and other government officials
crime of murder and sentenced them with concerned shall exert all efforts at determining the
reclusion perpetua. On appeal to the CA, the court age of the child in conflict with the law.
affirmed the conviction in 2005.
Monreal has been detained for over 16 years, that
It is important to note that Salvador
is, from the time of his arrest on May 18, 1994 until
Monreal was a minor at the time of the commission
the present. Given that the entire period of
of the crime.
Monreal’s detention should be credited in the
ISSUE: Whether or not the lower courts erred in service of his sentence, pursuant to Section 41 of
finding the petitioners guilty beyond reasonable Republic Act No. 9344, the revision of the penalty
doubt for murder. warranted his immediate release from the
penitentiary.
What is the penalty to be imposed on Monreal, a
minor during the time of the commission?
G.R. No. 184170               February 2, 2011
HELD/RATIO: Yes, conviction affirmed.
However, the penalty imposed on Monreal is PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, 
suspended. vs. JERWIN QUINTAL, VICENTE BONGAT, FELIPE
The witness’ positive identification of the QUINTAL and LARRY PANTI, Accused.
petitioners as the killers, and her declarations on FACTS:
what each of the petitioners did when they
mounted their sudden deadly assault against Llona On 2 May 2001, appellant Vicente,
left no doubt whatsoever that they had conspired together with 15-year old Jerwin Quintal, 16-year
to kill and had done so with treachery. old Felipe Quintal and Larry Panti were charged in
an Information for Rape. The victim is a 16-year
Under Article 248 of the RPC, the penalty for old girl, AAA. Of all the accused, only Felipe and
murder is reclusion perpetua to death. There being Jerwin were arrested.
no modifying circumstances, the CA correctly
imposed the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua on The victim testified that in August 2002, as
Atizado. But reclusion perpetua was not the correct she was leaving a wake at around 10 pm, she
penalty for Monreal due to his being a minor over noticed that Jerwin was following her. She
15 but under 18 years of age. recognized Jerwin because he was her schoolmate.
As AAA was about to go into her grandmother’s
house, the both of the accused invited her to go to a As to the minors Jerwin and Felipe, the
birthday party, to which she acceded. She was then case against them had been dismissed before the
led to a rice field where the other accused were and RTC.
all four of them took turns to rape her.
AAA reported the incident after 2 days.
The parents of Jerwin accompanied their son and
there were talks of Jerwin proposing marriage to
the victim and there was an admission of the rape
put in writing.
For the defense, Jerwin claimed that the
victim was his girlfriend and they had sexual
intercourse before.
In 2006, the RTC convicted all the accused
of rape and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua, but mitigated the penalty
imposed on Jerwin and Felipe for they were
minors. Pursuant to R.A. No. 9344, the judgment of
conviction against Jerwin Quintal and Felipe
Quintal was suspended and they were confined at
the Home for Boys in Naga City for rehabilitation.
In 2009, the RTC ordered the dismissal of
the cases against Jerwin and Felipe upon
reconsideration upon the recommendation of the
DSWD.
The only appellant in this case is Vicente,
who was not a minor at the time of the commission
of the crime. 
ISSUE: Whether or not there is sufficient evidence
for conviction.
HELD/RATIO: No.
The credibility of the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses, as well as the inconclusive
medical finding, tends to create doubt if AAA was
indeed raped. The RTC and the Court of Appeals
relied largely on the testimony of AAA that she was
raped. 
The SC doubted the credibility of AAA’s
testimony, which was inconsistent with the
testimonies she told the barangay tanod and
barangay kagawad, the purported confession put
into writing and signed by all the accused; and the
subsequent incidents relating to the case.
The combination of all the circumstances
are more than sufficient to create a reasonable
doubt as to whether first, rape was actually
committed and second, whether the accused were
the perpetrators.