R.A.

9344 CASES
De Guzman, Anne Margareth T.
2JD3
People vs. Jacinto, G.R. No.
182239 (March 16, 2011)
FACTS:
• Hermie Jacinto was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for
the rape of the then 5-year-old victim. Jacinto is neighbours
with the family of AAA for a long time and he was friends with
the victim's father. The victim AAA knew Jacinto well, as she
calls him Kuya.
• The crime was committed when appellant was only 17 years
old. Judgment was rendered when appellant was already 25.
The RTC appreciated the new evidence and reduced the
penalty. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Jacinto 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
RULING:
• 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.
Ortega vs. People, G.R. No.
151085 (August 20, 2008)
FACTS:
• At the time of commission of rape, the accused was only 13 years
old, while the victim AAA was 6, both minors. It was alleged that
petitioner raped her three times on three different occasions in
1996. The lower courts convicted him of rape with criminal and civil
liability imposed. The case was pending when Republic Act 9344
(R.A. No. 9344) or the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, was
enacted amending the age of criminal irresponsibility being raised
from 9 to 15 years old. Said law took effect on May 20, 2006. At the
time of the promulgation of judgment, the accused already reached
the age of majority. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)
claimed that petitioner is not exempt from criminal liability because
he is not anymore a child as defined by R.A. No. 9344. The OSG
further claimed that the retroactive effect of said law is applicable
only if the child-accused is still below 18 years old.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner is exempt in the crime alleged by
reason of minority
RULING:
• The petitioner is exempt from criminal liability. For one who acts by virtue
of any of the exempting circumstances, although he commits a crime, by
the complete absence of any of the conditions which constitute free will
or voluntariness of the act, no criminal liability arises. Hence, while there
is a crime committed, no criminal liability attaches.
• By virtue of the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 (R.A. 9344), the
age of criminal irresponsibility has been raised from 9 to 15 years old.
Petitioner was only 13 years old at the time of the commission of the
alleged rape.
• The first paragraph of Section 6 of R.A. No. 9344 clearly provides that, 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 Court gives retroactive application insofar as it favors the persons
guilty of a felony. While the law exempts the petitioner from criminal
liability, however, he is not exempt from civil liability. For this reason,
petitioner and/or his parents are liable to pay AAA civil indemnity.
Sierra vs. People G.R. No. 182941
(July 3, 2009)
FACTS:
• In August 2000, thirteen-year-old AAA was playing with her friend BBB in
the second floor of her family’s house in Palatiw, Pasig. The petitioner
who was fifteen years old at that time, arrived holding a knife and told
AAA and BBB that he wanted to play with them. The petitioner then
undressed BBB and had sexual intercourse with her. Afterwards, he
turned to AAA, undressed her, and also had sexual intercourse with her by
inserting his male organ into hers.
• 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 pendency
of the case, RA 9344 took effect. CA affirmed the conviction and
denied the defense of
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner can invoke paragraph 1, section 6
of R.A. No. 9344 to exempt him from any criminal liability
RULING:
• The petitioner can invoke section 6 of RA No 9344 to exempt him
from any criminal liability. The Court of Appeals was wrong when it
rejected the testimonial evidence showing that petitioner was only
15 years old at the time he committed the crime. The age of the
child may be determined from his birth certificate, baptismal
certificate, or other pertinent documents. In the absence of these
documents, age may be based on information from the child himself
or herself, testimonies of other persons, the physical appearance of
the child and other relevant evidence.
• In the case at bar, the petitioner and his mother both testified
regarding his minority. However, the contention of petitioner that
the prosecution has the burden of disproving his claim is untenable.
The defense has the burden of showing by evidence that petitioner
was indeed 15 years old when he committed the crime charged.
People vs. Arpon, G.R. No.
183563 (December 14, 2011)
FACTS:
• Arpon was charged with 8 counts of rape. Once in 1995 (victim was 8 yrs
old) and 7 times (victim was 12 yrs. Old) in 1999 (5 times in July and twice
on August). At the time of the 1st rape the accused was 13 and during the
2nd rape he was 17. Arpon was the uncle’s victim. Arpon pleaded not
guilty to the charges. The victim testified that her underwear was
stripped off, the accused pulled out his penis and put his penis inside her
and she said that he started doing a pumping motion and though there
was no blood, there was blood and it also her hurt when she urinated.
• The RTC found the accused guilty of one count of statutory rape and 7
counts of rape and the penalty imposed was death.
• The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision with the modification
that instead of the death penalty the penalty is lowered to reclusion
perpetua. The CA gave credence to the testimony of the victim since it
was straightforward, categorical and candid and that the accused’s
uncorroborated alibi could not stand against the positive identification
made by the victim.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused entitled to a reduction of the
penalty due to the mitigating circumstance of minority
RULING:
• The proper penalty should be reclusion perpetua for each
count. The first paragraph of Section 7 of Republic Act No.
9344, otherwise known as the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act
of 2006, provides for the rule on how to determine the age of
a child in conflict with the law.
• In the instant case, Arpon testified that he was born on
February 23, 1982 and that he was only 13 years old when the
first incident of rape allegedly happened in 1995. Other than
his testimony, no other evidence was presented to prove the
date of his birth. However, the records of this case show
neither any objection to the said testimony on the part of the
prosecution, nor any contrary evidence to dispute the same.
• Although the acts of rape in this case were committed before
Republic Act No. 9344 took effect on May 20, 2006, the said
law is still applicable given that Section 68.
• Accordingly, for the first count of rape, which in the information
in Criminal Case No. 2000-01-46 was allegedly committed in 1995,
the testimony of the accused-appellant sufficiently established that
he was only 13 years old at that time. In view of the failure of the
prosecution to prove the exact date and year of the first incident of
rape, i.e., whether the same occurred in 1995 or in 1998 as
previously discussed, any doubt therein should be resolved in favor
of the accused, it being more beneficial to the latter. The
accused-appellant is exempt from criminal liability for the first
count of rape pursuant to the first paragraph of Section 6 of
Republic Act No. 9344. The accused-appellant, nevertheless,
remains civilly liable therefor.
• For the second and third counts of rape that were committed in
the year 1999, the accused-appellant was already 17 years old. The
Court found that Arpon acted with discernment. The fact that the
accused-appellant acted with discernment was satisfactorily
established by the testimony of AAA, which the Court found to be
credible. Verily, AAA testified that she at first did not tell anybody
about the sexual assault she suffered at the hands of the
accused-appellant because the latter told her that he would kill her
mother if she did so. That the accused-appellant had to threaten
AAA in an effort to conceal his dastardly acts only proved that he
knew full well that what he did was wrong and that he was aware
of the consequences thereof.