Art12 (Exempting circumstance)
its probative value.
PEOPLE v. DOMINGO CASE DIGEST
A testimony solemnly given in court should not be set aside lightly,
least of all by a mere affidavit executed after the lapse of considerable
time.
FACTS: Appellant Larry Domingo (Domingo) was charged with Illegal
Recruitment (Large Scale) and two (2) counts of Estafa before Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan. Domingo, denied all the
accusations against him and claimed that he was a driver hired by the
real recruiter, Gimeno, whom he met inside the Victory Liner Bus bound
for Manila in September, 2000 Domingo likewise presented as
witnesses private complainants Enrico Espiritu and Roberto Castillo who
corroborated his claim that it was Gimeno who actually recruited them,
and that the filing of the complaint against appellant was a desperate
attempt on their part to get even because Gimeno could not be located.
Prosecution witness Simeon Cabigao (Cabigao) testified that he was
among those who were recruited by Domingo, but he later on recanted
his testimony. By Joint Decision, the trial court found Domingo guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Recruitment (Large Scale) and of 2
counts of Estafa.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals, Domingo maintained that the trial
court erred for failing to give weight to Cabigao‘s retraction. The Court
of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court on all accounts.
Hence, the present petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not the retraction of Cabigao should be given weight
HELD: That one of the original complaining witnesses, Cabigao, later
recanted, via an affidavit and his testimony in open court, does not
necessarily cancel an earlier declaration. Like any other testimony,
the same is subject to the test of credibility and should be received with
caution. For a testimony solemnly given in court should not be set aside
lightly, least of all by a mere affidavit executed after the lapse
of considerable time. In the case at bar, the Affidavit of Recantation was
executed three years after the complaint was filed. It is thus not
unreasonable to consider his retraction an afterthought to deny
At all events, and even with Cabigao‘s recantation, the Supreme Court
finds that the prosecution evidence consisting of the testimonies of the
four other complainants, whose credibility has not been impaired, has
not been overcome.
PEOPLE V ALCABAO
Facts: The accused in this case was a minor who 11 years old. The
accused caught the offended party shooting his mango fruit, thus, the
minor hit the victim back with a slingshot. The minor hit the victim’s
eyes and uttered the words “Putang ina mo, mabuti matikman mo”
after he committed the crime.
Issue: Whether or not the accused acted with discernment.
Ruling: The accused acted with discernment. The perverted character of
the accused is a factual circumstance which manifests that the minor
acted with discernment.
LLAVE V PEOPLE
Facts: Neil Llave, 12 years old, raped Debbielyn. The victim was pulled
from a vacant lot. The accused ordered her to lie down on a cement. He
removed her shorts and underwear and his own. He penetrated his
penis into the victim’s vagina and had a push and pull movement.
Teofisto, the witness, saw the incident and shouted. The accused fled
the scene. During trial the accused argued that being a minor, he is
presumed that he acted with discernment under paragraph 3 pf Article
12 of the Revised Penal Code thus exempt from criminal liability.
Issue: Whether or not the accused acted with discernment.
Ruling: yes, the accused acted with discernment. The factual
circumstance which bolstered that he acted with discernment is when
the accused stated that he was an outstanding student. This allegation
proves that he acted with discernment with full knowledge and ISSUE: WON the CA gravely erred in not acquitting petitioner who was
intelligence. He was possessed of intelligence well beyond his years and only 13 y.o. when the crime was allegedly committed by him in
thus was able to distinguish which conduct is right or wrong. Hence, the conspiracy with the accused Sonny Zarraga.
accused is not exempt from criminal liability.
RULING: The petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. CR No. 22289 which affirmed the Decision of the Regional
Trial Court of Calamba, Laguna, Branch36, is SET ASIDE. The petitioner
JOSE vs. PEOPLE
is ACQUITTED of the crime charged for insufficiency of evidence.
