Jubilla To Roxas Art 12
Jubilla To Roxas Art 12
RESOLUTION He testified that around seven inthe evening or so of March 30, 2000,
he was at the Dalupaon High School campus watching the high school
graduation rites. At half past seven, while walking towards the gate of
BERSAMIN, J.:
Dalupaon High School on his way home, he was ganged up by a group
of four (4) men.
The Court recognizes the mandate of Republic Act No. 9344 (Juvenile
Justice and Welfare Act of 2006) to protect the best interest of the child
The men attacked and started to box him. After the attack he felt dizzy
in conflict with the law through measures that will ensure the
and fell to the ground. He was not able to see or even recognize who
observance of international standards of child protection,1 and to apply
attacked him, so he proceeded home. Shortly after leaving the
the principles of restorative justice in all laws, policies and programs
campus, however, he met somebody whom he thought was one of the
applicable to children in conflict with the law.2 The mandate
four men who ganged up on him. He stabbed the person with the knife
notwithstanding, the Court will not hesitate or halt to impose the
he was, then, carrying. When asked why he was in possession of a
penalty of imprisonment whenever warranted on a child in conflict with
knife, he stated that he used it in preparing food for his friend, Richard
the law.
Candelaria, who was graduating that day. He went home after the
incident.
Antecedents
While inside his house, barangay officials arrived, took him and
The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Camarines Sur charged the brought him to the barangay hall, and later to the Pasacao PNP. On his
petitioner with homicide under the following information docketed as way to the town proper, he came to know that the person he stabbed
Criminal Case No. 2000-0275 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), was Jason Espinola. He felt sad after hearing it.4
Branch 20, in Naga City, to wit:
Judgment of the RTC
That on or about the 30th day of March, 2000 at about 7:30 P.M., in
Barangay Dalupaon, Pasacao, Camarines Sur, Philippines, and within
After trial, the RTC rendered its judgment finding the petitioner guilty of
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with intent to
homicide as charged, and sentenced him to suffer the indeterminate
kill, and without any justifiable cause, did then and there willfully,
penalty of imprisonment for four years and one day of prision
unlawfully and feloniously assault, attack and stab one JAYSON
correccional, as minimum, to eight years and one day of prision mayor,
ESPINOLA Y BANTA with a knife , inflicting upon the latter mortal
as maximum; and to pay to the heirs of the victim ₱81,890.04 as actual
wounds in his body, thus, directly causing his death, per Death
damages for medical and funeral expenses, and ₱50,000.00 as moral
Certification hereto attached as annex "A" and made an integral part
damages.5
hereof, to the damage and prejudice of the deceased’s heirs in such
amount as may be proven in court.
Decision of the CA
Acts Contrary to Law.3
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the petitioner’s
conviction but modified the penalty and the civil liability through the
The CA summarized the facts established by the Prosecution and the
decision promulgated on July 19, 2006,6 disposing thus:
Defense as follows: Alejandro Dequito testified that around seven in
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the Regional Trial
the evening or so of March 30, 2000, he, together with his compadre
Court of Naga City, Branch 20, in Criminal Case Number 2000-0275,
Nicasio, was at the gate of Dalupaon Elementary School watching the
finding appellant Rosal Hubilla y Carillo, guilty beyond reasonable
graduation ceremony if the high school students. While watching, his
doubt of Homicide is, hereby, AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS.
cousin Jason Espinola, herein victim, arrived. Later, however, appellant
Appellants (sic) sentence is reduced to six months and one day to six
approached the victim and stabbed the latter. When asked to
years of prision correccionalas minimum, to six years and one day to
demonstrate in open court how the appellant stabbed the victim, this
twelve years of prision mayor as maximum.
witness demonstrated that with the appellant’s left arm around the neck
of the victim, appellant stabbed the victim using a bladed weapon.
The civil aspect of the case is MODIFIED to read: The award of actual
damages in the amount of Php 81,890.04, representing expenses for
He aided the victim as the latter was already struggling to his feet and
medical and funeral services, is reduced to Php 16,300.00. A civil
later brought him to the hospital.
indemnity, in the amount of Php 50,000.00, is awarded to the legal
heirs of the victim Jason Espinola. Weaffirm in all other respects.
