Republic of the Philippines The defense also presented BBB who denied that the

SUPREME COURT petitioner raped her; she confirmed the petitioner’s

Manila claim that AAA bore her brother a grudge.

SECOND DIVISION On April 5, 2006, the RTC convicted the petitioner of

qualified rape as follows:
G.R. No. 182941               July 3, 2009
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this Court
ROBERT SIERRA y CANEDA, Petitioner, finds the accused ROBERT SIERRA y CANEDA
vs. GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. rape (Violation of R.A. 8353 in relation to SC A.M. 99-
1-13) and hereby sentences the said juvenile in
DECISION conflict with law to suffer the penalty of imprisonment
of reclusion perpetua; and to indemnify the victim the
amount of ₱75,000 as civil indemnity, ₱50,000 as
BRION, J.:
moral damages, and ₱25,000 as exemplary damages.
Before us is the petition of Robert Sierra y Caneda
SO ORDERED.8
(petitioner) for the review on certiorari1 of the
Decision2 and Resolution3 of the Court of
Appeals4 (CA) that affirmed with modification his The petitioner elevated this RTC decision to the CA
conviction for the crime of qualified rape rendered by by attacking AAA’s credibility. He also invoked
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 159, Pasig paragraph 1, Section 6 of R.A. No. 9344 (Juvenile
City, in its decision of April 5, 2006. Justice and Welfare Act of 2006) 9 to exempt him from
criminal liability considering that he was only 15 years
old at the time the crime was committed.
THE ANTECEDENT FACTS
The CA nevertheless affirmed the petitioner’s
In August 2000, thirteen-year-old AAA5 was playing
conviction with modification as to penalty as follows:
with her friend BBB in the second floor of her family’s
house in Palatiw, Pasig. The petitioner arrived holding
a knife and told AAA and BBB that he wanted to play WHEREFORE, finding that the trial court did not err in
with them. The petitioner then undressed BBB and convicting Robert Sierra, the assailed Decision is
had sexual intercourse with her. Afterwards, he turned hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that Robert
to AAA, undressed her, and also had sexual Sierra has to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of
intercourse with her by inserting his male organ into RECLUSION TEMPORAL MAXIMUM. The award of
hers. The petitioner warned AAA not to tell anybody of damages are likewise affirmed.
what they did.
SO ORDERED.10
AAA subsequently disclosed the incident to Elena
Gallano (her teacher) and to Dolores Mangantula (the In ruling that the petitioner was not exempt from
parent of a classmate), who both accompanied AAA criminal liability, the CA held:
to the barangay office. AAA was later subjected to
physical examination that revealed a laceration on her As to the penalty, We agree with the Office of the
hymen consistent with her claim of sexual abuse. On Solicitor General that Robert is not exempt from
the basis of the complaint and the physical findings, liability. First, it was not clearly established and
the petitioner was charged with rape under the proved by the defense that Robert was 15 years old
following Information: or below at the time of the commission of the crime. It
was incumbent for the defense to present Robert’s
On or about August 5, 2000, in Pasig City and within birth certificate if it was to invoke Section 64 of
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, a Republic Act No. 9344. Neither is the suspension of
minor, 15 years old, with lewd designs and by means sentence available to Robert as the Supreme Court,
of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there in one case, clarified that:
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual
intercourse with his (accused) sister, AAA, thirteen We note that, in the meantime, Rep. Act No. 9344
years of age, against the latter’s will and consent. took effect on May 20, 2006. Section 38 of the law
reads:
Contrary to law.6
SEC. 38. Automatic Suspension of Sentence. – Once
The petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge and the child who is under eighteen (18) years of age at
raised the defenses of denial and alibi. He claimed the time of the commission of the offense is found
that he was selling cigarettes at the time of the guilty of the offense charged, the court shall
alleged rape. He also claimed that AAA only invented determine and ascertain any civil liability which may
her story because she bore him a grudge for the have resulted from the offense committed. However,
beatings he gave her. The parties’ mother (CCC) instead of pronouncing the judgment of conviction, the
supported the petitioner’s story; she also stated that court shall place the child in conflict with the law under
AAA was a troublemaker. Both CCC and son testified suspended sentence, without need of application:
that the petitioner was fifteen (15) years old when the Provided, however, That suspension of sentence shall
alleged incident happened.7 still be applied even if the juvenile is already eighteen
(18) years of age or more at the time of the
pronouncement of his/her guilt.
Upon suspension of sentence and after considering The petitioner further submits that the undisputed
the various circumstances of the child, the court shall facts and evidence on record – specifically: the
impose the appropriate disposition measures as allegation of the Information, the testimonies of the
provided in the Supreme Court on Juveniles in petitioner and CCC that the prosecution never
Conflict with the Law. objected to, and the findings of the RTC – established
that he was not more than 15 years old at the time of
The law merely amended Article 192 of P.D. No. 603, the commission of the crime.
as amended by A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC, in that the
suspension of sentence shall be enjoyed by the The People’s Comment, through the Office of the
juvenile even if he is already 18 years of age or more Solicitor General (OSG), counters that the burden
at the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt. The belongs to the petitioner who should have presented
other disqualifications in Article 192 of P.D. No. 603, his birth certificate or other documentary evidence
as amended, and Section 32 of A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC proving that his age was 15 years or below. The OSG
