PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPINES VS HERMIE M.

JACINTO

FACTS:

A certain Hermie M. Jacinto "appelant", 17 years old allegedly raped his friend's 5
year old
daugther "AAA".The accused and victim's father "FFF" used to be good
friends until the incident. The said accused dwells at the back portion of the
victim's house
approximately 80 meters away.
On the night of January 28, 2003 , around 6 pm in the evening, FFF asked his
8 yr old daughther to buy some cigarretes, then "AAA" followed "CCC".
When "CCC" returned without "AAA" their parents did not worry because they
taught "AAA" went to their auntie's house to watch television. Julito Apiki
"eyewitness"
went to the same place to watch tv as well, to his suprised, he saw the appelant
while "AAA" sitting on his lap. "AAA" and appelant are close friends since she sees
him often and had addressed the accused as his "kuya". Afterwards,
appelant held "AAA"'s hand and went to went towards the
direction of the "lower area or place and started to rape the victim. "FFF" heard
"AAA" shouted and cried, to his surprise, he saw his daugther without underwear
and with visible cuntusions on her neck, mud and white substance on her vagina.
Parents of "AAA" have it it checked on medicol legal, findings are conclusive that
"AAA" was raped due to multiple soft tissue unjuries incurred. (hymenal
lacerations at 5'oclock and 9'oclock position).

The appellant appealed before the court of CA insisting that he is only a minor,
(17 yo.)
during the commission of the crime. The CA granted the appeal and modified his
sentence from death penalty to reclusion perpetua.
Appellant also insisted that it was the eyewitness (Julito Apiki) who was the one
who raped the victim,
and he was not present during the time the victim was being raped.

When "AAA" was asked by the court to state the facts of the crime, she was able to
deliver all the necessary facts that would prove the innocence
of the appellant.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the appelant is punishable for the crime of

qualified rape, provided that he was only 17 years old at the
commission of the felony?

HELD:

Yes.

A man commits rape by having carnal knowledge of a child under twelve (12) years of
age even
in the absence of any of the following circumstances: (a) through force, threat or
intimidation;
(b) when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or
(c) by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority.

The straightforward and consistent answers to the questions, which were phrased and
re-phrased in order to test that AAA
well understood the information elicited from her, said it all she had been
raped. When a woman, more so a minor,
says so, she says in effect all that is essential
to show that rape was committed. Significantly, youth and immaturity are normally
badges of truth and honesty the

However, with regard in his appeal that he is only 17 years old during the crime
was committed , the court, affirmed amd modified the decision of
the CA in reducing the penalty of the accused from death penalty to reclusion
perpetua.

Nevertheless, a child in conflict with the law, whose judgment of conviction has
become final and executory only after his disqualification
from availing of the benefits of suspended sentence on the ground that he/she has
exceeded the age limit of twenty-one (21) years,
shall still be entitled to the right to restoration, rehabilitation, and
reintegration in accordance
with Republic Act No. 9344, otherwise known as "An Act Establishing a Comprehensive
Juvenile Justice and Welfare
System, Creating the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council under the Department of
Justice, Appropriating Funds Therefor and for Other Purposes."