Bata May Mali Ka Bang Ginawa?

Prepared by:
Judge Cynthia Martinez Florendo
A.M. No. 004-07-SC, Nov. 21, 2000: Effectivty- December 15, 2000 ;
CHILD ABUSE IN THE PHILIPPINES
58.3% 11-17years old
2.6% 4-10 years old
7.6% 1-3 years old
0.3% infant
1.4% not old enough to be in school
52% elementary level
*Based on the lecture of Prof. Myrna Feliciano, CET
PROFILE OF ABUSER*
33% father abuser
16.1% uncle
12.8% stepfather
6.6% employers
9.5% male neighbors

Based on the lecture

of Prof. Myrna Feliciano, C
Jurisprudence: People v. Rene
Santos, G.R. No. 172322, Sept. 8, 2006

“Studies show
that children,
particularly
young children
make the
“perfect victims.
Rule on examination of a child
witness SC Adm. Order no 004-07-SC
Who is a child?
1. Any person who at the time of giving testimony is below 18 years old;
2. Those above 18 years but found by the court as unable to fully take care of
or protect himself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination
because of physical or mental defect or condition
Section 4 (a)
objectives
1. To maintain an environment that will allow children to give reliable and
complete evidence;
2. To minimize trauma to children;
3. To encourage children to testify;
4. To facilitate ascertainment of truth
Sec. 2
At what age may a
child testify?
People v. Pruna, G.R. No. 138471, Oct. 102002:
-No precise minimum age can be fixed at which
children shall be excluded from testifying;
- The intelligence, not the age of a young child is
the test of the competency as a witness
People vs. Ugos, G.R. No. 181633,
Sept. 12, 2008
The line of leading questions objected to by accused appellant was warranted
given the circumstances. A child of tender years may be asked leading questions
under Section 10 (c), Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. Section 20 of the 2000
Rules on Examination of child witness provides: “The court may allow leading
questions in all stages of examination of a child if the same will further the
interests of justice.”
Presumption of competence

To rebut the presumption of competence enjoyed by

a child, the burden of proof lies on the party
challenging his competence. Sec. 6 b
Competency
If there is doubt, what shall be done?
When substantial doubt exists regarding the ability of the child to perceive,
remember, communicate, distinguish truth from falsehood, or appreciate the
duty to tell the truth in court, competency examination shall be conducted
either motu proprio or upon motion. Sec. 6
Proof of necessity
A party seeking a competency examination must
present proof of necessity for competency
examination. The age of the child by itself is not
sufficient basis for a competency examination. Sec.6 a
The report of the SW can be the basis of
competency examination
Jurisprudence: Republic vs. CA,
349 SCRA 451
When a witness is produced, it is a right and
privilege accorded to the adverse party to object to
his examination on the ground of incompetency to
testify.
When must objection be made?
(1) If a party knows before trial that a witness is incompetent, objection must
be made before trial that a witness is incompetent, objection must be made
before he has given any testimony;
(2) if the incompetency appears on the trial, it must be interposed as soon as it
becomes apparent. (Ibid)
Who conducts competency examination?
1. Only the Judge
2. Questions of parties to be submitted to the Judge;
3. Judge has discretion to propound the questions Sec. 6d
 Developmentally appropriate questions:
1. Appropriate to the age and developmental level of the child;
What kinds of questions 2. Shall not be related to the issues at trial;
must be asked?
3. Shall focus on the ability of the child to remember, communicate,
distinguish between truth and falsehood, and appreciate the duty to
testify truthfully. Sec. 6 e
Dulla v. Court of Appeals,
326 SCRA 32 (2000).

The determination of the competence and capability

of a child as a witness rests primarily with the trial
judge.
Jurisprudence on competency
of children: People v. Alba,
305 SCRA 811

The high court ruled that children of sound mind are likely
to be more observant of incidents which take place within
their view than older persons, and their testimonies are
likely more correct in detail than that of older persons.
Giving the oath
“Research findings show that when children promise to tell
the truth, it includes the act of telling the truth.”
Suggested way for a child to take the oath is to simply
ask: “Do you promise to tell the truth?” (Testimonial
Competence of Children, Bernadette J. Madrid, MD)
May a child be subjected to oath?

Sec. 7. Before testifying, a child shall take an oath or affirmation to tell the truth.
The truthfulness of children
“False allegations do occur, but are rare,:
1.5 % in a series of 551 sexual abuse notifications (Oates, K, et al., Child Abuse and Neglect,
2000, 24; p. 149-157)
0% in a series of 798 investigations” (Trocme, N & Bala, N Child Abuse and Neglect, 2005; 29;
p.1333) (Testimonial Competence of Children, Bernadette Madrid, MD)
Pp v. Taguilid, G.R.
no. 181544, April Judicial experience has enabled the courts to
11, 2012 accept the verity that when a minor says that
she was raped, she says in effect all that is
necessary to show that rape was committed
against her.
Unavailable child witness: People v. Fallones, G.R. No. 190341, March 16, 2011

