Case Digest: People vs. Siera

Robert Siera vs. People

G.R. No. 182941

July 3, 2009

Facts:

Petitioner was found guilty of qualified rape.

Ruling:

In the case bar, the issue is no longer with regard to petitioner’s guilt but on his entitlement of exemption from criminal liability under R.A. 9344 since petitioner’s act of invoking such entitlement carried with it the admission of guilt.

The Court held that petitioner’s minority during the commission of the crime and his not being a habitual criminal entitled him to the retroactive provisions of the said Act.

The Court held that the burden of proving the minority of the accused relied not on the prosecution but to him who sought to benefit from such proof. In assessing the records, the court appreciated the testimonies by petitioner and CCC, his mother, as sufficient proof of establishing petitioner’s age in lieu of  the required birth certificate as provided in Rule 30-A of the Rules and Regulations Implementing R.A. No. 9344. There was also no showing of the prosecution’s objection nor was there a presentation of evidence to contradict said testimonies.

The petitioner, having been granted criminal liability exemption, was nevertheless civilly liable. The Court ordered the payment of civil damages to victim following the characterization of the crime of simple rape, for failure of the prosecution to establish the age of the victim to hold petitioner guilty of qualified rape.

Case against petitioner was dismissed without prejudice to the civil liability. The Court ordered his immediate release and referral to the appropriate local social welfare and development officer who shall proceed in accordance with the provisions of R.A. No. 9344. 

Read More

Case Digest: People vs. Jacinto

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.

Read More