have not been deleted from Section 38 of Republic also stressed that while petitioner is presumed to be a
Act No. 9344. Evidently, the intention of Congress minor, he is disqualified to have his sentence
was to maintain the other disqualifications as provided suspended following the ruling in Declarador v. Hon.
in Article 192 of P.D. No. 603, as amended, and Gubaton.18
Section 32 of A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC. Hence, juveniles
who have been convicted of a crime the imposable THE COURT’S RULING
penalty for which is reclusion perpetua, life
imprisonment or reclusion perpetua to death or death, We grant the petition.
are disqualified from having their sentences
suspended.11
We examine at the outset the prosecution’s evidence
and the findings of the lower courts on the petitioner’s
The CA denied the petitioner’s subsequent motion for guilt, since the petition opens the whole case for
reconsideration; hence, the present petition. review and the issues before us are predicated on the
petitioner’s guilt of the crime charged. A determination
THE ISSUES of guilt is likewise relevant under the terms of R.A. No.
9344 since its exempting effect is only on the criminal,
The petitioner no longer assails the prosecution’s not on the civil, liability.
evidence on his guilt of the crime charged; what he
now assails is the failure of the CA to apply paragraph We see no compelling reason, after examination of
1, Section 612 of R.A. No. 9344 under the following the CA decision and the records of the case, to
issues: deviate from the lower courts’ findings of guilt. The
records show that the prosecution established all the
(1) Whether or not the CA erred in not elements of the crime charged through the credible
applying the provisions of R.A. No. 9344 on testimony of AAA and the other corroborating
the petitioner’s exemption from criminal evidence; sexual intercourse did indeed take place as
liability; the information charged.19 As against AAA’s
testimony, the petitioner could only raise the defenses
(2) Whether or not the CA erred in ruling that it of denial and alibi – defenses that, in a long line of
was incumbent for the defense to present the cases, we have held to be inherently weak unless
petitioner’s birth certificate to invoke Section supported by clear and convincing evidence; the
64 of R.A. No. 9344 when the burden of petitioner failed to present this required evidentiary
proving his age lies with the prosecution by support.20 We have held, too, that as negative
express provisions of R.A. No. 9344; and defenses, denial and alibi cannot prevail over the
credible and positive testimony of the
(3) Whether or not the CA erred in applying complainant.21 We sustain the lower courts on the
the ruling in Declarador v. Hon. issue of credibility, as we see no compelling reason to
Gubaton13 thereby denying the petitioner the doubt the validity of their conclusions in this regard.
benefit of exemption from criminal liability
under R.A. No. 9344. While the defense, on appeal, raises a new ground
– i.e., exemption from criminal liability under R.A. No.
The threshold issue in this case is the determination 9344 – that implies an admission of guilt, this
of who bears the burden of proof for purposes of consideration in no way swayed the conclusion we
determining exemption from criminal liability based on made above, as the defense is entitled to present all
the age of the petitioner at the time the crime was alternative defenses available to it, even inconsistent
committed. ones. We note, too, that the defense’s claim of
exemption from liability was made for the first time in
its appeal to the CA. While this may initially imply an
The petitioner posits that the burden of proof should
essential change of theory that is usually disallowed
be on the prosecution as the party who stands to lose
on appeal for reasons of fairness, 22 no essential
the case if no evidence is presented to show that the
change is really involved as the claim for exemption
petitioner was not a 15-year old minor entitled to the
from liability is not incompatible with the evidence
exempting benefit provided under Section 6 of R.A.
submitted below and with the lower courts’ conclusion
No. 9344.14 He additionally claims that Sections
that the petitioner is guilty of the crime charged. An
3,15 7,16 and 6817 of the law also provide a presumption
exempting circumstance, by its nature, admits that
of minority in favor of a child in conflict with the law, so
criminal and civil liabilities exist, but the accused is
that any doubt regarding his age should be resolved
freed from criminal liability; in other words, the
in his favor.
accused committed a crime, but he cannot be held
criminally liable therefor because of an exemption In the present case, the petitioner claims total
granted by law. In admitting this type of defense on exemption from criminal liability because he was not
appeal, we are not unmindful, too, that the appeal of a more than 15 years old at the time the rape took
criminal case (even one made under Rule 45) opens place. The CA disbelieved this claim for the
the whole case for review, even on questions that the petitioner’s failure to present his birth certificate as
parties did not raise.23 By mandate of the Constitution, required by Section 64 of R.A. No. 9344. 29 The CA
no less, we are bound to look into every circumstance also found him disqualified to avail of a suspension of
and resolve every doubt in favor of the accused. 24 It is sentence because the imposable penalty for the crime
with these considerations in mind and in obedience to of rape is reclusion perpetua to death.
the direct and more specific commands of R.A. No.
9344 on how the cases of children in conflict with the Burden of Proof
law should be handled that we rule in this Rule 45
petition. Burden of proof, under Section 1, Rule 131 of the
Rules on Evidence, refers to the duty of a party to
We find a review of the facts of the present case and present evidence on the facts in issue in order to
of the applicable law on exemption from liability establish his or her claim or defense. In a criminal
compelling because of the patent errors the CA case, the burden of proof to establish the guilt of the
committed in these regards. Specifically, the CA’s accused falls upon the prosecution which has the duty