Although Alice died before she could testify, the evidence shows that
she positively identified Fallones as her abuser before the barangay
officials and the police. Amalia, her sister, testified of her own personal
knowledge that she had been out looking for Alice that midmorning;
that she heard the latter’s voice from within Fallones’ house imploring
her attacker to stop what he was doing to her; that upon repeatedly
knocking at Fallones’ door, he opened it, revealing the presence of her
sister, her shorts bloodied.
Vulnerability to suggestions

The prosecution presented the psychologist who gave Alice a series of

psychological tests. She confirmed that Alice had been sexually abused and
suffered post-traumatic stress disorder. She found Alice to have moderate
mental retardation with a mental age of a five-year-old person, although she
was 18 at the time of the incident. On cross-examination, the psychologist
testified that while Alice may be vulnerable to suggestions, she had no ability
to recall or act out things that may have been taught to her. Neither can
anyone manipulate her emotions if indeed she was influenced by others.
(id)
Pp v. Llanita, G.R. No. 134101,
Sept. 5, 2001

It has been consistently held that the date

of the commission of the rape is not an
essential element of the crime. (Pp v.
Carlito, 311 SCRA 680)
What do school Aged children remember
in relation to date or time?

“School-aged child may remember that they were

living in a certain place or attending a certain
school and her grade when the abuse occurred;
near other meaningful events. Can also be
corroborated by other witnesses.” (ibid, Dr. Madrid)
PEOPLE VS. RODITO DAGANIO, G.R. No. 137385, January 23, 2002

The trend in procedural law is to give wide latitude to

the courts in exercising control over the questioning of
a child witness. x x x Leading questions in all stages of
examination of a child are allowed if the same will
further the interests of justice.
Section 19.
 PEOPLE VS. RODITO DAGANIO, G.R. No.
137385, January 23, 2002

In the case at bar, the victim was twelve (12) years old when she testified in court.
When most children her age were already in Grade VI of elementary education, she
was only in Grade III. We can also glean from her testimony that she could not
grasp the legal concept of “rape.” Thus, the trial judge correctly allowed the
prosecutor to ask leading questions to ferret out the truth.
PEOPLE VS. RODITO DAGANIO, G.R. No. 137385, January 23, 2002

The trend in procedural law is to give wide latitude to

the courts in exercising control over the questioning of
a child witness. x x x Leading questions in all stages of
examination of a child are allowed if the same will
further the interests of justice.
Section 19.
PEOPLE VS. RODITO DAGANIO, G.R. No. 137385, January 23, 2002

The reasons are spelled out in our Rule on Examination of a Child Witness, which
took effect on December 15, 2000, namely:
(1) to facilitate the ascertainment of the truth;
(2) to ensure that questions are stated in a form appropriate to the developmental
level of the child;
(3) to protect children from harassment or undue embarrassment; and
(4) avoid waste of time.
Sec. 19
Suggestions
“For specific time:
Relate when event occurred with other markers in
the child’s daily schedule e.g. breakfast, lunch, arrived
from school, supper, at bedtime, or what was on tv at
the time, or where was mommy?” (Bernadette
Madrid, MD)
Pp v. Rene Santos, G.R.
no. 172322. Sept. 8, 2006
The child’s age and development level will govern how
much she comprehends about the abuse and how she
affects her.
Certainly, children have more problems in providing
accounts of events because they do not understand
everything they experience.
Remedies:Interpreter Sec. 9
for child an interpreter whom the child can understand
and who understands the child may be
appointed by the court. motu proprio or upon
motion, to interpret for the child
When does the court appoint a facilitator?
1. Motu proprio; or
2. upon motion,
if the court determines that the child is unable to
understand or respond to questions asked. Sec. 10a
Who may be the facilitator?
Child
2. Psychiatrist; 3. Social worker;
psychologist;

4. Guidance 6. Religious
5. Teacher;
counsellor; leader;

7. Parent or
Sec. 10a
relative.
How should questions be posed?
Respective counsels shall pose questions to the child only
through the facilitator.
Sec. 10b
 Duty of the
facilitator
Facilitator shall take an oath or affirmation to
pose questions to the child according to the
meaning intended by counsel. Sec 10c
Whose words shall be used?
1. The questions shall either be in the words used by
counsel; or
2. if the child is not likely to understand the same. In
words that are comprehensible to the child and
which convey the meaning intended by counsel .
Sec. 10b
 Support persons
Who is a support person?
-a person chosen by the child to accompany him to testify at, or
attend a judicial proceeding or deposition to provide emotional
support to him.
Sec. 4f
 What does a support
person do?
1. To be within the view of the child while testifying; Sec. 11a1
2. May accompany the child to the witness stand, provided the
support person does not completely obscure the child from view of
the opposing party, judge or hearing officer. Sec. 11 a2
May a support person
hold the child witness?