Nicasio Ligadia, witness Dequito’s companion at the time of the
incident, corroborated the testimony of Dequito on all material points.
SO ORDERED.
Marlyn Espinosa, the mother of the deceased, testified that her son
On motion for reconsideration by the petitioner, the CA promulgated its
was stabbed in front of the [elementary] school and later brought to the
amended decision on December 7, 2006, decreeing as follows:7
Bicol Medical Center. She stated that her son stayed for more than a
month in the hospital. Thereafter, her son was discharged. Later,
however, when her son went back to the hospital for a check-up, it was WHEREFORE, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is PARTIALLY
discovered that her son’s stab wound had a complication. Her son was GRANTED. Our decision promulgated on July 16, 2006, which is the
subjected to another operation, but died the day after. She, further, subject of the instant motion is, hereby AMENDED such that the
stated that the stabbing incident was reported to the police authorities. judgment shall now read as follows:
She, likewise, stated the amounts she incurred for the wake and burial
of her son.
Robert Casin, the medico legal expert, testified that the cause of death
of the victim, as stated by Dr. Bichara, his co-admitting physician, was
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the Regional Trial restrictions on the personal liberty of the child shall be limited to the
Court of Naga City, Branch 20, in Criminal Case Number 2000-0275, minimum.11Consistent with this principle, the amended decision of the
finding appellant Rosal Hubilla y Carillo, guilty beyond reasonable CA imposed the ultimate minimums of the indeterminate penalty for
doubt of Homicide is, hereby, AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. homicide under the Indeterminate Sentence Law. On its part, Republic
Appellant is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six months and Act No. 9344 nowhere allows the trial and appellate courts the
one day of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one discretion to reduce or lower the penalty further, even for the sake of
(1) day of prision mayor. enabling the child in conflict with the law to qualify for probation.
The civil aspect of the case is MODIFIED to read: The award of actual Conformably with Section 9(a) of Presidential Decree 968,12 which
damages in the amount of Php 81,890.04, representing expenses for disqualifies from probation an offender sentenced to serve a maximum
medical and funeral services, is reduced to Php 16,300.00. A civil term of imprisonment of more than six years, the petitioner could not
indemnity, in the amount of Php 50,000.00, is awarded to the legal qualify for probation. For this reason, we annul the directive of the CA
heirs of the victim Jason Espinola. We affirm in all other respects. to remand the case to the trial court to determine if he was qualified for
probation.
The case is, hereby, remanded to the Regional Trial Court of Naga,
Branch 20, for appropriate action on the application for probation of, Although Section 38 of Republic Act No. 9344 allows the suspension of
herein, appellant. the sentence of a child in conflict with the law adjudged as guilty of a
crime, the suspension is available only until the child offender turns 21
years of age, pursuant to Section 40 of Republic Act No. 9344, to wit:
SO ORDERED.
Issues
Section 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 petitioner has come to the Court imputing grave error to the CA for
the child in conflict with the law have not been fulfilled, or if the child in
not correctly imposing the penalty, and for not suspending his sentence
conflict with the law has wilfully failed to comply with the conditions of
as a juvenile in conflict with the law pursuant to the mandate of
his/her disposition or rehabilitation program, the child in conflict with
Republic Act No. 9344. In fine, he no longer assails the findings of fact
the law shall be brought before the court for execution of judgment.
by the lower courts as well as his conviction, and limits his appeal to
the following issues, namely: (1) whether or not the CA imposed the
correct penalty imposable on him taking into consideration the If said child in conflict with the law has reached eighteen (18) years of
pertinent provisions of Republic Act No. 9344, the Revised Penal age while under suspended sentence, the court shall determine
Codeand Act No. 4103 (Indeterminate Sentence Law); (2) whether or whether to discharge the child in accordance with this Act, to order
not he was entitled to the benefits of probation and suspension of execution of sentence, or to extend the suspended sentence for a
sentence under Republic Act No. 9344; and (3) whether or not certain specified period or until the child reaches the maximum age of
imposing the penalty of imprisonment contravened the provisions of twenty-one (21) years.