findings of fact on the issues of age and minority, to prove all the essential ingredients of the crime. The
premised on the supposed absence of evidence, are prosecution completes its case as soon as it has
contradicted by the evidence on record; it also presented the evidence it believes is sufficient to
manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not prove the required elements. At this point, the burden
disputed by the parties that, if properly considered, of evidence shifts to the defense to disprove what the
would justify a different conclusion.25 prosecution has shown by evidence, or to prove by
evidence the circumstances showing that the accused
In tackling the issues of age and minority, we stress at did not commit the crime charged or cannot otherwise
the outset that the ages of both the petitioner and the be held liable therefor. In the present case, the
complaining victim are material and are at issue. The prosecution completed its evidence and had done
age of the petitioner is critical for purposes of his everything that the law requires it to do. The burden of
entitlement to exemption from criminal liability under evidence has now shifted to the defense which now
R.A. No. 9344, while the age of the latter is material in claims, by an affirmative defense, that the accused,
characterizing the crime committed and in considering even if guilty, should be exempt from criminal liability
the resulting civil liability that R.A. No. 9344 does not because of his age when he committed the crime. The
remove. defense, therefore, not the prosecution, has the
burden of showing by evidence that the petitioner was
Minority as an Exempting Circumstance 15 years old or less when he committed the rape
charged.30
R.A. No. 9344 was enacted into law on April 28, 2006
and took effect on May 20, 2006. Its intent is to This conclusion can also be reached by considering
promote and protect the rights of a child in conflict that minority and age are not elements of the crime of
with the law or a child at risk by providing a system rape; the prosecution therefore has no duty to prove
that would ensure that children are dealt with in a these circumstances. To impose the burden of proof
manner appropriate to their well-being through a on the prosecution would make minority and age
variety of disposition measures such as care, integral elements of the crime when clearly they are
guidance and supervision orders, counseling, not. 31 If the prosecution has a burden related to age,
probation, foster care, education and vocational this burden relates to proof of the age of the victim as
training programs and other alternatives to a circumstance that qualifies the crime of rape. 32
institutional care.26 More importantly in the context of
this case, this law modifies as well the minimum age Testimonial Evidence is Competent Evidence
limit of criminal irresponsibility for minor offenders; it to Prove the Accused’s Minority and Age
changed what paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 12 of the
Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended, previously The CA seriously erred when it rejected testimonial
provided – i.e., from "under nine years of age" and evidence showing that the petitioner was only 15
"above nine years of age and under fifteen" (who years old at the time he committed the crime. Section
acted without discernment) – to "fifteen years old or 7 of R.A. No. 9344 expressly states how the age of a
under" and "above fifteen but below 18" (who acted child in conflict with the law may be determined:
without discernment) in determining exemption from
criminal liability. In providing exemption, the new law – SEC. 7. Determination of Age. - x x x The age of a
as the old paragraphs 2 and 3, Article 12 of the RPC child may be determined from the child's birth
did – presumes that the minor offenders completely certificate, baptismal certificate or any other pertinent
lack the intelligence to distinguish right from wrong, so documents. In the absence of these documents, age
that their acts are deemed involuntary ones for which may be based on information from the child
they cannot be held accountable. 27 The current law himself/herself, testimonies of other persons, the
also drew its changes from the principle of restorative physical appearance of the child and other relevant
justice that it espouses; it considers the ages 9 to 15 evidence. In case of doubt as to the age of the child, it
years as formative years and gives minors of these shall be resolved in his/her favor. [Emphasis supplied]
ages a chance to right their wrong through diversion
and intervention measures.28
Rule 30-A of the Rules and Regulations Implementing
R.A. No. 9344 provides the implementing details of
this provision by enumerating the measures that may
be undertaken by a law enforcement officer to In these cases, we gave evidentiary weight to
ascertain the child’s age: testimonial evidence on the accused’s minority and
age upon the concurrence of the following conditions:
(1) Obtain documents that show proof of the (1) the absence of any other satisfactory evidence
child’s age, such as such as the birth certificate, baptismal certificate, or
similar documents that would prove the date of birth of
(a) Child’s birth certificate; the accused; (2) the presence of testimony from
accused and/or a relative on the age and minority of
the accused at the time of the complained incident
(b) Child’s baptismal certificate ;or
without any objection on the part of the prosecution;
and (3) lack of any contrary evidence showing that the
(c) Any other pertinent documents accused’s and/or his relatives’ testimonies are untrue.
such as but not limited to the child’s
school records, dental records, or
All these conditions are present in this case. First, the
travel papers.
petitioner and CCC both testified regarding his
minority and age when the rape was
(2) x x x committed.39 Second, the records before us show that
these pieces of testimonial evidence were never
(3) When the above documents cannot be objected to by the prosecution. And lastly, the
obtained or pending receipt of such prosecution did not present any contrary evidence to
documents, the law enforcement officer shall prove that the petitioner was above 15 years old when
exhaust other measures to determine age by: the crime was committed.