Yes. The court may allow the support person to hold the
hand of the child or take other appropriate steps to
provide emotional support to the child in the course of
the proceedings. Sec. 11a3
 What shall be done if the SP
chosen is also a witness?
1. Court may disapprove if there will be substantial risk of
influencing or affecting the contents of the testimony of the
child Sec. 11b;
2. If court allows, SP’s testimony shall be presented first ahead of
the testimony of the child. Sec. 11 c
 Revised Rule on Children in Conflict with the Law

Effectivity: Dec. 1, 2009 ;

A.M. no. 02-1-
18-sc; R.A. 10630 R.A. 9344 , Salient features of R.A. 10630: An Act Strengthening
The Juvenile Justice System in the Philippines

Approved: Oct. 3, 2013

R.A. 9344 and RRCICL
Compliant with UN Convention on the
Rights of the Child, Beijing Rules, Riyadh
Guidelines, Havana Rules
Applicability
All criminal cases involving
children in conflict with the law.
Sec. 1, first paragraph
Who is a CICL?
A person who at the time of the commission of the
offense is below 18 yrs old but not less than 15
years 1 day old. Sec. 1 par. 2
Exception A person who shall have reached the age of 18
yrs at the time of initial contact without
prejudice to the rights granted under Secs. 53,
54, 55 & 56 of this Rule.
Rights of CICL
1. Sec. 53. Credit in Service of Sentence
 Jurisprudence: Atizado & Monreal,
G.R. No. 173822, Oct. 13, 2010

Monreal has been detained for over 16 years, that is, from the
time of his arrest on May 18, 1994 until the present. Given that
the entire period of Monreal's detention should be credited in the
service of his sentence, pursuant to Section 41 of Republic Act
No. 9344, the revision of the penalty now warrants his
immediate release from the penitentiary.
 Rights of CICL
Sec. 54. Confidentiality of Proceedings and Records
 People of the Philippines v.
Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693,
September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419,

this Court resolved to withhold the real name of the victim-survivor and to use fictitious
initials instead to represent her in its decisions. Likewise, the personal circumstances of the
victims-survivors or any other information tending to establish or compromise their
identities, as well as those of their immediate family or household members, shall not be
disclosed. The names of such victims, and of their immediate family members other than
the accused shall appear as "AAA," "BBB," "CCC," and so on. Addresses shall appear as "xxx" as
in "No. xxx Street, xxx District, City of xxx."
Duties of persons Assign an alias to the child (11a) See: Administrative Circular No, 83-2015.
Sept. 5, 2017
in authority
Rights of CICL
Sec. 55. Non-liability for:
1. Perjury; or
2. Concealment ;or
3. Misrepresentation; or
4. failure to acknowledge
5. the case; or
6. Recite any fact related
thereto in response to any
inquiry
Rights of CICL
Sec. 56. Sealing of the records. How?
1. court, motu proprio;
2. Application of CICL if
of age alreadyå;
3. Motion of parents or guardians;
Upon notice to prosecution and
after hearing – sealing of the records
if two years have elapsed
Conditions of sealing the
records
Two years have elapsed since:
1. The final discharged of the child after suspension of
sentence or probation; or
2. From the date of the closure order; and
3. The child has no pending case of an offense or a
crime involving moral turpitude.
Sec. 56 (a)
 What is the effect of sealing
of records upon entry of
order?

1. case shall be treated as if it never occurred;

2. All index references shall be deleted;
3. In case of inquiry, the court, prosecution, law enforcement officers and
other offices and agencies that dealt with the case shall reply that no
record exist with respect to the child concerned.
Sec. 56(b)
Sealing of
the records:
Sec. 56
 Can the sealed records
be inspected?
Yes. How?
Only by order of the court upon petition of the child who is the
subject of the records or of other proper parties.
Sec. 56 (b)
Who are the Any record regarding a child shall be confidential and kept under seal. Except upon written request
and order of the court, a record shall only be released to the following:

other proper
parties referred Members of the court staff for administrative use;
to? Sec. 31 (a) Defense counsel;
Rule on The guardian ad litem;
Examination of
Agents of investigating law enforcement agencies; and
Child Witness
Other persons as determined by the court.
Age of criminal responsibility
15 years and 1 day old or above but below 18 yrs of age,
commits an offense with discernment. Sec.4a
Child shall be subjected to appropriate proceedings in
accordance with Sec. 3 R.A. 10630 (Sec. 6, R.A. 9344)
Wharton Criminal Law, Vol. I, p. 74.cted in the case of [ G.R. NO. 162052, January 13, 2005 ]
ALVIN JOSE, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

The reason for the exemption is that a minor of such age is

presumed lacking the mental element of a crime – the capacity
to know what is wrong as distinguished from what is right or to
determine the morality of human acts; wrong in the sense in
which the term is used in moral wrong.
Age of criminal responsibility; Section 3, R.A. 10630 amended Section
6, R.A. 9433
- 15 y/o or under at the time of the commission of the offense:
- exempted from criminal liability but subjected to intervention
program;
- Not exempt from civil liability borne by parents/child. Sec. 6, R.A.
9344; Sec. 3 R.A. 10630 (See Art. 219 FC)
 RA 9344, Jurisprudence: Sierra v.
People, G.R. No. 182941, July 3, 2009
x x xthis law modifies as well the minimum age limit of criminal
irresponsibility for minor offenders; it changed what paragraphs 2 and 3
of Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended, previously
provided - i.e., from "under nine years of age" and "above nine years of
age and under fifteen" (who acted without discernment) - to "fifteen
years old or under" and "above fifteen but below 18" (who acted without
discernment) in determining exemption from criminal liability
 RA 9344, In providing exemption, the new law - as the old paragraphs 2
Jurisprudence: Sierra and 3, Article 12 of the RPC did - presumes that the minor
offenders completely lack the intelligence to distinguish right
v. People, G.R. No. from wrong, so that their acts are deemed involuntary ones for
182941, July 3, 2009 which they cannot be held accountable. The current law also
drew its changes from the principle of restorative justice that it
espouses; it considers the ages 9 to 15 years as formative
years and gives minors of these ages a chance to right their
wrong through diversion and intervention measures. Section4,q
 Jurisprudence: Sierra v. People,
G.R. No. 182941, July 3, 2009