Republic Act No. 9344 and other international agreements.
We note that the petitioner was well over 23 years of age at the time of
his conviction for homicide by the RTC on July 19, 2006. Hence, the
suspension of his sentence was no longer legally feasible or
Ruling of the Court
permissible.
When the crime was committed, MMM was 11 years old, 8 while the
SO ORDERED.
accused-appellant, MMM's uncle,9 was 15 years old. 10 The
prosecution submits that sometime in the first week of June 2002, at
G.R. No. 200157 about three o'clock in the afternoon, MMM went to the nipa plantation
to defecate but before she was able to do so, accused-appellant,
armed with a knife, suddenly appeared. He approached MMM, poked a
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee
knife at her neck, ordered her to bend over, and took off her shorts and
vs.
underwear. Fearing for her life, MMM obeyed the orders of accused-
JOERY DELIOLA Y BARRIDO, A.K.A. "JAKE DELIOLA", Accused-
appellant. MMM tried to resist but accused-appellant was still able to
Appellant
force his penis inside MMM' s vagina. MMM felt pain and cried. After
satisfying his lust, accused-appellant put on his briefs and shorts then
DECISION left. When she got home, MMM immediately took a bath and noticed
bloodstain on her underwear. Afraid of accusedappellant's threats of
killing her, MMM kept mum and did not disclose to anyone the tragedy
PEREZ, J.: that happened to her that day. 11
On appeal is the 29 June 2011 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals in On or about the 1st day of July 2002, MMM was at the nipa plantation
CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC NO. 00435, affirming the 22 December 2005 again when accused-appellant suddenly arrived. He poked MMM's
Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 69, Silay City, Negros back with a knife and threatened to stab her unless she followed
Occidental, in Criminal Case Nos. 5214-69 and 5215-69, which found accusedappellant' s orders. MMM was fearful and was left with no
accused-appellant Joery Deliola y Barrido guilty beyond reasonable choice but to submit to accused-appellant's commands. She was
doubt of two (2) counts of Statutory Rape, and sentencing him to suffer directed to bend over and to lower down her shorts and underwear.
the penalty of reclusion perpetua in both cases. While MMM was bending over and half naked, accused-appellant held
the victim's waist and inserted his penis into MMM's private part. MMM
Accused-appellant was charged with two (2) counts of Statutory Rape. could not do anything but cry. Before leaving, he again threatened to
The accusatory portions of the Informations narrate: kill MMM if she would reveal what happened between them. 12
Criminal Case No. 5214-69 MMM still remained silent about her ordeal. However, about two.
weeks after the second rape, MMM' s grandmother noticed that there
was something unusual in the way MMM was walking. This prompted
That sometime in the month of June, 2002, in the Municipality of her to confront MMM. 13Upon learning of what happened to MMM, the
Manapla, Province of Negros Occidental, Philippines, and within the victim's aunt, brought the former to the Municipal Health Office of
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, 15 Manapla, Negros Occidental for examination, 14 and thereafter to the
years old, with the use of a bladed weapon, through force, threat and police authorities, before whom the victim executed her sworn
intimidation, with the attendant qualifying aggravating circumstances of statement. 15
relationship and minority, the accused being the uncle of herein victim
who was less than eighteen (18) years of age, did then and there,
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of one Dr. Edbert Jayme (Dr. Jayme), the Municipal Health Officer who
[MMM],3 a minor, 11 years old, against her will, to the damage and conducted a physical and internal examination upon MMM, testified as
prejudice.4 an expert witness for the prosecution. Dr. Jayme's internal findings
showed that the victim had positive hyperemia of the vulva or
congestion, redness, and swelling around the area, which may have
Criminal Case No. 5215-69 been caused by a blunt object such as the finger of the human being or
an erect penis. The victim was also found to have a positive incomplete
That on or about the 1st day of July, 2002, in the Municipality of hymenal laceration at 3:00 and 7:00 positions, which was similarly
Manapla, Province of Negros Occidental, Philippines, and within the caused by a blunt object such as the finger of the human being or an
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, 15 erect penis. 16 According to Dr. Jayme, the lacerations may have been
years old, with the use of a bladed weapon, through force, threat and inflicted within two weeks prior to the examination since the lacerations
intimidation, with the attendant qualifying aggravating circumstances of were fresh. 17 Dr. Jayme also found that the victim's vagina could admit
relationship and minority, the accused being the uncle of herein victim two (2) fingers with ease, which is unusual for an 11-year old. 18 A
who was less than eighteen (18) years of age, did then and there, Medical Certificate 19dated 12 July 2002 was issued by the Municipal
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of one Health Center of Manapla.