(a) Interviewing the child and obtaining We also stress that the last paragraph of Section 7 of
information that indicate age (e.g. date R.A. No. 9344 provides that any doubt on the age of
of birthday, grade level in school); the child must be resolved in his favor.40 Hence, any
doubt in this case regarding the petitioner’s age at the
(b) Interviewing persons who may time he committed the rape should be resolved in his
have knowledge that indicate[s] age of favor. In other words, the testimony that the petitioner
the child (e.g. relatives, neighbors, as 15 years old when the crime took place should be
teachers, classmates); read to mean that he was not more than 15 years old
as this is the more favorable reading that R.A. No.
(c) Evaluating the physical 9344 directs.
appearance (e.g. height, built) of the
child; and Given the express mandate of R.A. No. 9344, its
implementing rules, and established jurisprudence in
(d) Obtaining other relevant evidence accord with the latest statutory developments, the CA
of age. therefore cannot but be in error in not appreciating
and giving evidentiary value to the petitioner’s and
xxx CCC’s testimonies relating to the former’s age.

Section 7, R.A. No. 9344, while a relatively new law Retroactive Application of R.A. No. 9344
(having been passed only in 2006), does not depart
from the jurisprudence existing at that time on the That the petitioner committed the rape before R.A.
evidence that may be admitted as satisfactory proof of No. 9344 took effect and that he is no longer a minor
the accused’s minority and age. (he was already 20 years old when he took the stand)
will not bar him from enjoying the benefit of total
In the 1903 case of U.S. v. Bergantino,33 we accepted exemption that Section 6 of R.A. No. 9344 grants. 41 As
testimonial evidence to prove the minority and age of we explained in discussing Sections 64 and 68 of R.A.
the accused in the absence of any document or other No. 934442 in the recent case of Ortega v. People:43
satisfactory evidence showing the date of birth. This
was followed by U.S. v. Roxas34 where the Section 64 of the law categorically provides that cases
defendant’s statement about his age was considered of children 15 years old and below, at the time of the
sufficient, even without corroborative evidence, to commission of the crime, shall immediately be
establish that he was a minor of 16 years at the time dismissed and the child shall be referred to the
he committed the offense charged. Subsequently, in appropriate local social welfare and development
People v. Tismo,35 the Court appreciated the minority officers (LSWDO). What is controlling, therefore, with
and age of the accused on the basis of his claim that respect to the exemption from criminal liability of the
he was 17 years old at the time of the commission of CICL, is not the CICL’s age at the time of the
the offense in the absence of any contradictory promulgation of judgment but the CICL’s age at the
evidence or objection on the part of the prosecution. time of the commission of the offense. In short, by
Then, in People v. Villagracia, 36 we found the virtue of R.A. No. 9344, the age of criminal
testimony of the accused that he was less than 15 irresponsibility has been raised from 9 to 15 years old.
years old sufficient to establish his minority. We [Emphasis supplied]
reiterated these dicta in the cases of People v.
Morial37 and David v. Court of Appeals, 38 and ruled The retroactive application of R.A. No. 9344 is also
that the allegations of minority and age by the justified under Article 22 of the RPC, as amended,
accused will be accepted as facts upon the which provides that penal laws are to be given
prosecution’s failure to disprove the claim by contrary retroactive effect insofar as they favor the accused
evidence. who is not found to be a habitual criminal. Nothing in
the records of this case indicates that the petitioner is proved is that she is less than 12
a habitual criminal. years old;

