i.

Title with full date

ii. Doctrine & Laws involved
iii. Recit Ready
iv. Detailed digests (Facts, Relevant Issue, Held)

PEOPLE v. ARPON: DEC 14, 2011

DOCTRINE/LAWS INVOLVED: RA 9344, Juvenile Justice and Welfare System

(Approved April 28, 2006)

 SEC 7 of RA 9344 provides for rules on determining the age of a child in

conflict with the law → he shall enjoy presumption of minority → to be
determined from pertinent documents; or in the absence thereof, from the
child himself/herself; from testimonies of other persons; from the child's
physical appearance; and from other relevant evidence
 It has also been previously ruled in Sierra v. People that: testimonial
evidence regarding minority and age of the ACCUSED are sufficient if the
following CONCUR:
1. absence of other satisfactory evidence (certificates & documents)
2. testimony of accused and/or relative on the age/minority at the time of the
complained incident, WITHOUT objection from the prosecution
3. lack of any contrary evidence showing that the accused OR his relatives'
testimonies are untrue
 SEC 6 of RA 9344 changed the minimum age of criminal responsibility to
fifteen years and under (previously 9 or under); and changed the discerning
age to 15-below 18 years old (17yrs and 364 days) (PREVIOUSLY, 9-15 yrs
old) → exemption if child acted without discernment
 SEC 38 of RA 9344: Mandatory suspension of sentence for children under
18:
 happens AFTER being found guilty; civil liability to be determined BUT
judgment of conviction DEFERRED –> WITHOUT APPLICATION
(mandatory/automatic, does not need application unlike probation,
parole)
 Suspension of sentence shall still be supplied even if the juvenile is
already 18 years of age or more at the time he is found guilty
 SEC 40 of RA 9344 puts a limit to the application of suspended sentence
to when the child reaches the age of 21
 SEC 51 of RA 9344 applies after CONVICTION OF JUDGMENT
 In that 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 Bureau of Corrections, in
coordination with DSWD
 CIVIL LIABILITY IS NOT AFFECTED BY RA 9344
DEATH PENALTY (in case he asks) ****In accordance with Art 68 of the RPC,
when accused is a minor, penalty next lower than that prescribed by law should
be imposed; BUT for the purposes of determining the proper penalty because of
the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority, the penalty of DEATH is still
the penalty to be reckoned with. → for the 2nd and 3rd counts of rape, the proper
imposable penalty is RP for each count****

RECIT READY:
 ARPON is found guilty of 7 counts of rape, and 1 count of statutory rape by
both CA & RTC, which he committed against his niece, AAA
 Among the circumstances attendant, the privileged mitigating circumstance
of minorty was NOT appreciated in favor of the accused, who was allegedly
13 -17 years old during the commission of the crimes (13 in 1995, 17 in
1999; at the time of this decision, he is already 29)
 It was not appreciated because there was a lack of evidence of his minority;
no birth certificates, or corroborative testimony → just the accused claiming
he was a minor at the time
 The SC took into consideration of the privileged mitigating circumstance of
minority
 Presumption of minority must always be in favor of the accused, so long
as the following concur: 1) there are no other pertinent documents that
can attest to his age 2) that the accused and/or other relatives testify
that he is a minor, WITHOUT objection from the prosecution 3) that the
prosecution is unable to provide CONTRARY EVIDENCE
 Since he was a minor at the time of the commission of the crime, pertinent
provisions of RA 9344 apply:
 EXEMPTED from criminal liability in the first rape in 1995 → he was 13
years old, and SEC 6 of RA 9344 provides that those under 15 are
exempt from criminal libaility
 NOT EXEMPT from criminal liability in the 2 nd and 3rd rapes (qualified by
victim's minority & her relatinonship with the accused)
 According to SEC 38 (gives suspension for those under 18) in relation to
SEC 40 (limits suspension to 21 yrs old)of RA 9344, he should have been
entitled to a suspension of sentence by reason of his minority, until he
has reached the age of 21; HOWEVER, at present, ARPON is already 29
years old and such suspension of sentence/judgment cannot be applied
anymore
 SEC 51 of RA 9344, however, still APPLIES since it is not qualified by age
but takes place once the child must serve his sentence (this section just
says that 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 Bureau of Corrections, in coordination with DSWD)
 CIVIL LIABILITY is not affected by RA 9344 (that the child is exempted
 under SEC 6 does NOT exempt him from civil liability)

