Aldritz B. Adriano Criminal Law - Friday 5:30-9:30 Atty. Paolo Carlo C. Tolentino Case Digest:PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOERY DELIOLA Y BARRIDO, A.K.A. “JAKE DELIOLA IG.R. No. 200157, August 31, 2016] FACTS: Two Informations for Rape were filed against Mr. Deliola (15 years old) for committing Rape against his niece MMM (11 years old) on two different occasions. The trial court convicted Mr. Deliola for the crime of Rape and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to be served in Muntinlupa and pay MMM damages. However, pending his transfer to Muntinlupa, he was remanded to the custody of the Jail Warden of Negros Occidental. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, it affirmed the decision of the RTC with modification by classifying Mr. Deliola as a “child in conflict with the law” and held that the sentence be suspended. ISSUE: Whether the Court of Appeals is correct in affirming the decision of the RTC. DECISION: Yes. The Court of Appeals is correct in affirming the RTC but the Supreme Court finds that the crime committed was Statutory Rape since the victim (MMM) was only 11 years old at the time she was raped on two occasions. Since the Accused was only 15 years old at the time of the commission of the crime, the Supreme Court held that he is entitled to a PRIVILEGED MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE of minority, hence, the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law shall be imposed (from death to only reclusion perpetua).In addition, since he was qualified for suspension of sentence when he committed the crime, Section 40 of R.A. 9344 provides that the same extends only until the child in conflict with the law reaches the maximum age of twenty-one (21) years old. Applying RA No. 9344, 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 order that he/she may be given the chance to live a normal life and become a productive member of the community. Thus, accused- appellant is ordered to serve his sentence, in lieu of confinement in a regular penal institution, in an agricultural camp and other training facilities, in accordance with Section 51 of R.A. 9344,