MADALI VS PEOPLE G.R. No.

180380 August 4, 2009

IMPORTANT IN THE CASE: Definition of Discernment
FACTS: For the death of AAA (a minor), Raymund (14 years old), Rodel (16
years old) and a certain Bernardino “Jojo” Maestro (Bernardino) were charged
before the RTC with the crime of Murder. (Accused were minors DURING the
commission of the crime)
1. AAA, Raymund, Rodel, Bernardino and Jovencio went together to a
reservoir.
2. Bernardino blindfolded AAA with the handkerchief of Raymund.
Bernardino at once blurted out, “Join the rugby boys.”
3. Raymund, Rodel, and Bernardino hit AAA in different parts of AAA’s
body.
a. Bernardino then struck AAA thricewith a fresh and hard coconut
frond
b. Raymund took his turn clobbering AAA at the back of his thighs
with the same coconut frond.
c. Rodel gave several punches to AAA while wearing brass
knuckles
4. Jovencio witnessed the whole incident
5. Bernardino, who seemed to suggest finishing off the victim, remarked,
“Since we’re all here, let’s get on with it.”
6. Three assailants warned Jovencio not to reveal the incident to anyone, or
he would be next.
7. Three days later AAA’s body was found hanging from a tree with a
handkerchief tied around the neck and a dog chain fastened to the
handkerchief
HELD: All GUILTY of Homicide – RTC (2003) (deduced that it was an
initiation rights)
Appealed – CA (2007) – Affirmed
SC RULING:
1. Raymund (14 years old) was exempted from criminal liability. Pursuant
to Section 64 of Republic Act No. 9344, the “Juvenile Justice and
Welfare Act of 2006,” which exempts from criminal liability a minor
fifteen (15) years or below at the time of the commission of the offense,
Raymund’ s case was dismissed.
2. Rodel (16 years old) – whether or not he acted with discernment
a. WHAT IS DISCERNMENT
Discernment is that mental capacity of a minor to fully
appreciate the consequences of his unlawful act. Such
capacity may be known and should be determined by
taking into con- sideration all the facts and
circumstances afforded by the records in each case.
b. Rodel acted with discernment – through the act that they warned
Jovencio not to reveal their hideous act to anyone; otherwise,
they would kill him. Rodel knew, therefore, that killing AAA was
 a condemnable act and should be kept in secrecy. He fully
appreciated the consequences of his unlawful act.
c. Privileged Mitigating
i. From Reclusion Temporal, penalty imposed was Prision
Mayor
d. Penalty suspended
i. “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) years of age or more at the time of
the pronouncement of his/her guilt.
e. Victim’s heir awarded with damages.

PEOPLE VS SARCIA G.R. No. 169641. September 10, 2009

IMPORTANT: In case of doubt of the age
Application of RA 9344 to Child in Conflict of the Law
committing Heinous Crimes
FACTS:
1. SARCIA raped a 5 year of girl (AAA)
(No more detailed description of the actual rape)
2. Incident was witnessed by AAA’s cousin
3. 4 YEARS after, a case was filed against Sarcia
a. 2002, when accused testified, he was 24 years old
b. 1996, commission of the crime

HELD: RTC – GUILTY of QUALIFIED RAPE (pursuant to 7262, rape

of below 6 yrs old minors) (2003)
APPEALED TO CA – AFFIRMED, NOT A MINOR (2005)

SC RULING:
1. Accused was a MINOR (entitled to Privileged Mitigating
Circumstances)
 When accused appellant testified on March 14, 2002, he admitted
that he was 24 years old, which means that in 1996, he was 18 years
of age.
 the rape incident could have taken place “in any month and date in
the year 1996.” (prosecution failed to prove exact date of the crime)
 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. (LIBERALLY CONTRUED IN
FAVOR OF THE ACCUSED)
2. AUTOMATIC SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE
 Accused-appellant was detained at the New Bilibid Prison pending
the outcome of his appeal before SC
 Section 68 provision allows the retroactive application of the Act
to those who have been convicted and are serving sentence at the
time of the effectivity of this said Act, and who were below the age
of 18 years at the time of the commission of the offense
 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.
 Provisions above make no distinction as to the nature of the
offense committed by the child in conflict with the law.
 R.A. No. 9344 does not distinguish between a minor who has been
convicted of a capital offense and another who has been convicted of
a lesser offense, the Court should also not distinguish and should
apply the automatic suspension of sentence to a child in conflict
with the law who has been found guilty of a heinous crime.
3. HOWEVER, SUSPENSION of sentence is ALREADY MOOT AND
ACADEMIC because accused is already 31 years old in the
promulgation of case in the SC
4. Other benefits
a. accused shall be entitled to appropriate disposition under Sec. 51
of R.A. No. 9344, to wit:
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.
5. Civil Liability is not extinguished