[MMM], a minor, 11 years old, against her will, to the damage and
prejudice. 5 As lone witness for the defense, accused-appellant denied raping the
victim and claimed that he was fishing with his grandfather during the
On arraignment, accused-appellant entered a plea of NOT times MMM was raped. 20 He testified that he is MMM's uncle and that
GUILTY. 6 At the joint pre-trial 7 of the he was only fifteen years old when the alleged crime occurred.
cases, the following stipulation of facts were admitted: (1) that the court Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
has jurisdiction over the case (2) the identity of accused-appellant as
the accused in the two criminal cases; (3) that accusedappellant is the On 22 December 2005, the RTC rendered a Decision finding accused-
uncle of MMM; (4) that MMM, was 11 years old when the incidents appellant guilty of two counts of Statutory Rape. The dispositive portion
giving rise to the present criminal actions were allegedly committed; (5) of the decision reads:
that at the time of the incidents on June and 1 July 2002, accused-
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, in Criminal Cases Nos. Articles 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Cod, as amended by
5214-69 and 5215-69, this Court finds accused, JOERY DELIOLA Y Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8353. 25 define and punish Statutory Rape as
BARRIDO, AK.A. "JAKE DELIOLA", Guilty of the crimes of Rape, as follows:
defined in A1iicle 266-A in relation to Article 266-B, paragraph 5,
subparagraph 1, of Republic Act No. 8353, as his guilts had been
Art. 266-A. Rape, When and How Committed.- Rape is committed-
established by the prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt.
In the service of the sentences imposed on him by this Court, accused Statutory rape is committed when the prosecution proves that: (l) the
named shall be given full credit for the entire period of his detention offended party is under 12 years of age and (2) the accused had carnal
pending trial. 21 knowledge of the victim, regardless of whether there was force, threat
or intimidation; whether the offended party was deprived of reason or
Ruling of the Court of Appeals consciousness; or whether it was done through fraudulent machination
or grave abuse of authority. It is enough that the age of the victim is
proven and that there was sexual intercourse.26
The Court of Appeals, in its assailed Decision dated 29 June 2011,
affirmed the judgment of conviction of the RTC. The dispositive portion
of the decision reads: The two elements were proven in the present case. The age of MMM
was uncontested. In her Birth Certificate,27presented and admitted in
open court, 28 it was indicated that she was born on 5 March 1991 and,
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision insofar as the finding of guilt thus, only eleven years old when the crime was committed. The only
beyond reasonable doubt of accused-appellant Joery B. Deliola of the controversy left qefore us is whether or not accused-appellant had
two crimes of rape in Criminal Cases No. 5214-69 and 5215-69 is carnal knowledge of the victim.
