Scribd
Upload
43 views4 pages

JJJ LK L

The Supreme Court ruled that the criminal case against the petitioner, who was 13 years old at the time of the alleged rape, must be dismissed based on Republic Act 9344. RA 9344 raised the age of criminal responsibility in the Philippines from 9 to 15 years old. According to the new law, cases against children 15 years old and below at the time of the alleged crime must be immediately dismissed. Therefore, because the petitioner was under 15 at the time of the alleged offense, his case falls under RA 9344 and must be dismissed.

Uploaded by

Ursulaine Grace Feliciano
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
43 views4 pages

JJJ LK L

The Supreme Court ruled that the criminal case against the petitioner, who was 13 years old at the time of the alleged rape, must be dismissed based on Republic Act 9344. RA 9344 raised the age of criminal responsibility in the Philippines from 9 to 15 years old. According to the new law, cases against children 15 years old and below at the time of the alleged crime must be immediately dismissed. Therefore, because the petitioner was under 15 at the time of the alleged offense, his case falls under RA 9344 and must be dismissed.

Uploaded by

Ursulaine Grace Feliciano
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

ORTEGA V PEOPLE G.R.

No. 151085

August 20, 2008


Facts
Petitioner was only 14 yrs old when he allegedly raped aaa, six years of age, in three separate instances.
Prosecution:
The mother of AAA left the children in the care of petitioners mother, when he brought AAA to the
comfort room and inserted his penis to her vagina. This was followed by two other events where BBB,
brother of the victim, saw the two in action and reported it to his mother.
Luzviminda along with the mother of the victim went to Dr. Lucifree Katalbas
to examine AAA, and found no indication that she was molested. The mother went to another doctor, who
made an unofficial written report, showing that there were abrasions on both right and left of the labia
minora and a small laceration at the posterior fourchette, but said report was required to be certified by the
Municipal Health Officer of the locality.
Amicable settlement was reached between the two parties, through DAWN Foundation. Petitioner stayed
with a certain priest in the locality, but when he went home to bring dirty clothes, AAA's parents went to
the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) which assisted them in filing the three (3) counts of rape.
However, the prosecutor's office only filed the two (2) instant cases.
DEFENSE:
Petitioner denied the accusations made against him. He testified that: his parents and AAA's parents were
good friend, and that AAAs mother always leave AAA and her other children under the care of his mother
Luzviminda.
He contended that he did not rape AAA in the former's comfort room, but he merely accompanied and
helped AAA clean up as she defecated and feared the toilet bowl and that during an instance, they were
dancing and playing together with all the other children at the time; while they were dancing, petitioner
hugged and lifted AAA up in a playful act, the instance which BBB reported.
Amicable settlement- butvery time petitioner came home, FFF bad-mouthed petitioner, calling him a
rapist. Confrontations occurred until an altercation erupted wherein FFF allegedly slapped Luzviminda.
Subsequently, AAA's parents filed the instant cases.
RTC accused guilty, petitioner's defenses of denial cannot prevail over the positive identification of
petitioner as the perpetrator of the crime by AAA and BBB, who testified with honesty and credibility.
(1999)
CA affirmed (2001)
ISSUE
Whether the pertinent provisions of R.A. No. 9344 apply to petitioner's case, considering that at the time he
committed the alleged rape, he was merely 13 years old.
RULING
Petitioner committed the crime of rape against AAA, it is not necessary for conviction that the petitioner
succeeded in having full penetration, because the slightest touching of the lips of the female organ or of the
labia of the pudendum constitutes rape.