In tackling the issues of age and minority, we stress at the

outset that the ages of both the petitioner and the
complaining victim are material and are at issue.
What is the importance of age of the private complainant?
1. The age of the petitioner is critical for purposes of his
entitlement to exemption from criminal liability under
R.A. No. 9344;
2. while the age of the victim is material in characterizing
the crime committed and in considering the resulting
civil liability that R.A. No. 9344 does not remove
(Underlining supplied) id.
 When is child deemed 15 years old?
A child is deemed to be fifteen (15) years of age on the day of the fifteenth
anniversary of his/her birthdate. Sec. 6, par. 2, R.A. 10630 (Sec. 3, R.A.
9344)
Jurisprudence : Ortega v. People, G.R. No. 151085, August
20, 2008

On appeal, R. A. 9344 took effect, hence an issue was

raised as to whether the pertinent provisions of R.A. No.
9344 apply to petitioner's case, considering that at the
time he committed the alleged rape, he was merely 14
years old.
 “Although there is a crime committed, no criminal liability
attaches. Sec. 6 of RA 9344 exempts a child below fifteen
from criminal liability if at the time of the commission of the
crime he is below fifteen (15) years of age. Upon assessment,
Ortega v. People the offender will be released to the custody of his parents or
be referred to intervention programs.”
SEC. 68. Children Who Have Been Convicted and are Serving Sentence
1. Persons who have been convicted and are serving sentence at the time of the effectivity
of this Act;
2. who were below the age of eighteen (18) years at the time the commission of the
offense for which they were convicted and are serving sentence;
3. shall likewise benefit from the retroactive application of this Act;
4. They shall be entitled to appropriate dispositions provided under this Act and their
sentences shall be adjusted accordingly;
5. They shall be immediately released if they are so qualified under this Act or other
applicable law.
Jurisprudence: Robert Sierra v.
People, G.R. No. 182941, July 03, 2009

That the petitioner committed the rape before R.A. No. 9344 took
effect and that he is no longer a minor (he was already 20 years
old when he took the stand) will not bar him from enjoying the
benefit of total exemption that Section 6 of R.A. No. 9344 grants.
What is The capacity of the child at the time of the
discerment? commission of the offense to understand the
difference between right and wrong and the
consequences of the wrongful act. Sec. 4j
Who determines
discernment?
LSWDO during the initial investigation (Rule 34.c, IRR);
2. Prosecutor during P. I. (Sec. 18 (b), Prosecutor’s Manual in
Handling Child Related Cases)
3. Judge when the case is already in court.
Who has the burden of proving discernment?
For a minor at such an age to be criminally liable, the
prosecution is burdened (Adams v. State, 262 A.2d 60(1970).)
to prove beyond reasonable doubt, by direct or circumstantial
evidence, that he acted with discernment, meaning that he
knew what he was doing and that it was wrong. Adams v.
State, 262 A.2d 60 (1970).
What to prove
What proof is needed?
to prove beyond reasonable doubt
How? By:
1. direct; or
2. circumstantial evidence, that he acted with discernment, meaning that he
knew what he was doing and that it was wrong. (Adams v. State, 262 A.2d
60 (1970) as cited in the case of Jose v. People)
Jurisprudence on Discernment: Llave v.
People, G.R. No. 166040, April 26, 2006

As regards the issue of whether the accused-

appellant acted with discernment, his conduct
during and after the "crime" betrays the theory
that as a minor, the accused-appellant does not
have the mental faculty to grasp the propriety
and consequences of the act he made.
 Llave v. People, G.R. No. 166040,
April 26, 2006

As correctly pointed out by the prosecution, the fact

that forthrightly upon discovery, the accused-appellant
fled the scene and hid in his grandmother's house
intimates that he knew that he did something that
merits punishment.
 Such circumstantial evidence may include:

• the utterances of the minor;

On • his overt acts before, during and after the commission of the
crime relative thereto;
• the nature of the weapon used in the commission of the crime;
circumstantial • his attempt to silence a witness;
• his disposal of evidence; or
evidence • his hiding the corpus delict

i.
On circumstantial evidence, Llave case
“His flight as well as his act of going into hiding clearly conveys the idea
that he was fully aware of the moral depravity of his act and that he knew
he committed something wrong. Otherwise, if he was indeed innocent or if
he was not least aware of the moral consequences of his acts, he would
have immediately confronted private complainant and her parents and
denied having sexually abused their daughter”
.
Llave v. People, G.R. No. 166040, April 26, 2006
During the trial, petitioner submitted documentary evidence to
show that he was a consistent honor student and has, in fact,
garnered several academic awards. This allegation further
bolstered that he acted with discernment, with full knowledge
and intelligence.
Llave v. People, G.R. No.
166040, April 26, 2006