Civil Liability c. If the victim is alleged to be below

12 years of age and what is sought to
The last paragraph of Section 6 of R.A. No. 9344 be proved is that she is less than 18
provides that the accused shall continue to be civilly years old.
liable despite his exemption from criminal liability;
hence, the petitioner is civilly liable to AAA despite his 4. In the absence of a certificate of live birth,
exemption from criminal liability. The extent of his civil authentic document, or the testimony of the
liability depends on the crime he would have been victim’s mother or relatives concerning the
liable for had he not been found to be exempt from victim’s age, the complainant’s testimony will
criminal liability. suffice provided that it is expressly and clearly
admitted by the accused.
The RTC and CA found, based on item (1) of Article
266-B of the RPC, as amended, that the petitioner is 5. It is the prosecution that has the burden of
guilty of qualified rape because of his relationship with proving the age of the offended party. The
AAA within the second civil degree of consanguinity failure of the accused to object to the
and the latter’s minority.44 Both courts accordingly testimonial evidence regarding age shall not
imposed the civil liability corresponding to qualified be taken against him. [Emphasis supplied]
rape.
The records fail to show any evidence proving the age
The relationship between the petitioner and AAA, as of AAA. They do not likewise show that the petitioner
siblings, does not appear to be a disputed matter. ever expressly and clearly admitted AAA’s age at the
Their mother, CCC, declared in her testimony that time of the rape. Pursuant to Pruna, neither can his
AAA and the petitioner are her children. The failure to object to AAA’s testimony be taken against
prosecution and the defense likewise stipulated in the him.
proceedings below that the relationship exists. We
find, however, that AAA’s minority, though alleged in Thus, the required concurrence of circumstances that
the Information, had not been sufficiently would upgrade the crime to qualified rape – i.e.,
proven.45 People v. Pruna46 laid down these guidelines relationship within the third degree of consanguinity
in appreciating the age of the complainant: and minority of the victim – does not exist. The crime
for which the petitioner should have been found
In order to remove any confusion that may be criminally liable should therefore only be simple rape
engendered by the foregoing cases, we hereby set pursuant to par. 1, Article 266-A of the RPC, not
the following guidelines in appreciating age, either as qualified rape. The civil liability that can be imposed
an element of the crime or as a qualifying on the petitioner follows the characterization of the
circumstance. crime and the attendant circumstances.

