GR No 225442

Samahan ng mga Progresibong Kabataan (SPARK) vs Quezon City, City of Manila and Navotas City

GR No 225442        August 8, 2017

Facts:

          Following the campaign of President Rodrigo Duterte to implement a nationwide curfew for minors, several local governments in Metro Manila started to strictly implement their curfew ordinances on minors through police operations which were publicly known as “Oplan Rody”.

          SPARK, an association of young adults and minors that aims to forward a free and just society, and other petitioners filed this petition arguing that the Curfew Ordinances are unconstitutional because they” a) result in arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement; b) suffer from overbreadth by proscribing or impairing legitimate activities of minors during curfew hours; c) deprive the minors of the right to liberty and right to travel without substantive due process; and d) deprive the parents of their natural and primary right in rearing the youth without substantive due process.

          Further, they claim that the Manila Ordinance contravenes with Section 57-A20 of RA 9344 as the imposition of penalties contravenes the command of the said special law that no penalty shall be imposed on minors for curfew violations. This case has been presented directly to Supreme Court via petition for certiorari for decision.

Issue:

          WON the curfew ordinances are valid and constitutional.

Held:

          It was held by the SC that only the Quezon City Curfew Ordinance has passed the two prongs or tests of the validity of an ordinance.

          According to SC, SPARK and other petitioners in this case are mistaken in claiming that there are no sufficient standards to identify suspected curfew violators. While it is true that the Curfew Ordinances do not explicitly state these parameters, law enforcement agents are still bound to follow the prescribed measures found in statutory law when implementing ordinances.

          Under Section 7 of RA No 9344, the age of a child may be determined from the child’s birth certificate, baptismal certificate or any other pertinent documents. In the absence of these, age may be based on information from the child himself/herself, testimonies of other persons, the physical appearance of the child and other relevant evidence.

          This provision should be read in conjunction with the Curfew Ordinances because RA 10630, which amended RA 9344, repeals all ordinances inconsistent with the statutory law. Thus, minors caught in violation of curfew ordinance are children at risk, and therefore covered by its provisions. It is a long-standing principle that conformity with the law is one of the essential elements for the validity of ordinance.

GR No 176102

Rosal Hubilla vs People of the Philippines

GR No 176102        November 26, 2014

Facts:

         Hubilla was charged of homicide for stabbing Jayson Espinola with a knife, inflicting upon him mortal wounds in his body directly causing his death. The RTC rendered a judgment finding Hubilla guilty of homicide and sentenced him to suffer indeterminate penalty of imprisonment for 4 years and one day of prision correccional as minimum, to 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor as maximum.

         On appeal, the CA affirmed the said conviction but modified the penalty. The sentence was reduced to 6 months and 1 day to 6 years of prision correccional as minimum to 6 years and 1 day to 12 years of prision mayor as maximum. But CA amended its judgment on motion for reconsideration, modifying sentence to an indeterminate penalty of 6 months and 1 day of prision correccional as minimum to 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor.

Issue:

       WON Hubilla was entitled to suspension of sentence as a juvenile in conflict with the law pursuant to the mandate of RA No 9344

Held:

       SC held that Article 249 of the RPC prescribes a penalty of reclusion temporal for homicide. Considering that Hubilla was then a minor at the time of the commission of the crime, being 17 years of age when he committed the homicide, such minority was a privileged mitigating circumstance that lowered the penalty to prision mayor.

       Hubilla’s insistence to further reduce the sentence imposed is bereft of legal basis. In fact, neither the RPC, nor RA No 9344, nor any other relevant law or rules support or justify the further reduction of the maximum of the indeterminate sentence. To yield to his insistence would be to impose an illegal penalty, and would cause the Court to deliberately violate the law.

        Although Section 38 of RA No 9344 allows the suspension of the sentence of the child in conflict with the law adjudged as guilty of a crime, the suspension is available only until the child offender turns 21 years of age. However, if said child reached 18 years of age while under suspended sentence, the court shall determine whether to discharge the child, to order execution of sentence, or extend the suspended sentence for a specified period or until the child reaches the maximum age of 21 years.

      We note that Hubilla was well over the age of 23 years at the time of his conviction for homicide. Hence, the suspension of his sentence was no longer legally feasible or permissible. Lastly, the imprisonment of children in conflict with the law is by no means prohibited.