FACTS: November 14, 1995, P/Supt. Joseph R. Castro of the Fourth
REASONING: The petition is meritorious. Under Article 12(3) of the
Regional Narcotics Unit received an information regarding a big time
Revised Penal Code, a minor over nine years of age and under fifteen is
group of drug pushers from Greenhills will deliver100 grams of shabu at
exempt from criminal liability if charged with a felony. The law applies
Chowking Restaurant located at Brgy. Real, Calamba, Laguna.
even if such minor is charged with a crime defined and penalized by a
Policeofficers planned a buy-bust operation in which they
special penal law. In such case, it is the burden of the minor to prove his
arrested Sonny Zarraga and Alvin Jose. The buy-bust bundle of “money
age in order for him to be exempt from criminal liability. The reason for
bills” and the shabu were recovered. The two were brought to Camp
the exemption is that a minor of such age is presumed lacking the
Vicente Lim for investigation and the shabu was brought to the PNP
mental element of a crime – the capacity to know what is wrong as
Crime Laboratory for examination by P/Senior Inspector Mary Jean
distinguished from what is right or to determine the morality of human
Geronimo who testified that the specimen was asecond or low grade
acts; wrong in the sense in which the term is used in moral wrong.
methamphetamine hydrochloride.

FACTS accdg to ACCUSED: Sonny Zarraga and Alvin Jose claimed that,
on November 13, 1995, they were at SM Mega Mall (sic), Mandaluyong, US V MARALIT
Metro Manila, to change money. Police Officers proceeded to where
FACTS: According to witnesses along with the deceased Florentino, they
Sonny Zarraga’s car was parked. On the way to Greenhills, one of the
were walking along in single file each with a bundle of zacate on their
men opened the gloves compartment of Sonny Zarraga’s car and saw a
head, Florentino bringing up the rear, when they met the defendant and
substance inside the said compartment. Said person asked Sonny
a companion. As they were passing each other they heard a sound
Zarraga if he could come up with P1.5 Million peso for ransom
similar to that made by the dropping of one of the bundles of zacate.
in exchange of his release. On June 10, 1998, the trial court rendered
They instantly turned and saw Florentino and the defendant fighting
judgment convicting both accused of the crime charged and sentencing
with their fist. They soon separated and Florentino, returning to his
each of them to an indeterminate penalty. Court finds both the accused
bundle of zacate, stooped to pick it up when the defendant ran to him
Sonny Zarraga and Alvin Jose guilty beyond reasonable doubt, for
quickly and stabbed him in the left side with a knife. The defendant and
violation of R.A. 6425, as amended, and is hereby sentenced to suffer
his companion then ran away. The witnesses and Florentino went
the penalty of imprisonment of, after applying the Indeterminate
home. Florentino died a few days later as a result of the wound
Sentence Law, six (6) years and one (1) day to ten (10) years. Both
received. The accused and his witness tell a different story, in which it is
accused are hereby ordered to pay the fine of P2 million each and to
claimed that Florentino made an attack upon the accused, after some
pay the cost of suit.
sharp words had passed between them, and struck him several times
with a club; whereupon the accused, in self-defense, made use of his
dagger with the effect already noted. Upon this evidence the trial court
found with the witnesses for the prosecution. The accused was less than
15 years of age at the time the crime was committed.
ISSUE: WON the accused acted with discernment
HELD: YES. It must appear from the evidence that the accused acted
with knowledge of the nature of his acts and of the results which would
naturally follow therefrom; but to establish that fact it is not necessary
that some witness declare directly and in words that he acted with such
knowledge. It is sufficient that, from the evidence as a whole, it is a
necessary inference that he so acted. The trial court taking into
consideration all of the facts and circumstances presented by the
record, together with the appearance of the accused as he stood and
testified in court, drew the conclusion that he was of sufficient
intelligence and was sufficiently endowed with judgment to know that
the act which he committed was wrong and that it was likely to produce
death. In pursuance of that conclusion the court made the finding that
the accused in committing the act complained of acted with
discernment.
PEOPLE V. CORTEZANO & CORTEZANO
FACTS: Lourney Cortezano had 3 children, one of whom was Leah who
was still 8 years old at that time. She left her 3 children to the care of
her parents-in-law who were living under the same roof with their
children, accused - Joel (13), Butchoy (12), Tinggang (6), and their
nephew Boyet (6).
Early in the afternoon of May 6, 1990, Joel and Bernardo ordered their
niece Leah to sleep in their parents room. Joel threatened to whip her if
she refused. She was woken up by her uncles Joel and Butchoy who
were undressing her; she struggled as they raped her.