1. The best evidence to prove the age of the Accordingly, we uphold the grant of moral damages of
offended party is an original or certified true ₱50,000.00 but increase the awarded exemplary
copy of the certificate of live birth of such damages ₱30,000.00, both pursuant to prevailing
party. jurisprudence.47 Moral damages are automatically
awarded to rape victims without the necessity of
2. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, proof; the law assumes that the victim suffered moral
similar authentic documents such as injuries entitling her to this award.48 Article 2230 of the
baptismal certificate and school records which Civil Code justifies the award of exemplary damages
show the date of birth of the victim would because of the presence of the aggravating
suffice to prove age. circumstances of relationship between AAA and
petitioner and dwelling.49 As discussed above, the
3. If the certificate of live birth or authentic relationship (between the parties) is not disputed. We
document is shown to have been lost or appreciate dwelling as an aggravating circumstance
destroyed or otherwise unavailable, the based on AAA’s testimony that the rape was
testimony, if clear and credible, of the victim’s committed in their house.50 While dwelling as an
mother or a member of the family either by aggravating circumstance was not alleged in the
affinity or consanguinity who is qualified to Information, established jurisprudence holds that it
testify on matters respecting pedigree such as may nevertheless be appreciated as basis for the
the exact age or date of birth of the offended award of exemplary damages.51 lavvphi1

party pursuant to Section 40, Rule 130 of the

Rules on Evidence shall be sufficient under We modify the awarded civil indemnity of ₱75,000.00
the following circumstances: to ₱50,000.00, the latter being the civil indemnity
appropriate for simple rape52 on the finding that rape
a. If the victim is alleged to be below 3 had been committed.53
years of age and what is sought to be
proved is that she is less than 7 years In light of the above discussion and our conclusions,
old; we see no need to discuss the petition’s third
assignment of error.
b. If the victim is alleged to be below 7
years of age and what is sought to be
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant REYNATO S. PUNO
petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated February Chief Justice
29, 2008 and Resolution dated May 22, 2008 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.-CR.-H.C. No. 02218
are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

Pursuant to Section 64 of R.A. No. 9344, Criminal Footnotes

Case No. 120292-H for rape filed against petitioner
Robert Sierra y Caneda is hereby DISMISSED. ** Designated additional Member of the
Petitioner is REFERRED to the appropriate local Second Division effective June 3, 2009 per
social welfare and development officer who shall Special Order No. 658 dated June 3, 2009.
proceed in accordance with the provisions of R.A. No.
9344. Petitioner is ORDERED to pay the victim, AAA,
₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱50,000.00 as moral *** Designated additional Member of the
damages, and ₱30,000.00 as exemplary damages. Second Division effective May 11, 2009 per
Special Order No. 635 dated May 7, 2009.
Unless there are other valid causes for petitioner’s
continued detention, we hereby ORDER his
1
 Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
IMMEDIATE RELEASE under the above terms.
2
 Dated February 29, 2008; rollo, pp. 81-103.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Director of
the Bureau of Corrections in Muntinlupa City for its
3
 Dated May 22, 2008; id., pp. 115-117.
immediate implementation. The Director of the Bureau
of Corrections is directed to report to this Court within 4
 Docketed as CA-G.R.-CR.-H.C. No. 02218,
five days from receipt of this Decision the action he and penned by Associate Justice Andres B.
has taken. Reyes, Jr., with Associate Justice Jose C.
Mendoza and Associate Justice Ramon M.
Let a copy of this Decision be likewise furnished the Bato, Jr. concurring.
Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council.
5
 The real name of the victim as well as those
SO ORDERED. of her immediate family members is withheld
per Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610 (An Act
ARTURO D. BRION Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special
Associate Justice Protection Against Child Abuse, Exploitation
and Discrimination, and for Other Purposes)
and R.A. No. 9262 (An Act Defining Violence
WE CONCUR: Against Women and Their Children, Providing
for Protective Measures for Victims,
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Prescribing Penalties Therefore, and for Other
Associate Justice Purposes).
Chairperson
 This case was docketed as Criminal Case
6

CONCHITA CARPIO- MINITA CHICO- No. 120292-H; rollo, pp. 82-83.