AFFIRMED. However, as accused-appellant Joery Deliola y Barrido is
a child in conflict with the law, the pronouncement of his sentence is
hereby SUSPENDED and the case is REMANDED to the Regional Credibility of Witness
Trial Court,6th Judicial Region, Branch 69, Silay City, Negros
Occidental, for appropriate disposition in accordance with Section 38 of Accused-appellant tried to dispute MMM' s credibility by pointing out
Republic Act No. 9344. Accused-appellant is CONDEMNED to pay the several inconsistencies in her testimony. He argued that the victim
victim MMM: 1) In Criminal Case No. 5214-69, the amounts of testified that on the alleged second incident of rape, on 1 July 2002,
₱75,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱75,000.00 for moral damages, and she felt no pain and her vagina did not bleed. Accused-appellant
₱30,000.00 for exemplary damages; and 2) In Criminal Case No. maintains that such statement is inconsistent with MMM's
5215-69, the amounts of ₱75,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱75,000 for grandmother's claim that MMM was walking with great difficulty and
moral damages and P30,000.00 for exemplary damages. 22 pain. Accused-appellant likewise argues that given the tender age of
the victim, she could have felt pain, if not suffered bleeding, even on
Accused-appellant timely filed a Notice of Appeal. In a the second incident of rape.
Resolution23 dated 27 February 2012, we required the parties to submit
their respective supplemental briefs. However, both parties We disagree. It is carnal knowledge, not pain nor bleeding, which is
manifested24 that they are dispensing with the filing of supplemental essential to consummate rape. 29 It is also possible for physiological
briefs and, instead, adopting their respective briefs as supplemental manifestations of rape, such as pain, to appear only after the incident.
briefs in this case. More importantly, the testimony of MMM's grandmother was just an
observation on the victim's manner of walking. It is baseless and
Our Ruling unreasonable to put the victim's and the grandmother's testimonies
side by side and claim them to be inconsistent. Moreover, as
consistently held by this Court, discrepancies and inconsistencies in
We find no reason to deviate from the findings and conclusions of the the testimony of a witness referring to minor details, and not in actuality
trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals. His defenses of denial touching upon the central fact of the crime, do not impair her credibility.
and alibi are bereft of merit. If at all, they serve as proof that the witness is not coached or
rehearsed. 30
Statutory Rape
Accused-appellant also points out that Dr. Jayme's findings are not sincerity.40 No young woman would admit that she was raped, make
conclusive and that the non-intact hymen of the victim could be public the offense and allow the examination of her private parts
congenita This argument is bereft of merit. The prime consideration in undergo the troubles and humiliation of a public trial and endure the
the prosecution of rape is the victim's testimony, not necessarily the ordeal of testifying to all gory details, if she had not in fact been
medical findings. Assuming arguendo that the non-intact hymen of the raped.41
victim is congenital, this Court has consistently held that the absence
of laceration in the hymen does not negate rape. 31Apart from the
Denial and Alibi as Inherently Weak Defenses
findings of Dr. Jayme, MMM was steadfast in testifying that accused-
appellant raped her twice. When a rape victim's testimony is
straightforward and consistent despite grueling examination, it In contrast to MMM's direct, positive and categorical testimony and
deserves full faith and confidence.32 The victim's testimony alone, if identification of her assailant, accused-appellant's bare denial and alibi
credible, is sufficient to convict.33 could not prevail. This Court has consistently held that: "denial is an
intrinsically weak defense which must be supported by strong evidence
of non-culpability to merit credibility. No jurisprudence in criminal law is
Accused-appellant likewise argues that the victim's claim that she was
more settled than that alibi is the weakest of all defenses, for it is easy
penetrated from behind is contrary to human experience. We are not
to contrive and difficult to disprove and for which reason it is generally
persuaded.1âwphi1 As correctly cited by the Court of Appeals, the
rejected. For the alibi to prosper, it is imperative that the accused
animal in man may come out when he commits rape such that it is not
establishes two elements: (1) he was not at the locus delicti at the time
unlikely that in the process of his immersion and transformation into
the offense was committed; and (2) it was physically impossible for him
another character, he would prefer to mate in the way lower creatures
to be at the scene at the time of its commission. 42 "Accused-appellant
do. 34
failed to establish these elements. His claim that at the time of the
alleged crime, he was at sea fishing with his grandfather was
Accused-appellant further questions the fact that the v1ctnn did not uncorroborated. For some reason, he did not even present his
attempt to escape from her captor or even shout or call for help, and grandfather Clemente Gabayeron to testify in court. As opposed to
that she did not report the alleged rape to anyone after its occurrence. MMM' s convincing recital of facts, accused-appellant's denial and alibi
However, as held in the case of People v. Rosales: 35 will not stand.