When Boyet arrived, Joel and Bernardo ordered him to rape Leah and
threatened to box him if he refused. Joel and Bernardo laughed as
Boyet was having his turn with Leah. Joel and Bernardo then called Leah
Lou and Lionel into the room, letting them see their sister naked.
Joel and Bernardo threatened to kill her and the members of the family
if she told anyone about what happened to her. Petrified, Leah did not
reveal to her grandparents what happened to her. After that first
harrowing incident, Joel and Bernardo subjected her to sexual abuse
daily. Joel and Bernardo were charged with 4 counts of rape.
ISSUE: WON the Joel and Bernardo, being minors, 12 and 13 years of
age, respectively, should be exempt from criminal liability.
HELD: NO. They are not exempt from criminal liability.
Article 12. (3) The following are exempt from criminal liability: (3). A
person over nine years of age and under fifteen, unless he acted with
discernment, in which case, such minor shall be proceeded against in
accordance with the provisions of Article 80 of this Code.
A minor who is over nine years old and under fifteen years old at the
time of the commission of the crimes is exempt from criminal liability
only when the said minor acted without discernment. It is the burden of
the prosecution to prove that a minor acted with discernment when he
committed the crime charged.
In determining if such a minor acted with discernment, the Courts
pronouncement in Valentin v. Duquea[34] is instructive:
The discernment that constitutes an exception to the exemption from
criminal liability of a minor under fifteen years of age but over nine,
who commits an act prohibited by law, is his mental capacity to
understand the difference between right and wrong, and such capacity
may be known and should be determined by taking into consideration
all the facts and circumstances afforded by the records in each case, the
very appearance, the very attitude, the very comportment and behavior
of said minor, not only before and during the commission of the act, but
also after and even during the trial.
In this case, the evidence on record shows beyond cavil that the
appellants acted with discernment when they raped the victim, thus: (a)
they wetted the victims vagina before they raped her; (b) one of them
acted as a lookout while the other was raping the victim; (c) they
threatened to kill the victim if she divulged to her parents what they did
to her; (d) they forced Boyet to rape the victim; (e) they laughed as
Boyet was raping the victim; (f) they ordered Leah Lou and Lionel to
look at their sister naked after the appellants had raped her.
PEOPLE V CAPISTRANO
FACTS: Alejo Enriquez Wong, Carmen Verdera, and Placer Canada
testified that the defendant was a so-called Yoin, which means an
armed soldier of the Japanese wearing a Japanese military uniform. At
January 8, 1945, the defendant with other Filipino members of the
Yoin and several Japanese soldiers, all armed, arrived at the house
of Carmen and ordered the inmates therein to open the door. The
appellant and his companions tied the witnesses with several other
people with a rope. They took some people and inmates to the
Japanese garrison then to the Yoin garrison in the same town. One
night, during the detention of Placer in the Yoin garrison, the
appellant attempted to sexually abuse Placer and her girl
companions, but when the women cried and the Japanese came, the
defendant escaped. The accused was more than nine but less than
fifteen years of age at the time that he committed the crime charged.
ISSUE: WON the accused acted with discernment
HELD: YES. The court had the opportunity to see and hear the accused
at the trial found that he acted with discernment. It should be noted,
furthermore, that he appeared as the leader or commander of the
raiding party. Although his minority does not exempt him from criminal
responsibility for the reason that he acted with discernment, yet it
may be considered as a special mitigating circumstance lowering
the penalty by two degrees.
VALCESAR ESTIOCA V PEOPLE
Facts:A number of persons were accused of conspiring and robbing an
elementary school. One of which is Boniao who was 14 years old at the
time of the commission of the crime. They were found guilty by the
lower court. When the case was appealed to the CA, RA 9344 took
effect and Boniao was acquitted since he was a minor at the time of the
crime but without prejudice to his civil liability. Custody was given to his
parents.
ISSUE: Whether RA 9344 can retroact to Boniao’s case.
HELD:Yes, the reckoning point in considering minority is the time of the
commission of the crime. In this case Boniao is 14 years old hence
exempted from criminal liability without prejudice to his civil liability.