PEOPLE VS MANTALABA G.R. No. 186227. July 20, 2011

IMPORTANT IN THE CASES: Application of RA 9344 for child in conflict
of law
FACTS:
1. Allen Mantalaba (17 years old) was arrested in a buy-bust operation
after selling a sachet of shabu.

HELD: RTC – GUILTY in violation Violation of Section 11, Art. II of

R.A. No. 9165 “Dangerous Drugs Act”.
Appealed – CA – Affirmed
SC RULING:
1. Appellant was seventeen (17) years old when he was arrested/ during
the commission of the crime
a. RA 9344 took effect on May 20, 2006
b. RTC promulgated its decision on this case on September 14,
2005 (Appellant was no longer minor)
2. SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE
a. Section 38 of RA 9344 provides that suspension of sentence can
still be applied even if the child in conflict with the law is already
eighteen (18) years of age or more at the time of the
pronouncement of his/her guilt, Section 40 of the same law limits
the said suspension of sentence until the child reaches the
maximum age of 21
b. Appellant is now beyond 21, Section 38 and 40 are already
MOOT AND ACADEMIC
3. COMPARISON from PD 603 Child Welfare Act
a. RA 9344 – suspends the SENTENCE
b. PD 603 – suspends the promulgation of the SENTENCE
4. INSTEAD OF IMPRISONMENT, a child in conflict of law may be
confiled in Agricultural camps or other training facilities
a. 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
5. Civil Liability is not extinguished

ESTIOCA VS PEOPLE
IMPORTANT IN CASE: A minor is exempted of any criminal liability.
FACTS: An Information5 was filed before the RTC charging petitioner,
Marksale Bacus (Bacus), Kevin Boniao (Boniao) and Emiliano Handoc
(Handoc) with robbery.
1.Nico (minor), saw Estioca and Bacus entered the Ozamiz City Central
School (OCCS) surreptitiously by climbing over the OCCS’s gate.
2.They proceeded to the classroom
3.They destroyed the padlock of the classroom door
4.Then, they walked out of the classroom carrying a television, a karaoke
and an electric fan, and thereafter brought them to the school gate
5.They went over the gate with the items and handed them over to Boniao
and Handoc who were positioned just outside the OCCS’s gate.

HELD: RTC – GUILTY of Robbery (2004)

Boniao’s sentenced was lowered because he was 14 years
 old when he committed the crime
1. All filed Motion for Reconsideration (2004)
Held: GRANTED – lowering the penalties
It also ordered the DSWD to
release and turn over Boniao to
his parents.
Appealed (Estioca only) – CA (2006)
Boniao was exempted from criminal liability
As for Estioca - affirmed
SC RULING:
1.Boniao, who was barely 14 years of age at the time he committed the
crime, should be exempt from criminal liability and should be released
to the custody of his parents or guardian pursuant to Sections 6 and 20
of Republic Act No. 9344, otherwise known as The Juvenile Justice and
Welfare Act of 2006
2.Although the crime was committed on 28 July 2001 and Republic Act No.
9344 took effect only on 20 May 2006, the said law should be given
retroactive effect in favor of Boniao who was not shown to be a habitual
criminal.
3.Civil Liability is not extinguished

IN SUMMATION OF ALL CASES, IN RELATION WITH THE

IMPLEMENTATION OF RA 9344
As I have assessed above cases, age of the RA 9344 is just. In implementing
the suspension of RA 9344, (SARCIA and MONTALABA), considering the
duration of the criminal cases, the suspension of the sentence most often
becomes moot and academic. Upon lowering the age, more children in conflict
with the law will be deprived of their rights and benefits from the law.