People v.

Jacinto Rearing of the Youth SUMMARY: Nevertheless, a child in conflict with the law, whose judgment of conviction has become final and executory only after his disqualification from availing of the benefits of suspended sentence on the ground that he/she has exceeded the age limit of twenty-one (21) years, shall still be entitled to the right to restoration, rehabilitation, and reintegration in accordance with Republic Act No. 9344, otherwise known as "An Act Establishing a Comprehensive Juvenile Justice and Welfare System, Creating the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council under the Department of Justice, Appropriating Funds Therefor and for Other Purposes." The Facts JACINTO - appellant was accused of the crime of RAPE allegedly committed as follows: That on or about the 28th day of January, 2003 at about 7:00 oclock in the evening [Hermie M. Jacinto], with lewd design did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously had carnal knowledge with one AAA, a five-year old minor child. CONTRARY TO LAW, with the qualifying/aggravating circumstance of minority, the victim being only five years old. Appellant entered a plea of not guilty. During pre-trial, the defense admitted the existence of the following documents: (1) birth certificate of AAA, showing that she was born on 3 December 1997; (2) police blotter entry on the rape incident; and (3) medical certificate, upon presentation of the original or upon identification thereof by the physician. DEFENSE - JACINTO INTERPOSING THE DEFENSE OF ALIBI, APPELLANT GAVE A DIFFERENT VERSION OF THE STORY. TO CORROBORATE HIS TESTIMONY, LUZVILLA BALUCAN [LUZVILLA] AND HIS AUNT GLORIA TOOK THE WITNESS STAND TO AFFIRM THAT HE WAS AT THE PEROCHOS AT THE TIME OF THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME. RTC HELD: GUILTY, the judgment of the court imposing the death penalty upon the accused is amended in order to consider the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority. THus reclusion perpetua is held. CA: AFFIRM DECISION but modified penalty. Jacinto should suffer the Indeterminate penalty of from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) and four (4) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum. Thus, Appeal to SC ISSUE: Whether or not Jacinto is liable for rape? And Did the court below err in awarding such penalty. HELD: NO, sustain the judgment of conviction. finding appellant Hermie M. Jacinto guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified rape is AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS: (1) the death penalty imposed on the appellant is reduced to reclusion perpetua; case is hereby REMANDED to the court of origin for its appropriate action in accordance with Section 51 of Republic Act No. 9344. RATIO: CRIM: DETERMINATION OF INNOCENCE of GUILT , the credible, natural, and convincing testimony of the victim may be sufficient to convict the accused. More so, when the testimony is supported by the medico-legal findings of the examining physician. Further, the defense of alibi cannot prevail over the victims positive identification of the perpetrator of the crime,except when it is established that it was physically impossible for the accused to have been at the locus criminis at the time of the commission of the crime. CRIM: RAPE? IN THIS CASE - That the crime of rape has been committed is certain. The vivid narration of the acts culminating in the insertion of appellants organ into the vagina of five year-old AAA and the medical findings of the physicians sufficiently proved such fact.

Sean

People v. Jacinto Rearing of the Youth The straightforward and consistent answers to the questions, which were phrased and re-phrased in order to test that AAA well understood the information elicited from her, said it all she had been raped. WHEN A WOMAN, MORE SO A MINOR, SAYS SO, SHE SAYS IN EFFECT ALL THAT IS ESSENTIAL TO SHOW THAT RAPE WAS COMMITTED. SIGNIFICANTLY, YOUTH AND IMMATURITY ARE NORMALLY BADGES OF TRUTH AND HONESTY.