At any rate, it is an oft-repeated principle that not every witness to or Time of commission
victim of a crime can be expected to act reasonably and conformably to not an essential element
the usual expectations of everyone. People may react differently to the to establish rape
same situation. One person's spontaneous, or unthinking or even
instinctive, response to a horrible and repulsive stimulus may be
Lastly, accused-appellant argues that the Information 43 stating that the
aggression, while another's may be cold indifference. Yet, it can never
first crime of rape was committed "sometime in the month of June
be successfully argued that the latter are any less sexual victims than
2002" is not sufficiently explicit and certain as to inform him of the date
the former. 36
on which the criminal act was alleged to have been committed.
Given the nature of the crime of rape, the credible, natural, and
Accused-appellant is mistaken. This Court has repeatedly held that it is
convincing testimony of the victim alone may be sufficient to convict
not incumbent upon the victim to establish the date when she was
the accused, more so, when the testimony is supported by the medico-
raped for purposes of convicting the perpetrator.44 The date of
legal findings of the examining physician. 37
commission is not an essential element of the crime of rape; what is
material is its occurrence. Thus, there is no need to prove the exact
MMM's testimony, positively identifying accused-appellant as the date of comm1ss1on; an approximation thereof will suffice.45
person who raped her is believable. We uphold the ruling of the trial
court on the credibility of MMM and the truthfulness of her testimonies,
Moreover, the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that accused-appellant's
to wit:
belated objection to the Information cannot prosper, to wit:
[MMM], though a minor, thirteen (13) years old at the time she took the
Moreover, accused-appellant's counsel took active part in the trial by
stand, demonstrated to this Court her capacity of observation,
cross-examining the prosecution witnesses on the particular dates and
recollection, and communication. She showed that she can perceive,
circumstances of the two offenses of rape as alleged in the
and perceiving, can make known her perception to this Court as she
informations without prior objection to the validity or propriety of the
clearly and capably related the details of her sad and horrible
informations. It is now too late in the day for the accused-appellant to
experiences at the hands of the accused. She withstood a thorough
claim that any of the Informations was defective. Objections relating to
and exhaustive examination. There is no doubt that she is a competent
the form of the complaint or information cannot be made for the first
witness. (Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 349 SCRA 451, G.R. No.
time on appeal. If the appellant had found the Information insufficient,
116372 January 18, 2001; People vs. Rama, 350 SCRA 266, G.R. No.
he should have moved before arraignment either for a bill of
136304, January 25, 2001). [MMM] gave a clear, straightforward,
particulars, for him to be properly informed of the exact date of the
spontaneous, frank and consistent narrative. It was a positive and
alleged rape, or for the quashal of the Information, on the ground that it
credible account she presented before this Court. There was not a
did not conform with the prescribed form. 46
motive ascribed or, in the very least, suggested by the defense that
might have raised doubt on her credibility and on the credibility of the
statements she made before this Court.38 Penalty and Damages
We find no reason to disturb the trial court's appreciation of MMM's To determine the appropriate penalty, we refer to the pertinent law on
testimony. Deeply entrenched in our jurisprudence is the rule that the the matter. According to R.A. No. 9344,47 as amended:48
assessment of the credibility of witnesses is a domain best left to the
trial court judge because of his unique opportunity to observe their
SEC. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. - x x x
deportment and demeanor on the witness stand, a vantage point
denied appellate courts; and when his findings have been affirmed by
the Court of Appeals, these are generally binding and conclusive upon A child is deemed to be fifteen (15) years of age on the day of the
this Court.39 fifteenth anniversary of his/her birthdate.
SO ORDERED.
Accused-appellant testified that he was born on 14 April
1987, 50 making him 15 years and 2 months old when the crime was
committed. We are now left with the question of whether or not
accused-appellant acted with discernment. In People v. Jacinto, 51 we
explained that discernment is the mental capacity of a minor to fully
grasp the consequences of his act, known and determined by taking
into account all the facts and circumstances presented by the records
in each case.
