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.