Declarador v.

Gubaton
G.R. no. 159208, August 18, 2006
J. Callejo, Sr.

Topic: General Considerations - Basic principles in jurisdiction - Principle of Judicial Hierarchy

Case Summary: Frank Bansales killed his teacher, Yvonne Declarador by stabbing her 15 times. He was
charged with murder by the RTC. He was sentenced to indeterminate 12y and 1d tp 17y and 4m reclusion
temporal. However, sinnce he was 17 years old when the crime was committed, respondent Judge
Gubaton suspended the service of his sentence pursuant to PD 603, and ordered that he be committed to
the Regional Rehabilitation Center for Youth instead. The surviving spouse of Declarador brought the
current petition for certiorari assaukung the RTC decision to suspend the service of sentence.

Petitioners: Rennie Declarador

Respondents: Hon. Salvador Gubaton (Presiding judge, Brach 14, Roxas City) ad Frank Bansales

DOCTRINE:
1. xx

FACTS
Frank Bansales (17 y.o.) killed his teacher, Yvonne Declarador by stabbing her 15 times. He was convicted
of murder by the RTC. He was sentenced to indeterminate 12y and 1d tp 17y and 4m reclusion temporal.

However, since he was 17 years old when the crime was committed, respondent Judge Gubaton
suspended the service of his sentence pursuant to Art. 192 of PD 603 and AM no. 02-1-18-SC (Rule on
Juveniles in Conflict with the law), and ordered that he be committed to the Regional Rehabilitation Center
for Youth instead. See provisions:

Article 192. Suspension of Sentence and Commitment of Youthful Offender. - If after

hearing the evidence in the proper proceedings, the court should find that the youthful offender has
committed the acts charged against him the court shall determine the imposable penalty, including
any civil liability chargeable against him. However, instead of pronouncing judgment of conviction,
the court shall suspend all further proceedings and shall commit such minor to the custody or care
of the Department of Social Welfare, or to any training institution operated by the government, or
duly licensed agencies or any other responsible person, until he shall have reached twenty-one
years of age or, for a shorter period as the court may deem proper, after considering the reports
and recommendations of the Department of Social Welfare or the agency or responsible individual
under whose care he has been committed.

The youthful offender shall be subject to visitation and supervision by a representative of the
Department of Social Welfare or any duly licensed agency or such other officer as the Court may
designate subject to such conditions as it may prescribe.

The surviving spouse, Rennie Declarador brought the current petition for certiorari under Rule 65 directly
to the SC, assailing the RTC decision to suspend the service of the sentence.

ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT

Declarador contends
 - Under PD 603 and AM 02-1-18 SC, the benefit of a suspended sentence does not apply to a
juvenile who is convicted of an offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life
imprisonment
- Bansales would be disqualified since murder is punishable by RP to death

Bansales contends
- Declarador has no legal standing to file the case since the offense charged is a public crime and
only the OSG is authorized to file this petition
- Sec. 32 of AM 01-1-18-SC entitles the accused to an automatic suspension of snetence and
allows the court to commit the juvenile to a youth center

OSG contends
- Sentence cannot be suspended since murder is punishable by RP to death
- Entitlement to suspension depends on the penalty imposable not the sentence actually
imposed

ISSUES
1. W/N Rennie Declarador has legal standing to file the petition? - YES

He is the surviving spouse of the deceased and the offended party

- In line with spirit of liberal construction of ROC to promote their object

OSG has also filed its comment and has joined Declarador in his plea for nullification of RTC decision

2. W/N Decalardor violated the doctrine of hierarchy of courts when he filed the petition directly
with the SC? - YES, but SC takes cognizance in the interest of justice

General rule: Petitions for review on certiorari seeking to nullify RTC orders should be filed with the CA in
aid of its appellate jurisdiction

A direct invocation of the original jurisdiction of the SC to issue writs of certiorari are allowed only when
there are special and important reasons clearly set out in the petition
- Prevent inordinate demands upon SC’s time and attention
- Prevent overcrowding of docket

Considering the nature and importance of the issues raised and in the interest of speedy justice, the SC
may take cognizance
- SC has suspense its own rules when the interest of justice requires

SC will take cognizance of the case since it involves a juvenile and the application if the Rule on
Juveniles in Conflict with the Law.
 3. W/N Respondent Judge Gubatom committed GAD when he ordered the suspension of
sentence? - YES

Under RPC 248, the imposable penalty of murder is RP to death.

PD 603 was reproduced in AM 02-1-18-SC, where the sentence of the accused is automatically
suspended EXCEPT if it falls under Section 32.

Section 32. Automatic Suspension of Sentence and Disposition Orders. – The sentence shall be
suspended without need of application by the juvenile in conflict with the law. The court shall set
the case for disposition conference within fifteen (15) days from the promulgation of sentence
which shall be attended by the social worker of the Family Court, the juvenile, and his parents or
guardian ad litem. It shall proceed to issue any or a combination of the following disposition
measures best suited to the rehabilitation and welfare of the juvenile:

1. Care, guidance, and supervision orders;

2. Community service orders;

3. Drug and alcohol treatment;

4. Participation in group counseling and similar activities;

5. Commitment to the Youth Rehabilitation Center of the DSWD or other centers for juveniles in
conflict with the law authorized by the Secretary of the DSWD.

The Social Services and Counseling Division (SSCD) of the DSWD shall monitor the compliance by
the juvenile in conflict with the law with the disposition measure and shall submit regularly to the
Family Court a status and progress report on the matter. The Family Court may set a conference for
the evaluation of such report in the presence, if practicable, of the juvenile, his parents or guardian,
and other persons whose presence may be deemed necessary.

The benefits of suspended sentence shall not apply to a juvenile in conflict with the law who has
once enjoyed suspension of sentence, or to one who is convicted of an offense punishable by
death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, or when at the time of promulgation of judgment
the juvenile is already eighteen (18) years of age or over.

The use of the word “punishable” in the rule refers to the possible sentence, not the actual one
- Disqualification is based in the nature of the crime charged and the imposable penalty, not the
actual penalty imposed by the court

RULING
Petition GRANTED
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is GRANTED. The Order of the respondent Judge
suspending the sentence of respondent Frank Bansales is NULLIFIED.

SO ORDERED.

Notes
A few months before the promulgation of SC Decision. RA 9344 took effect. It merely amende the
previous laws so that the suspension of sentence can be enjoyed even if the juvenile is already 18 (y.o.) at
the pronouncement of his guilt. Other disqualifications in the previous laws have been maintained
(including the one tackled in this case).

Section 38 reads:

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
years (18) 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.