GR No 151085

Joemar Ortega vs People of the Philippines

GR No 151085        August 20, 2008

Facts:

          Ortega was about 14 years of age when he was charged with a crime of rape in two separate Information for allegedly raping AAA, who was then about 8 years of age. Apparently, there were two conflicting stories as to what happened during the time which AAA alleged to have been raped by Ortega.

         The RTC held that the defenses of denial by Ortega cannot prevail over the positive identification by AAA and BBB who testified with honesty and credibility as to the person of Ortega. The imposed penalty was imprisonment for a period of 6 six years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to 15 years of reclusion temporal as maximum. Ortega appealed.

        CA affirmed the ruling of RTC holding that the positive identification of Ortega by AAA and BBB were categorical, consistent, and without showing any ill motive. It also ruled that the respective medical examinations were irrelevant as it is established that the slightest penetration of the lips of the female organ consummates rape. Again, Ortega assailed the decision.

Issue:

          WON Ortega may avail of the benefit given by law under RA No 9344.

Held:

          Yes, Ortega may avail of the same.

          SC was convinced that Ortega committed the crime of rape against AAA. In a prosecution for rape, the complainant’s candor is the single most important factor. If the complainant’s testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused can be convicted solely on that basis.

          However, 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 freewill or voluntariness of the act, no criminal liability arises. Therefore, while there is a crime committed, no criminal liability attaches.

       What is controlling, though, with respect to the exemption from criminal liability of the child in conflict with the law, is not his age at the time of the promulgation of the judgment but his age at the time of the commission of the offense.

       It bears stressing that Ortega was only 13 years old at the time of the commission of the alleged rape. This was duly proven by the certificate of live birth, by petitioner’s own testimony, and by the testimony of his mother.

          

            Hence, Ortega may avail of the benefit given by the law under RA No 9344.