People of the Philippines v.

Valentin Doquea
Facts:
On the date of the crime, the appellant was exactly thirteen years, nine months and five days
old. The incident that gave rise to the aggression committed by him on the deceased is narrated in the
appealed order as follows:
Between 1 and 2 o'clock in the afternoon of November 19, 1938, the now deceased Juan
Ragojos and one Epifanio Rarang were playing volleyball in the yard of the intermediate school of the
municipality of Sual, Province of Pangasinan. The herein accused, who was also in said yard, intervened
and, catching the ball, tossed it at Juan Ragojos, hitting him on the stomach. For this act of the accused,
Juan Ragojos chased him around the yard and, upon overtaking him, slapped him on the nape. Said
accused then turned against the deceased assuming a threatening attitude, for which the reason said
deceased struck him on the mouth with his fist, returning immediately to the place where Epifanio
Rarang was in order to continue playing with him. The accused, offended by what he considered an
abuse on the part of Juan Ragojos, who was taller and more robust than he, looked around the yard for
a stone with which to attack the now deceased Juan Ragojos, but finding none, he approached a cousin
of his named Romualdo Cocal, to ask the latter to lend him his knife. Epifanio Rarang, who had heard
what the accused had been asking his cousin, told the latter not to give the accused his knife because he
might attack Juan Ragojos with it. The accused, however, succeeded in taking possession of the knife
which was in a pocket of his cousin's pants. Once in possession of the knife, Valentin Doquea
approached Juan Ragojos and challenged the latter to give him another blow with his fist, to which the
deceased answered that he did not want to do so because he (Juan Ragojos) was bigger that the
accused. Juan Ragojos, ignorant of the intentions of the accused, continued playing and, while he was
thus unprepared and in the act of stopping the ball with his two hands, the accused stabbed him in the
chest with the knife which he carried.
Issue:
Did the accused act with discernment when he committed the crime?
Ruling:
Yes. The discernment that constitutes an exception to the exemption from criminal liability of a
minor under fifteen years of age but over nine, who commits an act prohibited by law, is his mental
capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong, and such capacity may be known and
should be determined by taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances afforded by the
records in each case, the very appearance, the very attitude, the very comportment and behaviour of
said minor, not only before and during the commission of the act, but also after and even during the
trial.


Alvin Jose v. People of the Philippines
Facts:
SPO1 Bonifacio Guevarra was assigned to act as the poseur-buyer. SPO2 William Manglo and
SPO2 Wilfredo Luna were the other members of the team. SPO1 Guevarra was provided with marked
money consisting of a P1,000.00 bill on top of a bundle of make-believe money bills supposedly
amounting to P100,000.00. P/Supt. Joseph R. Castro, SPO2 William Manglo and Wilfredo Luna went to
the place on a Mitsubishi Lancer while SPO1 Guevarra and the informant boarded an L-300 van. They
arrived at the Chowking Restaurant at about 11:00 in the morning. They positioned their cars at the
parking area where they had a commanding view of people going in and out.
It was about 4 oclock in the afternoon when a Toyota Corolla with Plate No. UBV-389 arrived.
Sonny Zarraga was the driver with Alvin Jose (13 years old). The unnamed informant approached and
talked to Sonny Zarraga. Then, the informant called SPO1 Bonifacio Guevarra and informed the latter
that Sonny Zarraga had with him 100 grams of shabu. SPO1 Bonifacio Guevarra offered to buy the
shabu. Sonny Zarraga asked SPO1 Bonifacio Guevarra if he had the money to buy 100 grams of shabu.
Guevarra responded in the affirmative. He showed the aforecited bundle of money bills. Sonny
Zarraga then asked Alvin Jose to bring out the shabu and handover (sic) to Bonifacio Guevarra. SPO1
Bonifacio Guevarra, in turn, handed the bundle of money bills.
Guevarra scratched his head, the pre-arranged signal to signify that the transaction was consummated
(TSN, July 30, 1996, pp. 3-8). Immediately thereafter, William Manglo and Wilfredo Luna approached
and introduced themselves as Narcom Operatives. They arrested Sonny Zarraga and Alvin Jose. It was
reported and testified that the specimen, indeed, was a second or low grade methamphetamine
hydrochloride.
Issue:
Whether Alvin Jose acted with discernment in committing the crime.
Ruling:
No. For a minor at such an age to be criminally liable, the prosecution is burdened to prove
beyond reasonable doubt, by direct and circumstantial evidence, that he acted with discernment. Aside
from bringing out and handing over the plastic bag to accused Zarraga, the petitioner merely sat inside
the car and had no other participation whatsoever in the transaction between the accused Zarraga and
the poseur-buyer. There is no evidence that the petitioner knew what was inside the plastic and soft
white paper before and at the time he handed over the same to his cousin.
ACQUITTED