MORALES NAZARIO**
Associate Justice Associate Justice 7
 Id., pp. 51 and 53.

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO*** 8

 Id.,pp. 81-82.
Associate Justice
9
 SEC. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal
ATTESTATION Responsibility. - A child fifteen (15) years of
age or under at the time of the commission of
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had the offense shall be exempt from criminal
been reached in consultation before the case was liability. However, the child shall be subjected
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s to an intervention program pursuant to Section
Division. 20 of this Act. x x x

LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING 10
 Rollo, pp. 102-103.
Associate Justice
Chairperson 11
 Id., pp. 127-129.

CERTIFICATION 12
 SEC. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal
Responsibility. – A child fifteen (15) years of
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, age or under at the time of the commission of
and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby offense shall be exempt from criminal liability.
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision However, the child shall be subjected to an
were reached in consultation before the case was intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s this Act.
Division.
 A child above fifteen (15) years but  Toledo v. People, G.R. No. 158057,
22

below eighteen (18) years of age shall September 24, 2004, 439 SCRA 94, 103.
likewise be exempt from criminal
liability and be subjected to an  People v. Yam-Id, G.R. No. 126116,
23

intervention program, unless he/she January 21, 1999, 308 SCRA 651, 655, citing
has acted with discernment, in which Sacay v. Sandiganbayan, 142 SCRA 593
case, such child shall be subjected to (1986).
the appropriate proceedings in
accordance with this Act. 24
 Id.

The exemption from criminal liability  Manila Doctors Hospital v. So Un

25

herein established does not include Chua, G.R. No. 150355, July 31, 2006, 497
exemption from civil liability, which SCRA 230, 238.
shall be enforced in accordance with
existing laws. 26
 Section 2(d) of R.A. No. 9344.
 G.R. No. 159208, August 18, 2006, 499
13
 See: Reyes, Revised Penal Code; Book 1
27
SCRA 341.
(2008 ed.), p. 40.
14
 Rollo, pp. 10-23. 28
 See Section 4(q) of R.A. No. 9344.
15
 SEC. 3. Liberal Construction of this Act. - 29
 SEC. 64. Children in Conflict with the
In case of doubt, the interpretation of any of
Law Fifteen (15) Years Old and Below. -
the provisions of this Act, including its
Upon effectivity of this Act, cases of children
implementing rules and regulations (IRRs),
fifteen (15) years old and below at the time of
shall be construed liberally in favor of the child
the commission of the crime shall immediately
in conflict with the law.
be dismissed and the child shall be referred to
the appropriate local social welfare and
16
 SEC. 7. Determination of Age. - The child development officer. Such officer, upon
in conflict with the law shall enjoy the thorough assessment of the child, shall
presumption of minority. He/She shall enjoy all determine whether to release the child to the
the rights of a child in conflict with the law until custody of his/her parents, or refer the child to
he/she is proven to be eighteen (18) years old prevention programs as provided under this
or older. The age of a child may be Act. Those with suspended sentences and
determined from the child's birth certificate, undergoing rehabilitation at the youth
baptismal certificate or any other pertinent rehabilitation center shall likewise be
documents. In the absence of these released, unless it is contrary to the best
documents, age may be based on information interest of the child.
from the child himself/herself, testimonies of
other persons, the physical appearance of the
 People v. Concepcion, G.R. No. 136844,
30
child and other relevant evidence. In case of
August 1, 2002, 386 SCRA 74, 78; See:
doubt as to the age of the child, it shall be
People v. Austria, G.R. Nos. 111517-19, July
resolved in his/her favor.
31, 1996, 260 SCRA 106, 117; Ty v. People,
G.R. No. 149275, September 27, 2004, 439
17
 SEC. 68. Children Who Have Been SCRA 220, 231; People v. Castillo, G.R. No.
Convicted and are Serving Sentence. - 172695, June 29, 2007, 526 SCRA 215,
Persons who have been convicted and are 227; Ortega v. People, G.R. No. 151085,
serving sentence at the time of the effectivity August 20, 2008.
of this Act, and who were below the age of
eighteen (18) years at the time the 31
 The elements of rape under paragraph 1 of
commission of the offense for which they were
Article 266-A of the RPC, as amended are: (1)
convicted and are serving sentence, shall
The offender is a man; (2) The offender had
likewise benefit from the retroactive
carnal knowledge of a woman; and (3) That
application of this Act. They shall be entitled to
such act is accomplished under any of the
appropriate dispositions provided under this
following circumstances: (a) by using force
Act and their sentences shall be adjusted
and intimidation; or (b) when the woman is
accordingly. They shall be immediately
deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
released if they are so qualified under this Act
or (c) by means of fraudulent machination or
or other applicable law.
grave abuse of authority; or (d) when the
woman is under 12 years of age or demented;
 Supra note 13, citing the case of People v.
18
Reyes, II Revised Penal Code, p. 556 (2008
Lugto, 190 SCRA 754 (1990). edition).
19
 Rollo, p. 46.  People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. Nos. 131167-68,
32