FACTS (more detailed version):

 Henry Arpon found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of 1 count of statutory
rape and 7 counts of rape against private complainant AAA (his NIECE)
 DEC 29, 1999: ARPON charged with 8 counts of rape in separate infos as
follows
1. (Crim Case #2000-01-46)
1995, Leyte: Raped AAA when she was 8 years old
2. (Crim Case #2000-01-47)
July 1999, Leyte: Raped AAA when she was 12 years old
3. (Crim Case #2000-01-48)
July 1999, Leyte: Raped AAA when she was 12 years old
4. (Crim Case #2000-01-49)
July 1999, Leyte: Raped AAA when she was 12 years old
5. (Crim Case #2000-01-50)
July 1999, Leyte: Raped AAA when she was 12 years old
6. (Crim Case #2000-01-51)
July 1999, Leyte: Raped AAA when she was 12 years old
*YES these are completely different incidents; total of 5 nights in Jul 1999
7. (Crim Case #2000-01-52)
August 1999, Leyte: Raped AAA when she was 12 years old
8. (Crim Case #2000-01-47[sic/mali to, dapat 53, 52 nakasulat sa
kaso])
August 1999, Leyte: Raped AAA when she was 12 years old

 Traumatic details → the experiences were painful → there was blood when
she urinated → ARPON is the brother of her mother (her UNCLE, by
consanguinity, within the 3rd civil degree)→ AAA kept quiet because ARPON
threatened to kill her mother, but spoke up only when he proceeded to rape
her younger sister, DDD
 ARPON'S DEFENSE:
 1995 rape: He was only 13 yrs old; he worked in Sagkahan, Tacloban
City as a houseboy and stayed there until 1996 → allegedly, he was in
Tacloban when the rape (and subsequent rapes) happened
 He testified that when he would go home from Tacloban, he stayed at a
friend's house and not at AAA's, because her parents were his enemies
 1999: *ARPON WAS 17*He testified that he was working at a restaurant
in Tacloban in 1999 and did not come home because he was busy with
work; he denied that he went on drinking spree's with AAA's father since
they were enemies
 He, however admitted that he and AAA's mother were close; that their
parents were alive; and that he visited them once a month while working
in a restaurant in Tacloban; and that their parents' house was about 2km
away from AAA's house
 SEPT 9, 2002: RTC CONVICTED ARPON, to 1 count of statutory rape and 7
 counts of rape, and sentenced him to the penalty of DEATH
 appreciated aggravating circumstances of abuse of confidence and
nighttime
 appreciated attendant circumstance of relationship (statutory rape)
 did NOT consider the privilege mitigating circumstance of minority, since
ARPON was unable to substantiate with clear and convincing evidence
that he was a minor at the time
 *CASE ELEVATED AUTOMATICALLY TO CA FOR REVIEW → in accordance
with provisions of law that cases where death is the penalty shall be
reviewed by higher courts*
 FEB 8, 2008: CA AFFIRMED RTC RULING
 Inconsistencies by AAA are not sufficient to discredit her → Her
testimony is corroborated by physical evidence, as against ARPON's
uncorroborated alibi
 Qualifying circumstance of AAA's minority based on testimony of AAA is
insufficient
 Qualifying circumstance of relationship → awarded exemplary damages
 Aggravating circumstance of nighttime not appreciated
 SC RULING:
 Date of commission of the rape is not an essential element
 AGE is the essential element in qualified rape → regardless if it was by
force or intimidation
 That AAA was only able to distinctly narrate 3 instances of the 8 rapes,
does not discredit her; she was able to name him as perpetrator of the
crime & her testimony was straightforward and candid
 Alibi is a weak defense → it cannot prevail over positive identification by
a credible witness
 A minor disagreement, even if true, does not amount to a sufficient
justification for dragging a young girl's honor to a merciless public
scrutiny that a rape trial brings in its wake
 That AAA's minority on account of her testimony (that she was born on
Nov 1, 1987) and even, of the accused's recollection of the age of his