Robert Sierra v. People of the Philippines
Facts:
August 2000, thirteen-year-old AAA was playing with her friend BBB in the second floor of her
familys house in Palatiw, Pasig. The petitioner arrived holding a knife and told AAA and BBB that he
wanted to play with them. The petitioner then undressed BBB and had sexual intercourse with her.
Afterwards, he turned to AAA, undressed her, and also had sexual intercourse with her by inserting his
male organ into hers. The petitioner warned AAA not to tell anybody of what they did. AAA
subsequently disclosed the incident to Elena Gallano (her teacher) and to Dolores Mangantula (the
parent of a classmate), who both accompanied AAA to the barangay office. AAA was later subjected to
physical examination that revealed a laceration on her hymen consistent with her claim of sexual abuse.
Issue:
Whether or not it is incumbent for the defense to present the petitioners birth certificate to
invoke Sec. 64 of RA No. 9344 when the burden of proving his age lies with the prosecution.
Ruling:
Yes. In the present case, the prosecution completed its evidence and had done everything that
the law requires it to do. The burden of evidence has now shifted to the defense which now claims, by
an affirmative defense, that the accused, even if guilty, should be exempt from criminal liability because
of his age when he committed the crime. The defense, therefore, not the prosecution, has the burden of
showing by evidence that the petitioner was 15 years old or less when he committed the rape charged.
The Court has given evidentiary weight to testimonial evidence on the accuseds minority and age
upon the concurrence of the following conditions: (1) the absence of any other satisfactory evidence
such as the birth certificate, baptismal certificate, or similar documents that would prove the date of
birth of the accused; (2) the presence of testimony from accused and/or a relative on the age and
minority of the accused at the time of the complained incident without any objection on the part of the
prosecution; and (3) lack of any contrary evidence showing that the accuseds and/or his relatives
testimonies are untrue.
It was also stressed that the last paragraph of Section 7 of R.A. No. 9344 provides that any doubt
on the age of the child must be resolved in his favor. Hence, any doubt in this case regarding the
petitioners age at the time he committed the rape should be resolved in his favor. In other words, the
testimony that the petitioner as 15 years old when the crime took place should be read to mean that
he was not more than 15 years old as this is the more favorable reading that R.A. No. 9344 directs.
SIMPLE RAPE