1. Crim. Case No. Q-00-91967: That on or about the 9th day On 16 September 1997, [AAA], who was then 9 years of age, was at
of August 1998 in Quezon City, Philippines, the above- her grandmother [CCC]’s house located on [XXX], Quezon City. In the
named accused with force and intimidation did then and morning of said date, she was at the dirty kitchen with her aunt [ZZZ]
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit acts of who was then washing clothes. Her aunt asked her if she had already
sexual assault at knifepoint upon the person of [AAA] his taken a bath, she replied in the negative.
own niece a minor 10 years of age by then and there
blindfolding her, then removed her shorts and underwear Her uncle, accused-appellant, overheard their conversation so he
then accused inserted his penis inside her vagina and volunteered to give [AAA] a bath. Subsequently, he brought her
thereafter had carnal knowledge of her against her will and upstairs to the bathroom.
without her consent.4
In contrast, the defense presented four witnesses: AAA’s mother WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered
(BBB), AAA’s two brothers (DDD and EEE), and Dr. Agnes Aglipay, finding the accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt in all five (5)
Regional Psychiatrist of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology. counts of rape as recited in the information[s] and sentences accused
The defense’s statement of the antecedent facts as contained in the MILAN ROXAS:
Appellant’s Brief is reproduced here:
1) In Crim. Case No. Q-00-91967 – to suffer the penalty of
Accused Milan Roxas denied having raped [AAA] on all the five (5) reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the offended party [AAA] the
counts of rape. sum of Php75,000.00, to pay moral damages in the sum of
Php50,000.00, and to pay the costs;
[DDD], brother of herein private complainant, testified that his aunt in
the maternal side, [Tita YYY], induced him by giving toys if he would
2) In Crim. Case No. Q-00-91968 – to suffer the penalty of experience, human nature and the natural course of things. 16 Accused-
reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the offended party [AAA] the appellant Roxas likewise points out that under Republic Act No. 9344
sum of Php75,000.00, to pay moral damages in the sum of or the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, minors fifteen (15)
Php50,000.00, and to pay the costs; years old and below are exempt from criminal responsibility. Accused-
appellant Roxas claims that since he has a mental age of nine years
old, he should also be "exempt from criminal liability although his
3) In Crim. Case No. Q-00-91969 – to suffer the penalty of
chronological age at the time of the commission of the crime was
reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the offended party [AAA] the
already eighteen years old."17
sum of Php75,000.00, to pay moral damages in the sum of
Php50,000.00, and to pay the costs;
In the matter of assigning criminal responsibility, Section 6 of Republic
Act No. 934418 is explicit in providing that:
4) In Crim. Case No. Q-00-91970 – to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the offended party [AAA] the
sum of Php75,000.00, to pay moral damages in the sum of SEC. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. — A child fifteen (15)
Php50,000.00, and to pay the costs; and years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall
be exempt from criminal liability. However, the child shall be subjected
to an intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of this Act.
5) In Crim. Case No. Q-00-91971 – to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the offended party [AAA] the
sum of Php75,000.00, to pay moral damages in the sum of A child is deemed to be fifteen (15) years of age on the day of the
Php50,000.00, and to pay the costs. fifteenth anniversary of his/her birthdate.
To credit in favor of the herein accused the full period of his detention A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age
in accordance with law. Resultantly, all pending incidents are deemed shall likewise be exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to an
moot and academic.12 intervention program, unless he/she has acted with discernment, in
which case, such child shall be subjected to the appropriate
proceedings in accordance with this Act.
The RTC held that accused-appellant Roxas is not exempt from
criminal responsibility on the ground that he cannot be considered a
minor or an imbecile or insane person, since Dr. Aglipay merely The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not
testified that he was an eighteen-year old with a mental development include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced in
comparable to that of children between nine to ten years old. The RTC accordance with existing laws. (Emphasis supplied.)
found the testimony of AAA credible, and found the testimonies of the
defense witnesses to be "flimsy."
