People Versus Jacinto

Facts

 In the evening of January 28, 2003 at about 6 o’clock in the evening, FFF, the father of the victim
AAA, sent his 8 year old daughter CCC to buy cigarettes at the store of Rudy Hatague. AAA
followed CCC.
 When CCC returned without AAA, FFF was not worried as he thought AAA was watching
television at her aunt Rita Lingcay’s house. Julito Apike went to the same store at around 6:20
PM to buy a bottle of Tanduay Rum and saw appellant place AAA on his lap.
 Julio, Hermie and AAA left the store at the same time, Julito proceeded to Rita’s house while
Hermie and AAA to the “lower area.” AAA was brought by Hermie to the rice field near the
house of spouses Alejandro and Gloria Perocho, there AAA was made to lie down on the ground,
her panties removed and was boxed by the accused in the chest. Half-naked, accused mounted
AAA and made a push and pull movement causing AAA to cry. Appellant then went to the house
of the Perochos while the victim went home crying. Medico-legal exam revealed hymenal
laceration at 5 and 9 o’clock.
 RTC finds accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua,
a fine of PHP 75,000 as rape indemnity and PHP 50,000 as moral damages. CA on appeal
affirmed the lower court’s decision with the following modifications: (1) accused should suffer
an indeterminate penalty from 6 years and 1 day to 12 years of prision mayor as minimum to 17
years and 4 months of reclusion temporal as maximum and fined PHP 75,000 as civil indemnity,
PHP 75,000 as moral damages, and PHP 25,000 as exemplary damages

Issue:

 Whether or not, appellant may benefit from the provisions of RA9344 regarding criminal liability
of an accused who was a minor during the commission of the crime and the suspension of
sentence of one who is no longer a minor during the pronouncement of verdict.

Held:

 The Court sustained the conviction of the appellant in view of the straightforward testimony of
the victim and the inconsistencies of the testimonies of the defense witnesses.
 The Court did not exempt accused of his criminal liability although he was only 17 during the
commission of the crime since, in view of the circumstances to which accused committed the
felony, it was proved that he acted with discernment. (Sec 6, RA 9344). There was showing that
the accused understood the consequences of his action.
 Applying, the provision of RA 9346, the accused was meted with reclusion perpetua instead of
the death penalty.
 As to the civil liability of accused, his minority also had no bearing to the decision of the Court,
ordering accused to pay the victim for damages.
 However, the Court afforded the accused the benefit of the suspension of his sentence provided
in Section38 of RA 9344, which made no distinction to an accused found guilty of a capital
offense. The Court stated that what was important was the intent of the Act to uphold the
welfare of a child in conflict with the law. What was to be considered was the fact that accused
committed the crime at a tender age.
 The Court held that accused may be confined in an agricultural camp or any training facility in
accordance with Sec 51 of RA 9344. The case was remanded to the court of origin to take
appropriate action in accordance to the said provision.