Jose Maria College College

of Law CRIMINAL LAW

1 COURSE OUTLINE and CASE LIST Professor: Atty. Dimpna D. Bermejo-Dulay, MSChem PhD

 MINIMUM AGE OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY AND TREATMENT OF CHILD BELOW

AGE OF RESPONSIBILITY

 Determination of Age [Sec. 7, RA 9344]

 Exemption from criminal liability

 Discernment, definition

 INTENT vs DISCERNMENT

 What is automatic suspension of sentence as provided for in Sec. 38 of R.A. 9344?

 Cases:

People vs Doquena, 68 Phil, 580 (1939)

People vs. Alcabao (CA, 44 OG 5006)

- Llave vs. Peolple (April 26, 2006)
NIEL F. LLAVE v. PEOPLE, GR NO. 166040, 2006-04-26
Facts:
The spouses Domingo and Marilou Santos were residents of Pasay City.
One of their children, Debbielyn, was born on December 8, 1994
In 2002, she was a Grade II student at the Villamor Air Base Elementary School in Pasay
City... and attended classes from 12:00 noon to 6:00 p.m.
Domingo eked out a living as a jeepney driver, while Marilou sold quail eggs at a nearby churc... h
.
Adjacent to their house was that of
Teofisto Bucud, a barbecue vendor who would usually start selling at 6:30 p.m
Next to
Teofisto's residence was a vacant house.
Debbielyn testified that on September 24, 2002, she arrived home at past 6:00 p.m. She changed her
clothes and proceeded to her mother's store. Marilou asked her daughter to bring home the container with
the unsold quail eggs.
Debbielyn did as told and... went on her way. As she neared the vacant house, she saw petitioner, who
suddenly pulled her behind a pile of hollow blocks which was in front of the vacant house. There was a
little light from the lamp post.
She resisted to no avail.
Petitioner ordered her to lie down on the cement. Petrified, she complied. He removed her shorts and
underwear then removed his own. He got on top of her.
She felt his penis being inserted into her vagina. He kissed her
She felt pain and cried.
She was sure there were passersby on the street near the vacant house at the time.
t was then that Teofisto came out of their house and heard the girl's cries. He rushed to the place and saw
petitioner on top of Debbielyn, naked from the waist down. Teofisto shouted at petitioner, and the latter
fled from the scene. Teofisto told Debbielyn to inform her... parents about what happened.
She told her father about the incident.
Her parents later reported what happened to the police authorities.
Debbielyn told the police that petitioner was a bad boy because... he was a rapist.
He rushed to the place and saw petitioner, naked from waist down, on... top of Debbielyn, making
pumping motions on her anus.
Petitioner hurriedly put his shorts on and fled.
etitioner testified and declared that he was a freshman at the Pasay City South High School.
He had been one of the three outstanding students in grade school and received awards such as Best in
Mathematics
He also met his father, who asked him what he had done to their neighbor. He was also told that the
victim's father was so angry that the... latter wanted to kill him
He did not ask his father for the name of the angry neighbor. He was also told to pass by Cadena de Amor
Street in going to his aunt's house. Petitioner also declared that his mother prodded him to go to his
aunt's... house
He did not know of any reason why Debbielyn and her parents would charge him with rape... crediting
him with the special mitigating circumstance of minority
He denied having raped the private complainant. He declared that at 6:30 p.m. on September 24, 2002, he
was outside of their house to... buy rice in the carinderia
Issues:
if in the affirmative, whether he acted with discernment in... perpetrating the crime;
Ruling:
Article 12, paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code provides that a person over nine years of age and under
fifteen is exempt from criminal liability, unless he acted with discernment. The basic reason behind the
exempting circumstance is complete absence of intelligence, freedom... of action of the offender which is
an essential element of a felony either by dolus or by culpa. Intelligence is the power necessary to
determine the morality of human acts to distinguish a licit from an illicit act.
On the... other hand, discernment is the mental capacity to understand the difference between right and
wrong. The prosecution is burdened to prove that the accused acted with discernment by evidence of
physical appearance, attitude or deportment not only before and during the commission... of the act, but
also after and during the trial
The surrounding circumstances must demonstrate that the minor knew what he was doing and that it was
wrong. Such circumstance includes the gruesome nature of the crime and the minor's cunning and...
shrewdness.

