Dungo vs.

People GR 159208 (August 18, 2006)

GR No. 209464
July 1, 2015 Ponente: Callejo
Ponente: Mendoza, J
FACTS: FACTS

Sometime in 2016, the Alpha Phi Omega Accused Frank Bansales was 17 years old when
Fraternity in conspiracy with more or less twenty he stabbed his female teacher in high school,
other members and officers conducted initiation Yvonne Declarador, 15 times which resulted to
rite. MARLON VILLANUEVA y MEJILLA, a the latter’s death. Based on the evidence and
neophyte was subjected to physical harm. After his plea of guilt, accused was convicted of
the initiation rites, accused Sibal inquired about murder with qualifying circumstance of evident
Villanueva's condition but he was ignored by
premeditation but the court considered
Castillo. He then called co accused Dungo for
help. After Dungo arrived at the resort, they accused’s minority as a special mitigating
hailed a tricycle and brought Villanueva to JP circumstance thus his sentence was lowered.
Rizal Hospital. There, he gave a false name to Instead of reclusion perpetua, the maximum
the security guard as he heard that Dungo had term of imprisonment of reclusion temporal was
done the same. given in view of the mitigating circumstance.
Further, the sentence was suspended and
RTC found Dungo and Sibal guilty of the crime
of violating the Anti-Hazing Law. commitment to youth rehabilitation center was
ordered. This is pursuant with PD 603 as
ISSUE: amended. Petitioner, however, claimed that
under Art. 192 of PD 603 and AM 02-1-18-SC,
Whether or not herein accused is guilty of the the sentence should not have been suspended
aforesaid crime, despite the fact that both since the juvenile convicted committed an
merely assisted the victim to the hospital.
offense punishable by death, life imprisonment
Yes. Under R.A 8049, if the person subjected to or reclusion perpetua.
hazing or other forms of initiation rites suffers
any physical injury, or dies as a result thereof, ISSUE
the officers and members of the fraternity or
sorority who actually participated in the infliction Whether the accused’s sentence should be
of physical harm shall be liable as principals. suspended since the crime committed is
Another class of participation are officers or punishable by reclusion perpetua but due to the
members of an organization group, fraternity mitigating circumstance of minority the sentence
or sorority who knowingly cooperated in given was reduced to reclusion temporal given
carrying out the hazing by inducing the the fact that RA 9344 took effect.
victim to be present thereat due to their
indispensable cooperation in the crime by HELD
inducing the victim to attend the hazing.
No. The basis of the exclusion of suspension of
In this case, the participation of the offenders in
the criminal conspiracy can be proven by the sentence is the imposable penalty for the crime
prima facie evidence due to their presence regardless of the actual penalty given. Under the
during the hazing, unless they prevented the RPC, the imposable penalty is reclusion
commission of the acts therein. perpetua to death. RA 9344 superseded PD 603
but retained the provisions regarding
disqualifications in the suspension of sentence
such as the case at bar. Case law has it that
Rennie Declarador vs Hon. Gubaton statutes in pari materia should be read and
et. Al. construed together because enactments of the
same legislature on the same subject are
supposed to form part of one uniform system; Sec. 32 of A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC:
later statutes are supplementary or
complimentary to the earlier enactments and in Automatic Suspension of Sentence and
the passage of its acts the legislature is Disposition Orders. The sentence shall be
supposed to have in mind the existing suspended without need of application by the
legislations on the subject and to have enacted juvenile in conflict with the law…
the new act with reference thereto. Statutes in
Xxx
pari materia should be construed together to
attain the purpose of an expressed national The benefits of suspended sentence shall not
policy. Thus, the suspension of sentence was apply to a juvenile in conflict with the law who
improper. has once enjoyed suspension of sentence, or to
one who is convicted of an offense punishable
RELEVANT STATUTES
by death, reclusion perpetua or life
Article 192 of P.D. No. 603: imprisonment, or when at the time of
promulgation of judgment the juvenile is already
Suspension of Sentence and Commitment of eighteen (18) years of age or over.
Youthful Offender. If after hearing the evidence
in the proper proceedings, the court should find Sec. 38 of Rep. Act No. 9344 which took
that the youthful offender has committed the effect on May 20, 2006:
acts charged against him, the court, shall
Automatic Suspension of Sentence. Once the
determine the imposable penalty, including any
child who is under eighteen (18) years of age at
civil liability chargeable against him. However,
the time of the commission of the offense is
instead of pronouncing judgment of conviction,
found guilty of the offense charged, the court
the court, upon application of the youthful
shall determine and ascertain any civil liability
offender and if it finds that the best interest of
which may have resulted from the offense
the public, as well as that of the offender will be
committed. However, instead of pronouncing the
served thereby, may suspend all further
judgment of conviction, the court shall place the
proceedings and commit such minor to the
child in conflict with the law under suspended
custody or care of the Department of Social
sentence, without need of application: Provided,
Welfare and Development or to any
however, That suspension of sentence shall still
training institution operated by the government
be applied even if the juvenile is already
or any other responsible person until he shall
eighteen (18) years of age or more at the time of
have reached twenty-one years of age, or for a
the pronouncement of his/her guilt.
shorter period as the court may deem proper,
after considering the reports and Upon suspension of sentence and after
recommendations of the Department of Social considering the various circumstances of the
Welfare and Development or the government child, the court shall impose the appropriate
training institution or responsible person under disposition measures as provided in the
whose care he has been committed. Supreme Court on Juveniles in Conflict with the
Law.
Xxx