Art 22 of the Revised Penal Code provides that penal laws maybe given
retroactive effect if they are in favor of the accused
ROBERT SIERRA V PEOPLE
FACTS: Petitioner was 15 years old when he raped a minor. He was
convicted of rape and was imposed a penalty of imprisonment of
reclusion perpetua and a fine. He elevated the case to CA and during
the pendence of the case, RA 9344 took effect. CA affirmed
theconviction and denied the defense of minority since the age was
not established by presenting the birth certificate but only alleged in the
testimonial of the petitioner and his mother. According to them the
burden of proof of age is upon the prosecution.
ISSUES: Who has the burden of proof in establishing the age of the
accused?
Whether the law be given retroactive application.
HELD: The duty to establish the age of the accused is not on the prosecu
tion but on the accused. Age can be established by birth certificate. Sec.
7 provides that in the absence of such document, age may
be based from the information of the child, testimonies of other
persons, physical appearance and other relevant evidence. Also in case
of doubt, minority should be in favour of the child. In the case
at bar, minority was established by the testimonies of the petitioner and
his mother. This was not objected by the prosecution and did not
even presented contrary evidence. Thus, minority is established. The
law should &e given retroactive application since this favors the
accused as provided for in the Revised Penal Code - penal laws
favouring the accused should &e given retroactive effect. Hence the
accused is considered a minor with an age of not above 15years old. The
case is dismissed and the petitioner is referred to the appropriate local
social welfare.
RAYMUND MADALI V. PEOPLE (G.R. No. 180380, August 4, 2009)
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
FACTS: AAA, the victim, went with the three accused, Rodel, Raymund,
and Bernardino, and the witness, Jovencio, near the Romblon National
High School. The group proceeded to climb the stairs leading to the
reservoir. As soon as they reached the reservoir, Bernardino blindfolded
AAA with the handkerchief of Raymund. Bernardino at once blurted out,
Join the rugby boys. AAA replied, “That’s enough.” Bernardino then
struck AAA thrice with a fresh and hard coconut frond. Raymund took
his turn clobbering AAA at the back of his thighs with the same coconut
frond. Before AAA could recover, he received punches to his head and
body from Rodel, who was wearing brass knuckles. AAA lost
consciousness. Raymund then placed his handkerchief around the neck
of AAA, with its ends tied to a dog chain, and then three malefactors
pulled the body up a tree. Before leaving the scene, the three assailants
warned Jovencio not to reveal the incident to anyone, or he would be
next. Out of fear for his life, did not divulge the incident to anyone for
the next few days.
Three days later, a certain Eugenio Murchanto reported to the police
authorities about a dead man found in Barangay ZZZ near the Romblon
National High School. The policemen went there and found the hung
cadaver, along with paraphernalia for inhaling rugby, empty bottles of
gin and a coconut frond.
Dr. Floresto P. Arizala, Jr., who conducted the autopsy, opined that the
victim died due to head injuries and not to asphyxiation by hanging,
declaring that the victim was already dead when he was tied to the tree,
and that the variety of injuries sustained by the victim could be
attributed to more than one assailant.
Upon investigation, Jovencio narrated the incident and pointed to
Raymund, Rodel and Bernardino as the perpetrators of the crime.
Because of the threat made on him by a certain Wilson, an uncle of
Raymund and Rodel, Jovencio executed a second affidavit repudiating
his first affidavit. Later he reverted to his first affidavit.
The accused advanced the defense of denial and alibi. According to
Rodel, 16 years old, he was with his father Rodolfo Madali in the house
of a friend named Noel Mindoro. Rodel’s testimony was corroborated
by his father and Noel Mindoro.
Raymund, 14 years of age, and Bernardino declared that they were in
their respective houses on the night in question. Bernardino’s testimony
was supported by his father Bernardino Maestro, Sr. and by his
neighbor Diana Mendez. Raymunds friend, Pastor Mario Fajiculay
backed up the formers alibi.
The RTC rendered a guilty verdict against the three accused. On
account of the prosecutions failure to prove the qualifying
circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation, they were only
convicted of homicide. The RTC also appreciated the privileged
mitigating circumstance of minority in favor of the three accused.
Bernardino applied for probation. Thus, only Raymund and Rodel
elevated their convictions to the Court of Appeals.
