Professional Documents
Culture Documents
However, the Court has already ruled in People v. Sarcia that while
Section 38 of RA 9344 provides that suspension of sentence can still be applied
even if the child in conflict with the law is already eighteen (18) years of age or
more at the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt, Section 40 of the same
law limits the said suspension of sentence until the child reaches the maximum
age of 21. The provision states:
SEC. 40. Return of the Child in Conflict with the Law to Court. - If the court finds
that the objective of the disposition measures imposed upon the child in conflict with the
law have not been fulfilled, or if the child in conflict with the law has willfully failed to
comply with the condition of his/her disposition or rehabilitation program, the child in
conflict with the law shall be brought before the court for execution of judgment.
If said child in conflict with the law has reached eighteen (18) years of age while
under suspended sentence, the court shall determine whether to discharge the child in
accordance with this Act, to order execution of sentence, or to extend the suspended
sentence for a certain specified period or until the child reaches the maximum age of
twenty-one (21) years.
Hence, Mantalaba, who is now beyond the age of twenty-one (21) years
can no longer avail of the provisions of Sections 38 and 40 of RA 9344 as to his
suspension of sentence, because such is already moot and academic. It is
highly noted that this would not have happened if the CA, when this case was
under its jurisdiction, suspended the sentence of the appellant. The records
show that the appellant filed his notice of appeal at the age of 19 (2005), hence,
when RA 9344 became effective in 2006, appellant was 20 years old, and the
case having been elevated to the CA, the latter should have suspended the
sentence of the appellant because he was already entitled to the provisions of
Section 38 of the same law, which now allows the suspension of sentence of
minors regardless of the penalty imposed as opposed to the provisions of
Article 192 of P.D. 603.