GR No 182239

People of the Philippines vs Hermie Jacinto

GR No 182239        March 16, 2011

Facts:

Jacinto was charged of the crime of rape for having a carnal knowledge of AAA, who was five years old at the time, thus, with a qualifying/aggravating circumstance of minority. Jacinto entered a plea of not guilty by having defenses of denial and alibi. However, the RTC held Jacinto guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentences him to death. Thereafter, the trial was reopened as there was a newly-discovered evidence showing that Jacinto was only 17 years old at the time of the commission of the crime. RTC then amended the sentence to reclusion perpetual.

When appealed to CA, the RTC decision was affirmed but with modifications as to the sentence. Jacinto was adjudged to suffer the Indeterminate penalty of 6 years and 1 day to 12 years of prision mayor as minimum, to 17 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal as maximum.

Issue:

          WON Jacinto may benefit from RA 9344 as he already exceeded the age of 21 upon conviction.

Held:

          The SC sustains the CA judgment of conviction. CA considered RA No 9344 despite the commission of the crime 3 years before the law was enacted on April 28, 2006. It is only right for the court to recognize its retroactive application.

          Section 6 of RA No 9344 exempts a child above 15 years but below 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. In the present case, indications that Jacinto acted with discernment are present. Nonetheless, the corresponding imposable penalty should be modified.

          The birth certificate of AAA showed her date of birth which makes her only 5 years old when Jacinto defiled her, and the law prescribing the death penalty when rape is committed against a child below 7 years old applies. Although, the following calls for the reduction of the penalty: 1) prohibition against death penalty under RA No 9344, and 2) the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority of Jacinto which has the effect of reducing the penalty one degree lower than that prescribed by law, pursuant to Art 68 of the RPC. It relied on a case wherein death was excluded from the graduation of penalties in appreciating the mitigating circumstance of minority.

         However, SC held that under Article 68 of RPC, when the offender is a minor under 18 years, the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be imposed, but always 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 Jacinto is reclusion perpetua.

GR No 180380

Raymund Madali and Rodel Madali vs People of the Philippines

GR No 180380        August 4, 2009

Facts:

          Raymund and Rodel were accused of the crime of Murder after allegedly willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attacking, assaulting, and striking AAA with a coconut frond and ‘llave inglesia’ and strangling with a dog chain, leading to an untimely death.

          Both plead not guilty by denial and alibi. The RTC, however, rendered a guilty verdict against them and convicted them only of homicide as there was a failure to prove the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation. They were sentenced to suffer an indeterminate sentence of 4 years, 2 months, and I day to six years of imprisonment. They elevated their conviction to the CA.

          CA affirmed the findings of RTC that both of the accused killed AAA. However, pursuant to Section 64 of RA No 9344, Raymond’s case was dismissed as the law provides exemption from criminal liability a minor 15 years of below at the time of the commission of the crime. Rodel’s conviction was sustained with six months and one day6 months and 1 day of prision coreccional to 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor, but the imposition was suspended pursuant to RA No 9344. Both assailed the decision.

Issue:

          WON the accused may avail of the benefit provided by RA 9344.

Held:

          Yes, Raymond may avail of the benefit provided by RA 9344 while Rodel may not as he acted with discernment in the act of crime.

          As to Raymond’s criminal liability, he is exempt. He was only 14 years old at the time he committed the crime. He would be exempt from criminal liability and should be released to the custody of his parents or guardian. Under RA 9344, a child 15 years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability, but he will be subject to an intervention program.

          As to Rodel, it must be borne in mind that he was 16 years old at the time of the commission of the crime. A determination of whether he acted with or without discernment is necessary pursuant to RA 9344. It provides that a child above 15 years of age but below 18 years of age shall be exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to an intervention program, unless he/she has acted with discernment, in which case, such child shall be subjected to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act. As the CA correctly opined, Rodel acted with discernment as was aware that killing AAA was a condemnable act and should be kept in secrecy.

          However, as he was only 16 years old, Article 68 of the RPC provided that the penalty imposed upon him should be the penalty next lower than that prescribed. Thus, 6 months and 1 day of prision correccional to 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor is in order.

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.

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.