The CA affirmed the findings of the RTC but pursuant to Section 64 of
Republic Act No. 9344 which exempts from criminal liability a minor 15)
years or below at the time of the commission of the offense, Raymund’s
case was dismissed. Rodel’s conviction was sustained but the imposition
of said penalty was suspended pursuant to Republic Act No. 9344.
Petitioners Raymund and Rodel assail both the RTC and the Court of
Appeals findings, which gave weight and credence to the account of the
incident given by prosecution witness Jovencio, whose testimony
according to them was replete with patent and substantial
inconsistencies. Moreover, petitioners contend that both the RTC and
the Court of Appeals erred in disbelieving the defense of alibi they
interposed, considering that the prosecution failed to muster the
required quantum of proof, and that said defense was corroborated by
testimonies of the other defense witnesses.
ISSUE: What are the criminal liabilities of the accused?
HELD:
1. Raymond - Raymond is exempt. As correctly ruled by the Court of
Appeals, Raymund, who was only 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, to wit: SEC. 6. Minimum
Age of Criminal Responsibility. A child fifteen (15) 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. The exemption
from criminal liability herein established does not include exemption
from civil liability, which shall be enforced in accordance with existing
laws.
SEC. 20. Children Below the Age of Criminal Responsibility. If it has been
determined that the child taken into custody is fifteen (15) years old or
below, the authority which will have an initial contact with the child has
the duty to immediately release the child to the custody of his/her
parents or guardian, or in the absence thereof, the child's nearest
relative. Said authority shall give notice to the local social welfare and
development officer who will determine the appropriate programs in
consultation with the child and to the person having custody over the
child. If the parents, guardians or nearest relatives cannot be located, or
if they refuse to take custody, the child may be released to any of the
following: a duly registered nongovernmental or religious organization;
a barangay official or a member of the Barangay Council for the
Protection of Children (BCPC); a local social welfare and development
officer; or, when and where appropriate, the DSWD. If the child referred
to herein has been found by the Local Social Welfare and Development
Office to be abandoned, neglected or abused by his parents, or in the
event that the parents will not comply with the prevention program, the
proper petition for involuntary commitment shall be filed by the DSWD
or the Local Social Welfare and Development Office pursuant to
Presidential Decree No. 603, otherwise known as "The Child and Youth
Welfare Code."
Although the crime was committed on 13 April 1999 and Republic Act
No. 9344 took effect only on 20 May 2006, the said law should be given
retroactive effect in favor of Raymund who was not shown to be a
habitual criminal. This is based on Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code
which provides that penal laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as
they favor the person guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal,
as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, although at
the time of the publication of such laws a final sentence has been
pronounced and the convict is serving the same.
While Raymund is exempt from criminal liability, his civil liability is not
extinguished pursuant to the second paragraph of Section 6, Republic
Act No. 9344.
2. Rodel – Rodel was 16 years old at the time of the commission of the
crime. A determination of whether he acted with or without
discernment is necessary pursuant to Section 6 of Republic Act No.
9344, viz:
SEC. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility -- A child above 15 years
but below eighteen (18) years of age shall likewise be exempt from
criminal liability and be subjected to an 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.
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 consideration all the facts and
circumstances afforded by the records in each case.
The CA could not have been more accurate when it opined that Rodel
acted with discernment. Rodel, together with his cohorts, 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.
 Under Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code, 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. However,
the sentence to be imposed against Rodel should be suspended
pursuant to Section 38 of Republic Act No. 9344, which states: 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.
Upon suspension of sentence and after considering the various
circumstances of the child, the court shall impose the appropriate
disposition measures as provided in the Supreme Court Rule on
Juveniles in Conflict with the Law.
The petition is DENIED.