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 free will or voluntariness of the act, no criminal
liability arises.
*OSG no longer covered, as it came into effect 2006, retroactive effect of Section 64 of R.A. No. 9344 is
applicable only if the child-accused is still below 18 years old as explained under Sections 67 and 68
Court is not persuaded. Section 64 of the law categorically provides that cases of children 15 years old and
below, at the time of the commission of the crime, shall immediately be dismissed and the child shall be
referred to the appropriate local social welfare and development officer (LSWDO). What is
controlling, therefore, with respect to the exemption from criminal liability of the CICL, is not the CICL's
age at the time of the promulgation of judgment but the CICL's age at the time of the commission of the
offense. In short, by virtue of R.A. No. 9344, the age of criminal irresponsibility has been raised from 9 to
15 years old.
Legislative intent, proven by the proceedings, regarding the retroactivity of 9344. Also, penal laws are
construed liberally in favor of the accused
Criminal case, DISMISSED.

NOTES
****Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9344,[37] or the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, was enacted into
law on April 28, 2006 and it took effect on May 20, 2006.[38] The law establishes a comprehensive system
to manage children in conflict with the law [39] (CICL) and children at risk[40] with child-appropriate
procedures and comprehensive programs and services such as prevention, intervention, diversion,
rehabilitation, re-integration and after-care programs geared towards their development. In order to ensure
its implementation, the law, particularly Section 8 [41] thereof, has created the Juvenile Justice and Welfare
Council (JJWC) and vested it with certain duties and functions [42] such as the formulation of policies and
strategies to prevent juvenile delinquency and to enhance the administration of juvenile justice as well as
the treatment and rehabilitation of the CICL. The law also

provides for the immediate dismissal of cases of CICL, specifically Sections 64, 65, 66, 67 and 68 of R.A.
No. 9344's Transitory Provisions.[43]

The said Transitory Provisions expressly provide:

Title VIII

Transitory Provisions
SECTION 64. Children in Conflict with the Law Fifteen (15) Years Old and
Below. Upon effectivity of this Act, cases of children fifteen (15) years old and below at
the time of the commission of the crime shall immediately be dismissed and the child
shall be referred to the appropriate local social welfare and development officer. Such
officer, upon thorough assessment of the child, shall determine whether to release the
child to the custody of his/her parents, or refer the child to prevention programs, as
provided under this Act. Those with suspended sentences and undergoing rehabilitation
at the youth rehabilitation center shall likewise be released, unless it is contrary to the
best interest of the child.
SECTION 65. Children Detained Pending Trial. If the child is detained pending trial,
the Family Court shall also determine whether or not continued detention is necessary
and, if not, determine appropriate alternatives for detention. If detention is necessary and
he/she is detained with adults, the court shall immediately order the transfer of the child
to a youth detention home.
SECTION 66. Inventory of "Locked-up" and Detained Children in Conflict with the
Law. The PNP, the BJMP and the BUCOR are hereby directed to submit to the JJWC,
within ninety (90) days from the effectivity of this Act, an inventory of all children in
conflict with the law under their custody.
SECTION 67. Children Who Reach the Age of Eighteen (18) Years Pending Diversion
and Court Proceedings. If a child reaches the age of eighteen (18) years pending
diversion and court proceedings, the appropriate diversion authority in consultation with
the local social welfare and development officer or the Family Court in consultation
with the Social Services and Counseling Division (SSCD) of the Supreme Court, as the
case may be, shall determine the appropriate disposition. In case the appropriate court
executes the judgment of conviction, and unless the child in conflict with the law has
already availed of probation under Presidential Decree No. 603 or other similar laws, the
child may apply for probation if qualified under the provisions of the Probation Law.
SECTION 68. Children Who Have Been Convicted and are Serving Sentences. Persons
who have been convicted and are serving sentence at the time of the effectivity of this
Act, and who were below the age of eighteen (18) years at the time of the commission of
the offense for which they were convicted and are serving sentence, shall likewise
benefit from the retroactive application of this Act. They shall be entitled to appropriate
dispositions provided under this Act and their sentences shall be adjusted accordingly.
They shall be immediately released if they are so qualified under this Act or other
applicable laws.

Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides:

Art. 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws. Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect
insofar as they favor the persons guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this
term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, although at the time of the
publication of such laws, a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is
serving the same.

You might also like