- Jose vs. People (January 13, 2005)

G.R. No. 162052 January 13, 2005ALVIN JOSE vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINESFacts:
On November 14, 1995, P/Supt Joseph Castro received an informationfrom an unnamed informant that a
big time group of drug pushers fromGreenhills will deliver 100 grams of shabu at Chowking. Acting on
such report,SPO1 Bonifacio Gueverra was assigned to act as a poseur
buyer. They positioned their cars at the parking area where they had acommanding view of people going
in and out. In the afternoon a Toyota Corollaarrived, Sonny Zarraga was the driver with Alvin Jose. The
unnamed informantapproached and talked to Sonny Zarraga. Then, the informant called SPO1Bonifacio
Guevarra and informed the latter that Sonny Zarraga had with him100 grams of 
shabu 
. SPO1 Guevarra offered to buy the shabu. Sonny Zarragaasked SPO1 Bonifacio Guevarra if he had the
money. Guevarra said yes. Heshowed the aforecited bundle of "money bills." Sonny Zarraga then asked
Alvin Jose to bring out the shabu and handover to Guevarra. SPO1 Guevarra, inturn, handed the bundle of
"money bills. Then the other police approached andintroduced themselves as Narcom Operatives. They
arrested Sonny Zarragaand Alvin
Jose. The RTC finds both the accused Sonny Zarraga and Alvin Jose guilty beyond reasonable doubt, for
violation of R.A. 6425.On appeal to the CA, the CA rendered judgment affirming the decisionappealed
from with modification. The appellate court reduced the penalty imposed on appellant Alvin Jose, on its
finding that he was only thirteen (13) years old when he committed the crime.Appellant Jose, now the
petitioner, filed his petition for review on
certiorari 
, alleging that under paragraph 3, Article 12 of the Revised PenalCode, a minor over nine (9) and under
fifteen (15) years of age at the time of thecommission of the crime is exempt from criminal liability.
Issue:
Whether or not Alvin Jose can be exempt from criminal liability underthe mitigating circumstances of
minority.
Ruling:
Yes. Under Article 12(3) of the Revised Penal Code, a minor over nine years of age and under fifteen is
exempt from criminal liability if charged with afelony. The law applies even if such minor is charged
with a crime defined andpenalized by a special penal law. In such case, it is the burden of the minor
toprove his age in order for him to be exempt from criminal liability. The reasonfor the exemption is that
a minor of such age is presumed lacking the mentalelement of a crime.
- U.S. vs. Maralit (January 25, 1917)

- People vs. Cortezano & Cortezano (G.R. no. 123140, September 23, 2003)

- People vs. Capistrano (G.R. No. L-4549, October 22, 1952)

- Valcesar Estioca vs. People (G.R. No. 173876, June 27, 2008)

- Robert Sierra vs. People (G.R. No. 182941, July 3, 2009)