The fact that petitioner was a recipient of several academic

awards and was an honor student further reinforces the
finding that he was possessed of intelligence well beyond his
years and thus was able to distinguish, better than other
minors of his age could, which conduct is right and which is
morally reprehensible.
Jurisprudence on Discernment: Pp v.
Jacinto, G.R. No. 182239, March 16, 2011

"(1) choosing an isolated and dark place to perpetrate the crime, to

prevent detection[;] and (2) boxing the victim xxx, to weaken her
defense" are indicative of then seventeen (17) year-old appellant's
mental capacity to fully understand the consequences of his
unlawful action.
Jurisprudence on Discernment:People v. Doqueña, 68 Phil. 580, 583
(1939)
The Court held that the accused-appellant therein acted with discernment in raping the
victim under the following facts:
Taking into account the fact that when the accused Valentin Doqueña committed the
crime in question,
1. he was a 7th grade pupil in the intermediate school of the municipality of Sual,
Pangasinan; and
2. as such pupil, he was one of the brightest in said school;
3. and was a captain of a company of the cadet corps thereof; and
 Jurisprudence on
Discernment:People v. Doqueña,
68 Phil. 580, 583 (1939)

This court is convinced that the accused, in committing the crime,

acted with discernment and was conscious of the nature and
consequences of his act, and so also has this court observed at the
time said accused was testifying in his behalf during the trial of
this case
Duties of a person in authority
taking a child into custody. Sec.
11, RA 10360
1. Assign an alias to the child (11a)
2. Blotter details contains the true name of the child(11b).
3. Present proper identification of the child(11e)
4. Notify the child’s Parents, guardians or custodians(11K)
 6. Ensure expedited transfer of the
Duties…. child…not later than 8 hours (11j);
5. Record all the procedures undertaken in
the initial investigation (11o);
 Preliminary
-conducted by the prosecutor;
investigation -CICL should be given a lawyer;(Sec. 19,
Rules)
-Information to be filed within 45 days
(Sec.21)
Section 8 R. A. 10630 amended Sec. 33 R.A. 9344
The criminal information must allege that the child acted with
discernment.
ALVIN JOSE VS. PEOPLE, G.R. NO. 162052, January 13, 2005

The claim of the OSG that the prosecution was able to prove that
the petitioner conspired with his co-accused to sell shabu to the
poseur-buyer, and thereby proved the capacity of the petitioner to
discern right from wrong, is untenable.
ALVIN JOSE VS. PEOPLE, G.R. NO. 162052, January 13, 2005

Conspiracy is defined as an agreement between two or more persons to

commit a crime and decide to commit it. Conspiracy presupposes capacity
of the parties to such conspiracy to discern what is right from what is
wrong. Since the prosecution failed to prove that the petitioner acted
with discernment, it cannot thereby be concluded that he conspired with
his co-accused.
ALVIN JOSE VS. PEOPLE, G.R. NO. 162052, January 13, 2005
Clearly, the prosecution did not endeavor to establish Rene’s mental capacity to fully
appreciate the consequences of his unlawful act. Moreover, its cross-examination of
Rene did not, in any way, attempt to show his discernment. He was merely asked
about what he knew of the incident that transpired on 16 April 1991 and whether he
participated therein.
People v. Estepano, 307 SCRA 701
Accordingly, even if he was, indeed, a co-conspirator, he would still be exempt from
criminal liability as the prosecution failed to rebut the presumption of non-discernment
on his part by virtue of his age. The cross-examination of Rene could have provided the
prosecution a good occasion to extract from him positive indicators of his capacity to
discern. But, in this regard, the government miserably squandered the opportunity to
incriminate him
No Information shall be filed on the
following offenses: Section 21

1. Status offenses;
2. Vagrancy (decriminalized under R.A. 10158) and
prostitution under Art. 202 RPC
No Information shall be filed on the following offenses:
Section 21

3. Mendicancy –P.D. 1563

No Information shall be filed on the following offenses:
Section 21

.4. Sniffing of rugby- P.D. 1619

Custody of CICL Pendente Lite
Non-serious offenses (prision correccional)
Release CICL for custody on:
a. Recognizance to mother or father, guardian, custodian or nearest relative
1. Only after hearing;
2. As recommended by Social Worker;
3. With conformity of the prosecutor and private complainant. Sec. 25
Custody of CICL Pendente
Lite
b. On bail
1. As a matter of right;
2. Offense not punishable by reclusion perpetua;
3. Offense if punishable by reclusion perpetua but evidence of guilt
is not strong.
Custody of CICL Pendente
Lite
b. Bail not a matter of right
If penalty of the offense charged is reclusion perpetua and evidence of
guilt is strong.
Court shall commit the child to a youth rehabilitation center or youth
detention home who shall be provided with a healthy environment.
Sec. 28RJCL
Determination of Age:
CICL enjoys the
presumption of
minority. Sec. 5 Rules
on CICL Best evidence: Certificate of Live Birth. Sec.
Evidence to prove age Sec.
5(2)
the absence of CoLB: similar authentic document such as
(1) baptismal certificate;
(2) School records; (3) any pertinent doc that shows the birth of
child.
Jurisprudence: Sierra v. People
The petitioner claims total exemption from criminal liability because he was not more
than 15 years old at the time the rape took place. The CA disbelieved this claim for
the petitioner's failure to present his birth certificate as required by Section 64 of R.A.
No. 9344. The CA also found him disqualified to avail of a suspension of sentence
because the imposable penalty for the crime of rape is reclusion perpetua to death.
 Jurisprudence: Who has the burden of proof? Sierra v.
People
The burden of evidence has now shifted to the defense which now claims, by an
affirmative defense, that the accused, even if guilty, should be exempt from criminal
liability because of his age when he committed the crime. The defense, therefore, not
the prosecution, has the burden of showing by evidence that the petitioner was 15
years old or less when he committed the rape charged
 Jurisprudence: x x x minority and age are not elements of the crime
of rape; the prosecution therefore has no duty to
Sierra v. People prove these circumstances. To impose the burden of
proof on the prosecution would make minority and
age integral elements of the crime when clearly they
are not.
Jurisprudence: Burden of Prosecution:People v. Villarama, G.R. No. 139211, February
12, 2003