niece, is more than enough. Notably, the trial court testified that when
AAA took the witness stand, she was 14 years old, and based on her
facial features, appeared to be so
 The presence of threat/intimidation/force is no longer relevant; in rape
committed by close kin, moral influence or ascendancy takes place of
violence and intimidation
 AS REGARDS PENALTIES:
 The circumstances of minority and relationship qualify the 3 counts of
rape committed by ARPON; and in accordance with the former art 355
of the RPC and the present Art 266-B of the RPC state that should
rape be qualified by relationship or minority, the penalty to be
imposed is DEATH
 HOWEVER, the RTC and CA failed to appreciate the privileged
mitigating circumstance of minority
  RA 9344: SEC 7 provides for rules on determining the age of a child
in conflict with the law → he shall enjoy presumption of minority → to
be determined from pertinent documents; or in the absence thereof,
from the child himself/herself; from testimonies of other person';
from the child's physical appearance; and from other relevant
evidence
 It has also been previously ruled in Sierra v. People that: testimonial
evidence regarding minority and age of the ACCUSED are sufficient if
the following CONCUR:
1. absence of other satisfactory evidence (certificates & documents)
2. testimony of accused and/or relative on the age/minority at the time of the
complained incident, WITHOUT objection from the prosecution
3. lack of any contrary evidence showing that the accused OR his relatives'
testimonies are untrue
 Prosecution in this case did NOT object to the testimony of the
accused, neither did they present contrary evidence to the same
 SEC 6 of RA 9344 changed the minimum age of criminal responsibility
to fifteen years and under (previously 9 or under); and changed the
discerning age to 15-below 18 years old (17yrs and 364 days)
(PREVIOUSLY, 9-15 yrs old) → exemption if child acted without
discernment
 Accordingly, for the first count of rape allegedly committed in 1995,
ARPON was 13 yrs old → he is absolved of criminal liability
 for the 2nd and 3rd counts of rape, ARPON was already 17 years old.
From AAA's testimony, it appears that he acted with discernment;
that he had to threaten her to keep her quiet in order to conceal his
wrongs only proves he knew the consequences thereof.
 In accordance with Art 68 of the RPC, when accused is a minor,
penalty next lower than that prescribed by law should be imposed;
BUT for the purposes of determining the proper penalty because of
the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority, the penalty of
DEATH is still the penalty to be reckoned with. → for the 2nd and 3rd
counts of rape, the proper imposable penalty is RP for each count
 ARPON could have been entitled to a suspension of sentence under
SEC 38 of RA 9344 (had the RTC correctly appreciated such privilege
mitigating circumstance)
 Suspension of sentence after being found guilty; civil liability to be
determined BUT judgment of conviction DEFERRED
 Suspension of sentence shall still be supplied even if the juvenile is
already 18 years of age or more at the time he is found guilty
 HOWEVER, such suspension cannot be applied because ARPON is now
29 years old; SEC 40 of RA 9344 puts a limit to the application of
suspended sentence to when the child reaches the age of 21
 SEC 51 of RA 9344 however, STILL APPLIES
 In that 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 Bureau of
Corrections, in coordination with DSWD
 CIVIL LIABILITY of ARPON is NOT affected
 appeal DENIED, penalties modified
 1st count of rape → exempted
 2nd & 3rd → GUILTY of QUALIFIED RAPE → sentenced to RP for each
count
 CIVIL LIABILITY: 75,000 PHP for the 3 counts of rape (as CIVIL
INDEMNITY); 75,000 PHP as moral damages; 30,000 PHP as
exemplary damages, plus legal interest on all damages awarded
from the date of finality of decision
 REMANDED to court of origin for its appropriate action in
accordance with SEC 51 of RA 9344