GR No. 182941, 2009-07-03
Facts:
609 Phil. 446
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 182941, July 03, 2009 ]
ROBERT SIERRA Y CANEDA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
DECISION
BRION, J.:
In August 2000, thirteen-year-old AAA[5] was playing 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 with them. The petitioner then undressed
BBB and had sexual intercourse with her. Afterwards, he turned to AAA, undressed her, and also had
sexual intercourse with her by inserting his male organ into hers. The petitioner warned AAA not to tell
anybody of what they did.
AAA subsequently disclosed the incident to Elena Gallano (her teacher) and to Dolores Mangantula (the
parent of a classmate), who both accompanied AAA to the barangay office. AAA was later subjected to
physical examination that revealed a laceration on her hymen... consistent with her claim of sexual abuse.
On the basis of the complaint and the physical findings, the petitioner was charged with rape
The petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge and raised the defenses of denial and alibi.
He claimed that he was selling cigarettes at the... time of the alleged rape. He also claimed that AAA only
invented her story because she bore him a grudge for the beatings he gave her.
The parties' mother (CCC) supported the petitioner's story; she also stated that AAA was a troublemaker.
Both CCC and son testified that the petitioner was fifteen (15) years old when the alleged incident
happened.[7]
The defense also presented BBB who denied that the petitioner raped her; she confirmed the petitioner's
claim that AAA bore her brother a grudge.
the RTC convicted the petitioner of qualified rape
The petitioner elevated this RTC decision to the CA by attacking AAA's credibility. He also invoked
paragraph 1, Section 6 of R.A. No. 9344 (Juvenile 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 CA nevertheless affirmed the petitioner's conviction with modification as to penalty
The CA denied the petitioner's subsequent motion for reconsideration; hence, the present petition.
Issues:
Whether or not the CA erred in not applying the provisions of R.A. No. 9344 on the petitioner's
exemption from criminal liability;
(2)
Whether or not the CA erred in ruling that it was incumbent for the defense to present the petitioner's
birth certificate to invoke Section 64 of R.A. No. 9344 when the burden of proving his age lies with the
prosecution by express provisions of R.A. No.
9344; an
Ruling:
In August 2000, thirteen-year-old AAA[5] was playing 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 with them. The petitioner then undressed
BBB and had sexual intercourse with her. Afterwards, he turned to AAA, undressed her, and also had
sexual intercourse with her by inserting his male organ into hers. The petitioner warned AAA not to tell
anybody of what they did.
AAA subsequently disclosed the incident to Elena Gallano (her teacher) and to Dolores Mangantula (the
parent of a classmate), who both accompanied AAA to the barangay office. AAA was later subjected to
physical examination that revealed a laceration on her hymen... consistent with her claim of sexual abuse.
On the basis of the complaint and the physical findings, the petitioner was charged with rape under the
following Information:
The threshold issue in this case is the determination of who bears the burden of proof for purposes of
determining exemption from criminal liability based on the age of the petitioner at the time the crime was
committed.
THE COURT'S
We grant the petition.
The records show that the prosecution established all the elements of the crime charged through the
credible testimony of AAA and... the other corroborating evidence; sexual intercourse did indeed take
place as the information charged.
While the defense, on appeal, raises a new ground - i.e., exemption from criminal liability under R.A. No.
9344 - that implies an admission of guilt, this consideration in no way swayed the con... c
, exemption from criminal liability under R.A. No. 9344 - that implies an admission of guilt, this
consideration in no way swayed the conclusion... conclusion
While the defense, on appeal, raises a new ground - i.e., exemption from criminal liability under R.A. No.
9344 - that implies an admission of guilt, this consideration in no way swayed the conclusion we made
above, as the defense is entitled to present all alternative... defenses available to it, even inconsistent 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 essential change of theory that is usually disallowed on
appeal for reasons... of fairness, [22] no essential change is really involved as the claim for exemption
from liability is not incompatible with the evidence submitted below and with the lower courts'
conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the crime charged. An exempting... circumstance, by its nature,
admits that criminal and civil liabilities exist, but the accused is freed from criminal liability; in other
words, the accused committed a crime, but he cannot be held criminally liable therefor because of an
exemption granted by law. In admitting... this type of defense on appeal, we are not unmindful, too, that
the appeal of a criminal case (even one made under Rule 45) opens the whole case for review, even on
questions that the parties did not raise.[23] By mandate of the Constitution, no less, we... are bound to
look into every circumstance and resolve every doubt in favor of the accused.[24] It is with these
considerations in mind and in obedience to the direct and more specific commands of R.A. No. 9344 on
how the cases of children in conflict with... the law should be handled that we rule in this Rule 45
petition.
In the present case, the petitioner claims total exemption from criminal liability because he was not more
than 15 years old at the time the rape took place. The CA disbelieved this claim for the petitioner's failure
to present his birth certificate as required by Section 64 of
R.A. No. 9344.[29] The CA also found him disqualified to avail of a suspension of sentence because the
imposable penalty for the crime of rape is reclusion perpetua to death.
The CA seriously erred when it rejected testimonial evidence showing that the petitioner was only 15
years old at the time he committed the crime. Section 7 of R.A. No. 9344 expressly states how the age of
a child in conflict with the law may be determined
All these conditions are present in this case. First, the petitioner and CCC both testified regarding his
minority and age when the rape was committed.[39
The retroactive application of R.A. No. 9344 is also justified under Article 22 of the RPC, as amended,
which provides that penal laws are to be given retroactive effect insofar as they favor the accused who is
not found to be a habitual criminal. Nothing in the records of this... case indicates that the petitioner is a
habitual criminal.
The crime for which the petitioner should have been found criminally... liable should therefore only be
simple rape
We appreciate dwelling as an aggravating circumstance based on AAA's testimony that the rape was
committed in their house.[50] While dwelling... as an aggravating circumstance
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is GRANTED.
Principles:

- Raymund Madali vs. People (G.R. No. 180380, August 4, 2009)

- Joemar Ortega vs. People (August 20, 2008)

- Remiendo vs. People (October 9, 2009)

- People vs. Hermie Jacinto (March 16, 2011)

G.R. No. 182239, March 16, 2011
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. HERMIE M. JACINTO,

Facts:
Appellant Hermie Jacinto was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the rape of the then 5-year-old
victim. The crime was committed when appellant was only 17; Judgment was rendered when appellant
was already 25.

