Crim1 - People Vs Sarcia - Exempting

People v.
Sarcia
GR No. 169641, Sept. 10, 2009
Facts:
A complaint for acts of lasciviousness was filed against accused-appellant and upon review of the
evidence by the prosecutor the charge was upgraded to rape.
The prosecution alleged that accused-appellant committed the crime of rape against AAA who
was then 5 years old.
AAA was playing with her cousin and two other children in a neighbor’s house when accused
invited her to the backyard of the house and raped here. AAA’s cousin witnessed what happened.
The RTC found accused-appellant guilty and imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua as well
as civil indemnity of P50,000.00 and moral damages of P50,000.00.
The record of the case was forwarded to the SC for automatic review and then transferred to the
CA for appropriate action and disposition.
Accused-appellant denied having committed the crime and interposed the following defenses:
The inconsistency in the testimonies of AAA and her cousin
The inability of AAA to recall the exact date when the crime was committed
The delay in filing the case (the case was filed 4 years after the alleged rape was committed
Absence of proof of force or intimidation
Medical report on negative lacerations
The CA affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty imposed to death and increased the
civil indemnity to P75,000.00 and awarded exemplary damages of P25,000.00 aside from the
P50,000.00 for moral damages.
The case was elevated to the SC for further review.
RA 9344 took effect while the case was pending before the SC.
Issues:
Whether or not accused-appellant was guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

If so, whether or not the penalty imposed was proper.
Can accused-appellant avail of the retroactive effect of RA 9344 with regard to automatic
suspension of sentence.
Ruling:
1. Guilty as charged.
Inconsistency in the testimonies of AAA and her cousin – Inconsistencies in the testimonies of
witnesses, which refer only to minor details and collateral matters, do not affect the veracity and
weight of their testimonies where there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and
the positive identification of the accused. Slight contradictions in fact even serve to strengthen
the credibility of the witnesses and prove that their testimonies are not rehearsed
Inability of AAA to recall the exact date when the crime was committed – Discrepancies regarding
exact dates of rapes are inconsequential and immaterial and cannot discredit the credibility of
the victim as a witness. Failure to specify the exact dates or time when the rapes occurred does
not ipso facto make the information defective on its face. As long as it is alleged that the offense
was committed at any time as near to the actual date when the offense was committed the
information is sufficient.
Delay in filing the case (the case was filed 4 years after the alleged rape was committed) – The
rape victim’s delay or hesitation in reporting the crime does not destroy the truth of the charge
nor is it an indication of deceit. In the absence of other circumstances that show that the charge
was a mere concoction and impelled by some ill motive, delay in the filing of the complainant is
not sufficient to defeat the charge. Here, the failure of AAA’s parents to immediately file this case
was sufficiently justified by the complainant’s father in the latter’s testimony (they had to wait
until they saved enough amount of money for litigation).
Absence of proof of force or intimidation – Proof of force, intimidation or consent is unnecessary,
since none of these is an element of statutory rape. There is a conclusive presumption of absence
of free consent when the rape victim is below the age of twelve.
Medical report on negative lacerations – A medical report is not indispensable in a prosecution
for rape. What is important is that AAA’s testimony meets the test of credibility that is sufficient
to convict the accused.
2. Penalty improper. The proper imposable penalty for accused-appellant is reclusion perpetua.
Under Art. 335 of the RPC, the imposable penalty for statutory rape is death. However, accused-
appellant is entitled to privileged mitigating circumstance of minority because he was 18 years
old at the time of the commission of the offense. Since the prosecution was not able to prove the
exact date and time when the rape was committed, it is not certain that the crime of rape was
committed on or after he reached 18 years of age in 1996.
In assessing the attendance of the mitigating circumstance of minority, all doubts should be
resolved in favor of the accused, it being more beneficial to the latter.
Civil indemnity maintained. Imposition of exemplary damages proper. Moral and exemplary
damages increased to P75,000 and P 30,000.00. Reason: award of moral damages is not
dependent on the actual imposition of the death penalty but on the fact that qualifying
circumstances warranting the imposition of the death penalty attended the commission of the
offense. For exemplary damages, the act must be accompanied by bad faith or done in a wanton,
fraudulent, oppressive or malevolent manner.
3. No suspension of sentence. The promulgation of the sentence of conviction of accused-

appellant by the RTC cannot be suspended as he was about 25 years of age at that time.
Sec. 38 of R.A. No. 9344 provides for the automatic suspension of sentence of a child in conflict
with the law, even if he/she is already 18 years of age or more at the time he/she is found guilty
of the offense charged.
However, Sec. 40 of the same law limits the said suspension of sentence until the said child
reaches the maximum age of 21.
Thus, the application of Secs. 38 and 40 to the suspension of sentence is now moot and academic.
However, accused-appellant shall be entitled to appropriate disposition under Sec. 51 of R.A. No.
9344 which provides for confinement of convicted children.
Sec. 38. Automatic Suspension of Sentence. – Once the child who is under eighteen (18) years of
age at the time of the commission of the offense is found guilty of the offense charged, the court
shall determine and ascertain any civil liability which may have resulted from the offense
committed. However, instead of pronouncing the judgment of conviction, the court shall place
the child in conflict with the law under suspended sentence, without need of application:
Provided, however, That suspension of sentence shall still be applied even if the juvenile is
already eighteen (18) of age or more at the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt.
Upon suspension of sentence and after considering the various circumstances of the child, the
court shall impose the appropriate disposition measures as provided in the Supreme Court on
Juvenile in Conflict with the Law.
Sec. 40. Return of the Child in Conflict with the Law to Court. – If the court finds that the objective
of the disposition measures imposed upon the child in conflict with the law have not been
fulfilled, or if the child in conflict with the law has willfully failed to comply with the condition of
his/her disposition or rehabilitation program, the child in conflict with the law shall be brought
before the court for execution of judgment.
If said child in conflict with the law has reached eighteen (18) years of age while under suspended
sentence, the court shall determine whether to discharge the child in accordance with this Act,
to order execution of sentence, or to extend the suspended sentence for a certain specified
period or until the child reaches the maximum age of twenty-one (21) years.
Sec. 51. Confinement of Convicted Children in Agricultural Camps and Other Training Facilities. –
A child in conflict with the law may, after conviction and upon order of the court, be made to
serve his/her sentence, in lieu of confinement in a regular penal institution, in an agricultural
camp and other training facilities that may be established, maintained, supervised and controlled
by the BUCOR, in coordination with the DSWD.

Crim1 - People Vs Sarcia - Exempting

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crim1 - People Vs Sarcia - Exempting

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v.

Whether or not accused-appellant was guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

3. No suspension of sentence. The promulgation of the sentence of conviction of accused-

You might also like