ORTEGA vs PEOPLE
GR No. 151085 August 20, 2008
FACTS: The petitioner, Joemar Ortega, who was then 14 years old, was
charged with the crime of rape for allegedly raping AAA, who was about
8 years old. That the rape happened in 3 occasions, the first one
happened sometime August 1999, when AAA s mother left her in the
care of the petitioner’s mother, Luzviminda. That the petitioner woke
up AAA and led her in the sala and raped her. The second occasion
happened the next day when the petitioner led AAA into the bathroom
and raped her there. In all the instances, petitioner warned AAA to not
tell her parents or he will spank her. The third and last time happened in
the house of AAA, where her brother caught her and the petitioner
naked waist down and having intercourse. The brother then told the
incident to his mother. MMM testified that when she asked AAA what
happened, AAA told her that petitioner inserted his fingers and penis
into her vagina. And when MMM examined the private part of her
daughter, she noticed that it was reddish and white fluid was coming
out of it. MMM called Luzviminda and confronted her about what
happened. Luzviminda then demanded that AAA should be brought to a
doctor for examination. The Rural Health Officer, however, did not find
any indication that AAA was molested. Subsequently, the two families
reached an amicable settlement that requires the petitioner to depart
from their house and stay with a certain priest. However, a year later,
the family of AAA charged the petitioner with 3 counts of rape, in which
the petitioner plead not guilty. The RTC ruled that the petitioner is guilty
beyond reasonable doubt in the crime of rape and is sentenced to
reclusion temporal. The CA affirmed the ruling of the trial court. During
the pendency of the case in the SC, RA 9344 Juvenile Justice and
Welfare Act was enacted that establishes a comprehensive system to
manage children in conflict with the law. At the case at bar, because the
petitioner was a minor under 15 years of age at the commission of the
crime, he can be relieved from criminal liability.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner can avail exempting circumstance
provided by the newly enacted law on minors in conflict with law.
HELD: Yes
RATIO: The petitioner can avail the exempting circumstance that will
relieve him from criminal liability because the law enacted was
favorable to the accused, and is therefore retroactive in application.
Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act provides that a child under 15 years of
age in the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal
liability, but is subject to an intervention program. Exemption from
criminal liability, however, does not include exemption from civil
liability. Section 64 of the newly enacted law also provides that cases of
children under 15 years of age at the commission of the crime, shall
immediately be dismissed and the child shall be referred to the
appropriate local social welfare and development officer. The Court
therefore held that the case against Joemar Ortega is hereby
DISMISSED. Petitioner is hereby referred to the local social welfare and
development officer of the locality for the appropriate intervention
program.
REMIENDO V PEOPLE
FACTS: Robert was charged with a crime of rape against a minor
allegedly committed on March and May 1997. He waited for AAA’s
parents to leave the house before defiling the latter and threatening to
kick her if she should shout for help. He was a minor whose age is above
15 but below 18 years old at the time of the crime. He was then
convicted of rape but on appeal invoked a suspension of sentence
pursuant to R.A. No. 9344. By the time he was convicted by the trial
court and before the case was elevated to the Court of Appeals, he was
already 22 years old.
ISSUE: WON RA 9344 may be given retroactive effect, thus exempting
the petitioner, who is convicted by RTC & already 22 y/o before the case
was elevated to CA.
HELD: NO. Pursuant to Sec. 38 and 40 of RA 9344, the suspension
of sentence can no longer be availed since by the time his sentence was
imposed by the trial court, he was already 22 years old. Pursuant to Sec.
6 of RA 9344, if a child is above 15 and below 18 years old, the finding
of discernment is necessary to determine if he would be exempted from
criminal liability. Culled from the records of this case, it is manifested
that Robert acted with discernment, being able to distinguish between
right and wrong and knowing fully well the consequences of his acts.
His act of waiting for the AAA’s parents to leave the house before
defiling the latter and threatening to kick her if she should shout prove
that Robert can differentiate what is right and wrong. He was born on
January 21, 1982. The Joint Judgment was promulgated on October
27,2004. Thus, at the time of the imposition of his sentence, he was
already 22 years old and could no longer be considered a child for the
purposes of the application of R.A. No. 9344.
Discernment is the mental capacity to understand the difference
between right and wrong. The prosecution is burdened to prove that
the accused acted with discernment by evidence of physical
appearance, attitude or deportment not only before and during the
commission of the act, but also after and during the trial. The
surrounding circumstances must demonstrate that the minor knew
what he was doing and that it was wrong. Such circumstance includes
the gruesome nature of the crime and the minor’s cunning and
shrewdness.
PEOPLE V. HERMIE 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.

ROSAL JUBILLA V PEOPLE

PEOPLE V DELIOLA