the prosecution has a burden related to age,

this burden relates to proof of the age of
the victim as a circumstance that qualifies
the crime of rape.
In the absence of
documents, testimonies of:
Sec. 5(3)

1. CICL;
2. Member of the family qualified to testify
3. Other persons
Same as in Section
7 R.A. 9344
Ithe words testimony and testify both derive
from the latin word testis referring to the
notion of a disinterested third-party witness

In ancient Rome, two men taking an oath of

allegiance held each other’s testicles, and men held
their own testicles as a sign of truthfulness while
bearing witness in a public forum. (“Testify” Comes
from the Latin word for Testicle by Dario
Maestripiere Ph.D.; psychologytoday.com)
How to prove age.
Sec. 5(3)
Other relevant evidence, e.g., dental examination
Who has the burden of
proof in proving age? Sec. 6

Any person alleging the age of the child

Jurisprudence: Robert Sierra v. People, G.R. No. 182941, July 03,
2009
As to the penalty, We agree with the Office of the Solicitor General that Robert is not
exempt from liability. First, it was not clearly established and proved by the defense
that Robert was 15 years old or below at the time of the commission of the crime. It
was incumbent for the defense to present Robert's birth certificate if it was to invoke
Section 64 of Republic Act No. 9344. Neither is the suspension of sentence available to
Robert
Procedure if age is contested. Sec. 6 par. 2
Prior to the filing of information:
File a case for determination of age.
Nature: Summary proceedings
Decision; shall be rendered within 24 hours from receipt of appropriate pleading of
both parties
 Jurisprudence: Atizado & Monreal v. People, G.R. No. 173822,
Oct. 13, 2010
Any person contesting the age of the child in conflict with the law prior to the filing
of the information in any appropriate court may file a case in a summary proceeding
for the determination of age before the Family Court which shall decide the case
within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt of the appropriate pleadings of all
interested parties.
Determination of age if a case is already
filed Sec. 7 RA 9344

A motion to determine age of the CICL is filed;

Pending hearing on the said motion, proceedings on the main
case is suspended.
 Jurisprudence: Atizado & Monreal v. People, G.R. No. 173822,
Oct. 13, 2010
If a case has been filed against the child in conflict with the law and is pending in the
appropriate court, the person shall file a motion to determine the age of the child in
the same court where the case is pending. Pending hearing on the said motion,
proceedings on the main case shall be suspended.
 Jurisprudence: Atizado &
Monreal v. People, G.R. No.
173822, Oct. 13, 2010
In all proceedings, law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges
and other government officials concerned shall exert all efforts at
determining the age of the CICL.
Determination of age under
Sec. 7 R.A. 9344 as expanded
by R.A. 10630

Presumption of minority until child is proven to be 18

years or older.
Age may be determined from the child's birth certificate,
baptismal certificate or any other pertinent documents
In case of doubt
as to age, what
shall be done?
In case of doubt, it shall be resolved in
child’s favour.
 Jurisprudence: Atizado & Monreal v. People, G.R. No, 173822,
Oct. 13, 2010
Yet, it cannot be doubted that Monreal was a minor below 18 years of age when the
crime was committed on April 18, 1994. Firstly, his counter-affidavit executed on June
30 1994 stated that he was 17 years of age.
 Jurisprudence: Atizado & Monreal v. People, G.R. No, 173822,
Oct. 13, 2010

Secondly, the police blotter recording his arrest mentioned that he was 17 years old at
the time of his arrest on May 18, 1994.
Jurisprudence: Atizado & Monreal v.
People, G.R. No. 173822, Oct. 13, 2010

Thirdly, Villafe's affidavit dated June 29, 1994

averred that Monreal was a minor on the date of
the incident.
 Jurisprudence: Atizado & Monreal v. People, G.R. No. 173822,
Oct. 13, 2010
Fourthly, as RTC's minutes of hearing dated March 9, 1999 showed, Monreal was 22
years old when he testified on direct examination on March 9, 1999, which meant that
he was not over 18 years of age when he committed the crime.
Jurisprudence: Atizado & Monreal v.
People, G.R. No. 173822, Oct. 13, 2010

