Wednesday, April 15, 2020

GR No 182941


Robert Sierra vs People of the Philippines
GR No 182941        July 3, 2009

Facts:

        Sierra was a 15-year old minor. He was accused of unlawfully and feloniously having sexual intercourse with AAA, his 13-year old sister. In his defense, Sierra claimed that he was selling cigarettes at the time of the alleged rape and that AAA only invented the story because she bore him a grudge for the beatings he gave her.

        The RTC convicted Sierra of qualified rape, imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Sierra then elevated the decision to CA by attacking AAA’s credibility. He also invoked Section 6 (1) of RA No 9344, otherwise known as the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 to exempt him from the criminal liability considering he was only 15 years old at the time the crime was committed.

      CA nevertheless affirmed the RTC decision with modification as to the penalty. It held Sierra to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of reclusion temporal maximum. Hence, the petition to the SC.

Issue:

     WON Sierra may avail of RA 9344 with minority as an exempting circumstance.

Held:

      Yes, Sierra may avail of the said law.

     RA No 9344 merely amended Article 192 of PD No 603, as amended, 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. Evidently, the intention of the Congress was to maintain the other disqualification as provided in Article 192 of PD no 603, as amended, and Section 32 of AM No 02-1-18-SC.

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

        According to SC, RA No 9344 was enacted into law on April 28, 2006 and took effect on May 20, 2008. 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 order, counselling, probation, foster care, education and vocational training program and other alternatives to institutional care. More importantly, the law modifies the minimum age limit of criminal responsibility for minor offenders.

         The current law drew its changes from the principle of restorative justice that it espouses; it considers the ages 9-15 years as formative years and gives minors of this age to right their wrong through diversion and intervention measures.

No comments:

Post a Comment

GR No 170257

Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue GR No 170257 FACTS:           On Aug 15, 1996, RCBC re...