WHETHER OR NOT JACINTO WAS PRESENT AT THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME HELD: Cant disturb findings of lower court. The defense would want us to believe that it was Julito who defiled AAA, and that appellant was elsewhere when the crime was committed. We should not, however, overlook the fact that a victim of rape could readily identify her assailant, especially when he is not a stranger to her, considering that she could have a good look at him during the commission of the crime.AAA had known appellant all her life. Moreover, appellant and AAA even walked together from the road near the store to the situs criminuthat it would be impossible for the child not to recognize the man who held her hand and led her all the way to the rice field. WE SEE NO REASON TO DISTURB THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT ON THE UNWAVERING TESTIMONY OF AAA. WE REITERATE, TIME AND AGAIN, THAT THE COURT MUST BE CONVINCED THAT IT WOULD BE PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE ACCUSED TO HAVE BEEN AT THE LOCUS CRIMINIS AT THE TIME OF THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME. Clearly, the prosecution has sufficiently established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. III. RA 9344 RETROACTIVE EFFECT In the determination of the imposable penalty, the Court of Appeals correctly considered Republic Act No. 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006) despite the commission of the crime three (3) years before it was enacted on 28 April 2006. We recognize its RETROACTIVE application following the rationale elucidated in People v. Sarcia: [Sec. 68 of Republic Act No. 9344]allows the retroactive application of the Act to those who have been convicted and are serving sentence at the time of the effectivity of this said Act, and who were below the age of 18 years at the time of the commission of the offense. With more reason, the Act should apply to this case wherein the conviction by the lower court is still under review.) Criminal Liability; Imposable Penalty Sec. 6 of Republic Act No. 9344 exempts a child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age from criminal liability, unless the child is found to have acted with discernment, in which case, "the appropriate proceedings" in accordance with the Act shall be observed. We determine discernment in this wise: Discernment is that mental capacity of a minor to fully appreciate the consequences of his unlawful act. In the present case, we agree with the Court of Appeals that: "(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 appellants mental capacity to fully understand the consequences of his unlawful action. Nonetheless, the corresponding imposable penalty should be modified. The birth certificate of AAA shows that she was born on 3 December 1997. Considering that she was only five (5) years old when appellant defiled her on 28 January 2003, the law prescribing the death penalty when rape is committed against a child below seven (7) years old applies. The following, however, calls for the reduction of the penalty: (1) the prohibition against the imposition of the penalty of death in accordance with Republic Act No. 9346; and (2) THE PRIVILEGED MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF MINORITY OF THE APPELLANT, WHICH HAS THE EFFECT OF REDUCING THE PENALTY ONE DEGREE LOWER THAN THAT PRESCRIBED BY LAW, PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 68 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE. Under Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code, when the offender is a minor under 18 years, the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be imposed, but always

Sean

People v. Jacinto Rearing of the Youth in the proper period. However, for purposes of determining the proper penalty because of the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority, the penalty of death is still the penalty to be reckoned with. Thus, the proper imposable penalty for the accused-appellant is reclusion perpetua. Automatic Suspension of Sentence; Duration; Appropriate Disposition after the Lapse of the Period of Suspension of Sentence SUSPENSION WONT APPLY already above 21 BUT confined in agricultural camp, LEGISLATIVE INTENT! Republic Act No. 9344 warrants the suspension of sentence of a child in conflict with the law notwithstanding that he/she has reached the age of majority at the time the judgment of conviction is pronounced. Thus: SEC. 38. Automatic Suspension of Sentence.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. (Emphasis supplied.) The xxx provision makes no distinction as to the nature of the offense committed by the child in conflict with the law, unlike P.D. No. 603 and A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC. The said P.D. and Supreme Court (SC) Rule provide that the benefit of suspended sentence would not apply to a child in conflict with the law if, among others, he/she has been convicted of an offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. If a mature minor, maybe 16 years old to below 18 years old is charged, accused with, or may have committed a serious offense, and may have acted with discernment, then the child could be recommended by the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), by the Local Council for the Protection of Children (LCPC), or by [Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiagos] proposed Office of Juvenile Welfare and Restoration to go through a judicial proceeding; but the welfare, best interests, and restoration of the child should still be a primordial or primary consideration. Even in heinous crimes, the intention should still be the childs restoration, rehabilitation and reintegration. xxx (Italics supplied in Sarcia.) THESE DEVELOPMENTS NOTWITHSTANDING, WE FIND THAT THE BENEFITS OF A SUSPENDED SENTENCE CAN NO LONGER APPLY TO APPELLANT. The suspension of sentence lasts only until the child in conflict with the law reaches the maximum age of twenty-one (21) years. Section 40 of the law and Section 48of the Rule are clear on the matter. Unfortunately, appellant is now twenty-five (25) years old. 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. THUS - appellant may be confined in an agricultural camp or any other training facility in accordance with Sec. 51 of Republic Act No. 9344.

Sean