August 23, 2000, 338 SCRA 582; People v.

 People v. Bon, G.R. No. 166401, October
20
Villarama, G.R. No. 139211, February 12,
20, 2006, 506 SCRA 168, 185. 2003, 397 SCRA 306.
21
 Ibid. 33
 3 Phil 59, 61 (1903).
34
 5 Phil 186, 187 (1905).  G.R. No. 138471, October 10, 2002, 390
46

SCRA 577, 603-604; see also People v. Lopit,

 G.R. No. 44773, December 4,1991, 204
35 G.R. No. 177742, December 17, 2008.
SCRA 535, 556-557.
 Id., People v. Sia, G.R. No. 174059,
47

 G.R. No. 94471, September 14, 1993, 226

36 February 27, 2009 and People v. Bandin, G.R.
SCRA 374, 381. No. 176531, April 24, 2009

 G.R. No. 129295, August 15, 2001, 368

37  People v. Suarez, G.R. Nos. 153573-76,
48

SCRA 96, 125-126. April 15, 2005, 456 SCRA 333, 352.

 G.R. Nos. 11168-69, June 17, 1998, 290

38 49
 Paragraph 3 of Article 13 and Article 15 of
SCRA 727, 745. the RPC, as amended.

39
 See note 7.
50
 Rollo, p. 46.

40
 Section 7 of R.A. No. 9344.  People v. Blancaflor, G.R. No. 130586,
51

January 29, 2004, 421 SCRA 354, 365-366.

41
 Rollo, p. 51.
52
 Supra note 46.
42
 SECTION 64. Children in Conflict with the
Law Fifteen (15) Years Old and Below. –  People v. Canares, G.R. No. 174065,
53

Upon effectivity of this Act, cases of children February 18, 2009.

fifteen (15) years old and below at the time of
the commission of the crime shall immediately
be dismissed and the child shall be referred to
the appropriate local social welfare and
development officer. Such officer, upon
thorough assessment of the child shall
determine whether to release the child to the
custody of his/her parents, or refer the child to
prevention programs, as provided under this
Act. Those with suspended sentences and
undergoing rehabilitation at the youth
rehabilitation center shall likewise be
released, unless it is contrary to the best
interest of the child.

xxx

SECTION 68. Children Who Have

Been Convicted and are Serving
Sentences. -- Persons who have been
convicted and are serving sentence at
the time of the effectivity of this Act,
and who were below the age of
eighteen (18) years at the time of the
commission of the offense for which
they were convicted and are serving
sentence, shall likewise benefit from
the retroactive application of this Act.
They shall be entitled to appropriate
dispositions provided under this Act
and their sentences shall be adjusted
accordingly. They shall be
immediately released if they are so
qualified under this Act or other
applicable laws.

43
 Supra note 30.

 1) Whether the victim is under eighteen (18)

44

years of age and the offender is a parent,

ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by
consanguinity or affinity within the third civil
degree, or the common law spouse of the
parent of the victim.

45
 Rollo, pp. 51 and 84.