Issue:
Whether or not, appellant may benefit from the provisions of RA9344 regarding criminal liability of an
accused who was a minor during the commission of the crime and the suspension of sentence of one who
is no longer a minor during the pronouncement of verdict.

Held:

The Court sustained the conviction of the appellant in view of the straightforward testimony of the victim
and the inconsistencies of the testimonies of the defense witnesses.

The Court did not exempt accused of his criminal liability although he was only 17 during the
commission of the crime since, in view of the circumstances to which accused committed the felony, it
was proved that he acted with discernment. (Sec 6, RA 9344). There was showing that the accused
understood the consequences of his action.

Applying,  the provision of RA 9346, the accused was meted with reclusion perpetua instead of the death
penalty.

As to the civil liability of accused, his minority also had no bearing to the decision of the Court, ordering
accused to pay the victim for damages.

However, the Court afforded the accused the benefit of the suspension of his sentence provided in
Section38 of RA 9344, which made no distinction to an accused found guilty of a capital offense. The
Court stated that what was important was the intent of the Act to uphold the welfare of a child in conflict
with the law. What was to be considered was the fact that accused committed the crime at a tender age.

The Court held that accused may be confined in an agricultural camp or any training facility in
accordance with Sec 51 of RA 9344. The case was remanded to the court of origin to take appropriate
action in accordance to the said provision.

- People v. Mantalaba, G.R. No. 186227, July 20, 2011 reiterating People v.
Sarcia

G.R. No. 186227 Case Digest

G.R. No. 186227, July 20, 2011
People of the Philippines
vs Allen Udtojan Mantalaba
Ponente: Peralta

Facts:
Task Forcer Regional Anti-Crime Emergency Response (RACER) in Butuan City received a report that
Mantalaba who was 17 yrs old was selling shabu. After a buy-bust operation, two informations was filed
against Mantalaba which was later on consolidated. Mantalaba pleaded not guilty.
RTC found Mantalaba guilty beyond reasonable doubt and was penalized of reclusion perpetua to death
and fine of 500k for selling shabu and  (2) for illegally possessing shabu, Mantalaba was penalized, in
application of the ISL, 6 yrs and 1 day as minimum and 8 yrs as maximum of prision mayor and fine of
300k. CA affirmed in toto the decision of the RTC. Thus, the present appeal.

Mantalaba: the lower court gravely erred in convicting him and that there was no evidence of actual sale
between him and the poser-buyer during the buy-bust operation. He also claims that the chain of custody
of the seized shabu was not established.

Issue: Whether Mantalaba is guilty of drug trafficking and possession.

Ruling:
The petition is without merit.

The buy-bust operation was valid, establishing the following: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller,
the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefore. From
the above testimony of the prosecution witness, it was well established that the elements have been
satisfactorily met. The seller and the poseur-buyer were properly identified. The subject dangerous drug,
as well as the marked money used, were also satisfactorily presented. The testimony was also clear as to
the manner in which the buy-bust operation was conducted.

Non-compliance by the apprehending/buy-bust team with Section 21 is not fatal as long as there is
justifiable ground therefor, and as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated/seized
items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team. Its non-compliance will not render an
accused arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible.

As to his minority, Mantalaba was minor during the buy-bust operation but was of legal age during the
promulgation of the decision. It must be noted that RA 9344 took effect after the promulgation of the
RTC's decision against Mantalaba. The RTC did not suspend the sentence in accordance with PD 603
(Child and Youth Welfare Code) and Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law that were applicable at
the time of the promulgation of the judgment. However, as ruled in People vs Sarcia, suspension of
sentence can still be applied but NOT when the offender upon the promulgation of judgment is 21 yrs old.
or older. Mantalaba is now 21 yrs old, therefore his suspension of sentence is already moot and academic.

But as to the penalty, CA must have appreciated Mantalaba's minority as privileged mitigating
circumstance in fixing the penalty. Thus, applying the rules stated above, the proper penalty should be
one degree lower than reclusion perpetua, which is reclusion temporal, the privileged mitigating
circumstance of minority having been appreciated. Necessarily, also applying the Indeterminate Sentence
Law (ISLAW), the minimum penalty should be taken from the penalty next lower in degree which is
prision mayor and the maximum penalty shall be taken from the medium period of reclusion temporal,
there being no other mitigating circumstance nor aggravating circumstance.