In determining age for purposes of exemption from criminal liability,
Section 6 clearly refers to the age as determined by the anniversary of
Accused-appellant Roxas elevated the case to the Court of Appeals, one’s birth date, and not the mental age as argued by accused-
where the case was docketed as CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 03473. appellant Roxas. When the law is clear and free from any doubt or
Accused-appellant Roxas submitted the following Assignment of Errors ambiguity, there is no room for construction or interpretation. Only
in the appellate court: when the law is ambiguous or of doubtful meaning may the court
interpret or construe its true intent.19
I
On the matter of the credibility of AAA, we carefully examined AAA’s
testimony and found ourselves in agreement with the assessment of
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL
the trial court and the Court of Appeals. As observed by the appellate
WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE PRIVATE
court:
COMPLAINANT’S TESTIMONY.
We further underscore that AAA was merely 14 years old at the time
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Judgment dated 11 she testified.21 We have repeatedly held that testimonies of child-
December 2007 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 94, victims are normally given full weight and credit, since when a girl,
in the case entitled People of the Philippines vs. Milan Roxas y particularly if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in
Aguiluz", docketed therein as Criminal Case Nos. Q-00-91967 to Q-00- effect all that is necessary to show that rape has in fact been
91971, is AFFIRMED with modification that accused-appellant is committed. When the offended party is of tender age and immature,
ordered to pay private complainant on each count civil indemnity in the courts are inclined to give credit to her account of what transpired,
amount of ₱75,000.00, moral damages in the amount of ₱75,000.00, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the shame to
and exemplary damages in the amount of ₱30,000.00, for each count which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not
of rape.14 Hence, accused-appellant Roxas interposed this appeal, true. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and
where he, in his Supplemental Brief, presented an Additional sincerity.22
Assignment of Error:
1. By using force or intimidation; However, as regards the allegation in the Information that appellant is
an uncle of the victim, we agree with the Court of Appeals that the
same did not sufficiently satisfy the requirements of Art. 335 of the
2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise
Revised Penal Code, i.e., it must be succinctly stated that appellant is
unconscious; and
a relative within the 3rd civil degree by consanguinity or affinity. It is
immaterial that appellant admitted that the victim is his niece. In the
3. When the woman is under twelve years of age or is same manner, it is irrelevant that "AAA" testified that appellant is her
demented. The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion uncle. We held in People v. Velasquez:
perpetua.
However, the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty on
Whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly accused-appellant, applying Section 11 of Republic Act No.
weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion 7659.1âwphi1 We have consistently held that the circumstances under
perpetua to death. the amendatory provisions of Section 11 of R.A. No. 7659, the
attendance of which could mandate the imposition of the single
indivisible penalty of death, are in the nature of qualifying
xxxx circumstances which cannot be proved as such unless alleged in the
information. Even in cases where such circumstances are proved, the
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is death penalty cannot be imposed where the information failed to allege
committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: them. To impose the death penalty on the basis of a qualifying
circumstance which has not been alleged in the information would
violate the accused's constitutional and statutory right to be informed of
1. When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by
consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-
law spouse of the parent of the victim. While the informations in this case alleged that accused-appellant is
the uncle of the two victims, they did not state that he is their relative
within the third civil degree of consanguinity or affinity. The testimonial
The succeeding counts of rape were committed after the effectivity of evidence that accused-appellant's wife and Luisa de Guzman are
Republic Act No. 8353 on October 22,1997, which transported the rape sisters is immaterial. The circumstance that accused-appellant is a
provision of the Revised Penal Code to Title 8 under Crimes against relative of the victims by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil
Persons, and amended the same to its present wording: degree must be alleged in the information. In the case at bar, the
allegation that accused-appellant is the uncle of private complainants
Article 266-A. Rape, When And How Committed. — Rape is committed was not sufficient to satisfy the special qualifying circumstance of
— relationship. It was necessary to specifically allege that such
relationship was within the third civil degree. Hence, accused-appellant
can only be convicted of simple rape on two counts, for which the
1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua in each case.25
of the following circumstances:
SO ORDERED.