People of the Philippines v. Henry Arpon
Facts:
The accused, who is the uncle of the offended party, actuated by lust willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously succeeded in having carnal knowledge of AAA 8 times. The first one was when AAA was only
8 years old (accused was 13 years old) and when she was 12 years old (accused was 17 years old) she
was raped 7 times. These all happened in their (AAA) house.
Issue:
Whether the accused be liable for the 1 count of statutory rape and 7 counts of rape?
Ruling:
ACQUITTED on the first count of statutory rape. Accordingly, for the first count of rape, which in
the information in Criminal Case No. 2000-01-46 was allegedly committed in 1995, the testimony of the
accused-appellant sufficiently established that he was only 13 years old at that time. In view of the
failure of the prosecution to prove the exact date and year of the first incident of rape, i.e., whether the
same occurred in 1995 or in 1998 as previously discussed, any doubt therein should be resolved in
favor of the accused, it being more beneficial to the latter. The Court, thus, exempts the accused-
appellant from criminal liability for the first count of rape pursuant to the first paragraph of Section 6 of
Republic Act No. 9344. The accused-appellant, nevertheless, remains civilly liable therefor.
For the second and third counts of rape that were committed in the year 1999, the accused-
appellant was already 17 years old. We likewise find that in the said instances, the accused-appellant
acted with discernment. In Madali v. People, the Court had the occasion to reiterate that discernment
is that mental capacity of a minor to fully appreciate the consequences of his unlawful act. Such
capacity may be known and should be determined by taking into consideration all the facts and
circumstances afforded by the records in each case. In this case, the fact that the accused-appellant
acted with discernment was satisfactorily established by the testimony of AAA, which we had already
found to be credible. Verily, AAA testified that she at first did not tell anybody about the sexual assault
she suffered at the hands of the accused-appellant because the latter told her that he would kill her
mother if she did so. That the accused-appellant had to threaten AAA in an effort to conceal his
dastardly acts only proved that he knew full well that what he did was wrong and that he was aware of
the consequences thereof.
Second and third countsQUALIFIED RAPE
AAA was only able to establish 3 instances when the accused appellant had carnal knowledge of her.



Raymund Madali & Rodel Madali v. People of the Philippines
Facts:
At about 9:00 p.m. of the same day, Jovencio and another friend named Michael Manasan sat
beside the Rizal monument in the Poblacion of Romblon, located between the Roman Catholic Church
and Lovers Inn. Michael had just left Jovencio when Raymund, Rodel, Bernardino and the victim AAA
arrived. After meandering around, the group proceeded to climb the stairs, atop of which was the
reservoir just beside the Romblon National High School. The victim, AAA, ascended first; behind him
were Rodel, Raymund, Bernardino and witness Jovencio. As soon as they reached the reservoir,
Bernardino blindfolded AAA with the handkerchief of Raymund. Bernardino at once blurted out, Join
the rugby boys. AAA replied, Thats enough. Bernardino then struck AAA thrice with a fresh and
hard coconut frond. AAA lost his balance and was made to stand up by Raymund, Rodel and Bernardino.
Raymund took his turn clobbering AAA at the back of his thighs with the same coconut frond. AAA
wobbled. Before he could recover, he received punches to his head and body from Rodel, who was
wearing brass knuckles. The punishments proved too much, as AAA lost consciousness.
Not satisfied, Raymund placed his handkerchief around the neck of AAA, with its ends tied to a
dog chain. With the contraption, the three malefactors pulled the body up a tree. Stunned at the sight
of his cousin being ill-treated, Jovencio could only muster a faint voice saying Enough every single-
time AAA received the painful blows. Bernardino, who seemed to suggest finishing off the victim,
remarked, Since were all here, lets get on with it. Before leaving the scene, the three assailants
warned Jovencio not to reveal the incident to anyone, or he would be next.
Issue:
Whether or not Raymund and Rodel are criminally liable.
Ruling:
As to the criminal liability, Raymond is exempt. As correctly ruled by the Court of Appeals,
Raymund, who was only 14 years of age at the time he committed the crime, should be exempt from
criminal liability and should be released to the custody of his parents or guardian pursuant to Sections 6
and 20 of Republic Act No. 9344.
s to Rodels situation, 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 Section 6 of Republic Act No. 9344. The Court of Appeals could not have been
more accurate when it opined that Rodel acted with discernment. Rodel, together with his cohorts,
warned Jovencio not to reveal their hideous act to anyone; otherwise, they would kill him. Rodel knew,
therefore, that killing AAA was a condemnable act and should be kept in secrecy. He fully appreciated
the consequences of his unlawful act.