PEOPLE v.

ANCAJAS
GR 199270, October 21, 2015

FACTS: AAA, 19 years old at that time, was a household help of the spouses Cueva. On
the night of July 16, 1998, she asked permission to visit her parents’ house which was located in
the same barangay where her employer’s house was located. On the way, she met appellants
who wanted to go with her but she refused. She hid herself for a while until she thought the
appellants already left but they didn’t. When she was continuing her walk to her parent’s
house, appellants reappeared and held her hand. As she struggled to be freed, one of the
appellants covered her mouth with a handkerchief while the other punched her in the stomach
causing her to lose consciousness. She regained consciousness at 1 AM the next day and
noticed she was only wearing her t-shirt while her underwear and pants were on her side. She
felt pain all over her body and blood covered her vagina hence, she went back to her
employer’s house and told them she was raped by appellants.
Dr. Jabat of Severo Verallo Memorial District Hospital conducted an examination of AAA
and found evidences of rape as well as the presence of spermatozoa signifying a recent sexual
intercourse. The defense presented accused-appellant’s birth certificate indicating that he was
still 17 years old at the time of the alleged rape.
RTC found the accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape
and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua pursuant to Art. 63 of the RPC
providing that such penalty should be applied regardless of the presence of the mitigating
circumstance of minority.

ISSUE: WON the mitigating circumstance of minority should be appreciated?

HELD: YES. RA 9344 on Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 provides for retroactive
application hence it must be considered in determining the imposable penalty in this case. Sec.
6 of RA 9344 provides that a child above 15 years of age but below 18 years of age shall be
exempt from criminal liability and subject to an intervention program unless he/she acted with
discernment.
In this case, it was established that accused-appellant acted with discernment when he
covered AAA’s mouth with handkerchief to prevent her from shouting and conspired with the
other accused-appellant in raping AAA. As the crime of rape was committed by two persons,
the penalty imposable under Article 266 (B) of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion perpetua to
death. Pursuant to Article 6362 of the Revised Penal Code, if the penalty prescribed by law is
composed of two indivisible penalties, the lesser penalty shall be imposed if neither mitigating
nor aggravating circumstances are present in the commission of the crime. Since no aggravating
circumstances attended the commission of the crime, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua
is imposable. Appellant Allain was only 17 years old when he committed the crime; he is,
therefore, entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority under Article 68(2) of
the Revised Penal Code which provides that the penalty to be imposed upon a person under 18
but above 15 shall be the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law, but always in the
proper period.
 Hence, the imposable penalty must be reduced by one degree, i.e., from reclusion
perpetua, which is reclusion temporal. Being a divisible penalty, the Indeterminate Sentence
Law is applicable.63 To determine the minimum of the indeterminate penalty, reclusion
temporal should be reduced by one degree, prision mayor, which has a range of from six (6)
years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years. There being no modifying circumstances attendant
to the crime, the maximum of the indeterminate penalty should be imposed in its medium
period. The minimum of the indeterminate penalty should be taken from the full range of
prision mayor.

Section 38 of RA No. 9344 provides that when the child below 18 years of age who committed a
crime and was found guilty, the court shall place the child in conflict with the law under
suspended sentence even if such child has reached 18 years or more at the time of judgment.
Although suspension of sentence still applies even if the child in conflict with the law is already
18 years of age or more at the time the judgment of conviction was rendered, however, such
suspension is only until the minor reaches the maximum age of 21 as provided under Section 40
of RA No. 9344.
(Since RTC did not suspend the sentence of accused-appellant pursuant to RA 9344, the
latter is now 34 years old. The court still extended the application of RA 9344 beyond the age of
21 to give meaning to the legislative intent of the said law. The accused-appellant was confined
in an agricultural camp or other training facility pursuant to Section 51 of RA 9344.