The benefits of this article shall not apply to a Ortega vs. People
youthful offender who has once enjoyed
suspension of sentence under its provisions or
G. R. No. 151085, August 20, 2008
to one who is convicted for an offense
punishable by death or life imprisonment or to
Ponente: Nachura, J.
one who is convicted for an offense by the
Military Tribunals.
Facts:

At the time of commission of rape, the accused Facts:

was 13 years old while the victim was 6. The
case was pending when the Juvenile Justice June 16, 2003, Padua and Edgar Ubalde were
and Welfare Act of 2006 (R.A. 9344) was charged before the RTC Pasig of violation of
enacted amending among others the age of R.A. No. 9165 [Comprehensive Dangerous
criminal irresponsibility being raised from 9 to 15 Drugs act of 2002] for selling dangerous drugs.
years old. At the time of the promulgation of When arraigned, Padua assisted by counsel de
judgment, the accused already reached the age officio entered a plea of not guilty. During the
of majority. The office of the Solicitor General pre-trial, Padua’s counsel de officio manifested
claimed that the accused is not exempt from that his client was willing to withdraw his plea of
criminal liability because he is not anymore a not guilty and enter a plea of guilty to avail the
child as defined by RA 9344. The OSG further benefits granted to 1st time offenders. The
claimed that the retroactive effect of said law is prosecutor interposed no objection, thus the not
applicable only if the child-accused is still below guilty plea was withdrawn, Padua re-arraigned
18 years old. and pleaded guilty.

Issue:

Whether or not the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Padua then filed a petition for probation alleging
Act of 2006 (R.A. 9344) should be applied, in the that he is a minor and a 1st time offender, and
resolution of the case. that he possess all qualifications and none of the
disqualifications of the probation law. RTC
Held: ordered for the post-sentenced investigation and
recommendation and comment of the probation
The Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 office and the city prosecutor relatively.
(R.A. 9344) should be applied.  By virtue of R.A.
No. 9344, the age of criminal irresponsibility has
been raised from 9 to 15 years old; this law is
evidently favorable to the accused. Petitioner Pasana, the chief probation and parole officer
was only 13 years old at the time of the recommended Padua to be placed on probation.
commission of the alleged rape. This was duly However, Judge Reyes-Carpio issued an order
proven by the certificate of live birth, by denying the petition for probation on the ground
petitioner's own testimony, and by the testimony that under R.A. No. 9165, any person convicted
of his mother.  Furthermore, petitioner’s age was of drug trafficking cannot avail of the privilege
never assailed in any of the proceedings before granted by the Probation Law.
the RTC and the CA. Indubitably, petitioner, at
the time of the commission of the crime, was
below 15 years of age. Under R.A. No. 9344, he Padua filed a motion for reconsideration but the
is exempted from criminal liability. same was denied. He filed for a petition for
certiorari, but the CA dismissed his petition. 

Michael Padua vs. People of the

Philippines Issue: Whether CA err in affirming denial of the
petition for probation which deprived petitioner’s
G.R. No. 168546, July 23, 2008 right as a minor under Adm. Order 02-1-18-SC.

Ponente: Quisumbing,
Whether the accused’s right to be released on Probation Law or P.D. No. 968.  The elementary
recognizance has been violated or deprived in rule in statutory construction is that when the
the light of RA 9344 words and phrases of the statute are clear and
unequivocal, their meaning must be determined
from the language employed and the statute
must be taken to mean exactly what it says.  If a
Held:
statute is clear, plain and free from ambiguity, It
(1)    CA did not err in dismissing Padua’s must be given its literal meaning and applied
petition for certiorari. The requisites for the without attempted interpretation.  This is what is
certiorari must occur:  (1) the writ is directed known as the plain-meaning rule or verba legis. 
against a tribunal, a board or any officer It is expressed in the maxim,index animi sermo,
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (2) or speech is the index of intention.  Furthermore,
such tribunal, board or officer has acted without there is the maxim verba legis non est
or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse recedendum, or from the words of a statute
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of there should be no departure.
jurisdiction; and (3) there is no appeal or any
plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law.

“Without jurisdiction” means that the court acted

with absolute lack of authority.  There is “excess
of jurisdiction” when the court transcends its
power or acts without any statutory authority. 
“Grave abuse of discretion” implies such
capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment
as to be equivalent to lack or excess of
jurisdiction.

Padua cannot argue that his right under Rep.

Act No. 9344, the “Juvenile Justice and Welfare
Act of 2006” was violated.  Nor can he argue
that Section 32 of A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC
otherwise known as the “Rule on Juveniles in
Conflict with the Law” has application in this
case.  Section 68 of Rep. Act No. 9344 and
Section 32 of A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC both pertain
to suspension of sentence and not probation.

Petitioner has already reached 21 years of age

or over and thus, could no longer be considered
a child for purposes of applying Rep. Act 9344.
Thus, the application of Sections 38 and 40
appears moot and academic as far as his case
is concerned.

(2)    Any person convicted for drug trafficking or

pushing, regardless of the penalty imposed, can
not avail of the privilege granted by the