Fifthly, Mirandilla described Monreal as a teenager

and young looking at the time of the incident
Case Study Report
Social Worker (SW) has to undertake a social case inquiry on:
1. child;
2. Child’s family;
3. Child’s environment; and
4. Such other matters;
To aid the court in the proper disposition of the case.
Diversion
Diversion Committee (DC):
1. BCC;
2. Prosecutor;
3. Lawyer/PA
Sec. 31, RRCICL
 When is If offense is punishable by > 12 yrs;
there no If DC determines that diversion is not proper;
diversion? When the child or the private complainant object to the diversion;
When there is failure of the diversion program.
Diversion Section
32 (b)
 DC shall submit a report to the court recommending that the case
be subjected to formal criminal proceedings;

What happens Court shall direct transmittal of records to OCC;

if there is no
OCC assigns regular criminal docket number;
diversion?
OCC returns the records for arraignment and formal proceedings.
What happens before the
DC?
DC shall call for conference with notice to:
1. child;
2. Parents or guardian;
3. Child’s counsel;
4. Private complainant.
Purpose: To determine if the child can be diverted to the
community Continuum instead of formal trial. Sec. 33
 Factors to consider in determining
whether diversion is appropriate
a. Past records if any;
b. Is the child a threat to her self/community;
c. Feeling of remorse;
d. Child or parent is indifferent;
e. Availability of community based programs;
Note: DC cannot recommend diversion if the child or private
complainant objects.
Sec. 33
Factors to take for the diversion program
1. Individual characteristics; and
2. Peculiar circumstances of the child.
May include any or combination of the following:
a. Written or oral reprimand or citation;
b. Written or oral apology;
c. payment of the damaged caused;
d. Payment of the cost of the proceedings;
e. Return of the property;
f. Guidance and supervision orders;
g. Counseling for the child and his family;
h. training, seminars and lectures on: (i) anger mgt skills; (ii) problem solving/conflict resolution skills; (iii) values formation;
i.Participation in other community based programs;work-detil program in the community;
j. Institutional care and custody.
DC shall include in the program a plan that will secure payment of civil indemnity in accordance with Art. 2180 of the CC.
Sec. 34
Whereas, mankind owes to the child the best it has to give. ( Final preambular
clause of the Declaration of the Rights of the Child)
MALTO VS. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 164733, Sept. 21, 2007
The best interest of children shall be the paramount consideration in all actions
concerning them, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions,
courts of law, administrative authorities, and legislative bodies, consistent with the
principles of First Call for Children as enunciated in the United Nations Convention on
the Rights of the Child. Every effort shall be exerted to promote the welfare of children
and enhance their opportunities for a useful and happy life
Factors to be considered in determining the Best Interest of CICL

Mental and Mental and Emotional ties

Lifestyle and
age and sex; physical health of bet. parents and
physical health; the parents;
other social factor;
child;
Ability of parents to Established living pattern
provide child with concerning school, home, Quality of Existence of other Child’s
needs including community and religious
institution; schooling; relatives; background
medical care;
Maturity, level of
understanding, sexual
lifestyle
Sec. 42
JUDGMENT: Guiding Principles
1. Judgment shall be in proportion to the gravity of the offense, and shall consider the
circumstances and the best interest of the child, the rights of the victim, and the
needs of society in line with the demands of balanced and restorative justice
JUDGMENT: Guiding Principles
2. Restrictions on the personal liberty of the child shall be limited to the minimum.
Where discretion is given by law to the judge to determine whether the penalty to be
imposed is fine or imprisonment, the imposition of the fine should be preferred as the
more appropriate penalty.
JUDGMENT: Guiding Principles
3. No corporal punishment shall be imposed; and
4. In case of the presence of any exculpatory evidence or doubt in the prosecution’s
evidence, the doubt shall be resolved in favor of the child.
Automatic
Suspension of
Sentence
(Sec. 38, R. A.
9344) CICL under 18 after pronouncement of guilt shall be placed
under suspended sentence, w/out need of application.
Automatic Suspension of Sentence
(Sec. 38, R. A. 9344)

Even if CICL is already 18 or more at the time of

the pronouncement of guilt, suspension of
sentence still applies.
 Michael Padua vs. People of the Philippines, G. R. No. 168546,
July 23, 2008
Section 40 of Rep. Act No. 9344, however, provides that once the child reaches 18
years of age, the court shall determine whether to discharge the child, order execution
of sentence, or extend the suspended sentence for a certain specified period or until the
child reaches the maximum age of 21 years.
QUESTION:
How about if the CICL is already more than 21 years of age at the promulgation of
sentence?
Michael Padua vs. People of the Philippines, G. R. No. 168546,
July 23, 2008
Petitioner has already reached 21 years of age or over and thus, could no longer be
considered a child for purposes of applying Rep. Act 9344. Thus, the application of
Sections 38 and 40 appears moot and academic as far as his case is concerned.
 People of the Philippines vs. Allen Udtojan Mantalaba, G.R. No. 186227,
July 20, 2011.

