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 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.