Section 40 of the same law limits the said suspension of sentence until the child
reaches the maximum age of 21. Hence, the appellant, who is now beyond the age of
21 years can no longer avail of the provisions of Sections 38 and 40 of RA 9344 as to
his suspension of sentence, because this has already become moot and academic.
Automatic Suspension
of Sentence: Sec. 48,
RRCICL; Sec. 29, Rule on
Children Charged
under the •Automatic Suspension of Sentence: Sec. 48, RRCICL;
Comprehensive Sec. 29, Rule on Children Charged under the
Dangerous Drugs Act
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
of 2002
 Case: Automatic Suspension of Sentence:
DECLARADOR VS. HON. SALVADOR S. GUBATON, G.R. NO. 159208, August 18, 2006

The law merely amended Article 192 of P.D. No. 603, as amended by A.M. No. 02-1-
18-SC, in that the suspension of sentence shall be enjoyed by the juvenile even if he is
already 18 years of age or more at the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt..
 Case: Automatic Suspension of Sentence:
DECLARADOR VS. HON. SALVADOR S. GUBATON, G.R. NO. 159208, August 18, 2006

The other disqualifications in Article 192 of P.D. No. 603, as amended, and Section 32 of
A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC have not been deleted from Section 38 of Rep. Act No. 9344..
 Case: Automatic Suspension of Sentence:
DECLARADOR VS. HON. SALVADOR S. GUBATON, G.R. NO. 159208, August 18, 2006

Evidently, the intention of Congress was to maintain the other disqualifications as

provided in Article 192 of P.D. No. 603, as amended, and Section 32 of A.M. No. 02-1-
18-SC..
 Case: Automatic Suspension of Sentence:
DECLARADOR VS. HON. SALVADOR S. GUBATON, G.R. NO. 159208, August 18, 2006

Hence, juveniles who have been convicted of a crime the imposable penalty for which is
reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or reclusion perpetua to death or death, are
disqualified from having their sentences suspended.

However, this is now remedied by:

Section 48, RRCICL, disqualification
xxx
The benefits of the suspended sentence shall not apply to a child in conflict with the
law who has once enjoyed suspension of sentence,
Qualifications under Sec. 48, RRCICL
but shall nonetheless apply to one who is convicted of an offense punishable by
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment
Conditions:
1. pursuant to the provisions of R.A. No. 9346 prohibiting the imposition of the death
penalty and in lieu thereof, reclusion perpetua; and
2. after application of the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority.
 People of the Philippines vs. Richard Sarcia,
G. R. No. 169641, September 10, 2009

Q. Can a CICL who was convicted for an offense with a penalty of reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment still avail the benefit of suspended sentence?
 People of the Philippines vs. Richard Sarcia,
G. R. No. 169641, September 10, 2009

guided by the basic principle of statutory construction that when the law does not
distinguish, we should not distinguish. Since 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.
People v. Sarcia citing the case of People v. Jacinto, 661 Phil.
224 (2011).
Be that as it may, to give meaning to the legislative intent of the Act, the promotion of the
welfare of a child in conflict with the law should extend even to one who has exceeded the age
limit of twenty-one (21) years, so long as he/she committed the crime when he/she was still a
child. The offender shall be entitled to the right to restoration, rehabilitation and reintegration in
accordance with the Act in order that he/she is given the chance to live a normal life and
become a productive member of the community. The age of the child in conflict with the law at
the time of the promulgation of the judgment of conviction is not material. What matters is that
the offender committed the offense when he/she was still of tender age.
What is Disposition Conference?
(Sec. 4 (k), Revised Rule on CICL)
Disposition Conference is a meeting held by the
court with the social worker who prepared the
case study report, together with the CICL and the
parents or guardian ad litem, and the child’s
counsel for the purpose of determining the
disposition measures appropriate to the personal
Disposition conference, when conducted
within 15 days from promulgation of sentence with notice to court social worker, CICL
and parents/guardian ad litem and child’s counsel, the victim and counsel to determine
disposition measures for CICL.

Sec. 49 Revised Rule on CICL

Return of CICL to Court
(Sec. 40, R. A. 9344;
Revised Rules

1. If CICL is incorrigible;
2. If CICL has not shown any remorse
3. When objectives of disposition measure is
not fulfilled
 Return of CICL to Court
(Sec. 40, R. A. 9344)
If CICL reached 18 while under suspended sentence:
1. Court determine whether to discharge the CICL ;
2. Order execution of sentence;
3. Extend suspended sentence for a period OR until the child reaches 21.
Jurisprudence: Robert Sierra v. people, G.R. No. 182941, July 03,
2009
R.A. No. 9344 was enacted into law on April 28, 2006 and took effect on May 20,
2006. Its intent is to promote and protect the rights of a child in conflict with the law
or a child at risk by providing a system that would ensure that children are dealt with
in a manner appropriate to their well-being through a variety of disposition measures
such as care, guidance and supervision orders, counseling, probation, foster care,
education and vocational training programs and other alternatives to institutional care.
Final discharge of CICL
1. If CICL is rehabilitated and has shown capability to be a useful member of the community;
2. Upon recommendation of SW;
3. After notice and hearing;
4. Payment of civil liability, if any;
a. by parents and persons exercising parental authority
5. Final discharge by the court.
“... In youth you find out
what you care to do
and who you care to
1. be...
I

... In young adulthood

you learn whom
you care to be with...
... In adulthood,
however, you learn
what and whom you