PEOPLE V SARCIA

G.R. NO. 169641, 10 SEPTEMBER 2009, 599 SCRA 20

PONENTE: Leonardo-De Castro, J.

COURT DECIDING: Supreme Court En Banc

RELIEF: This is a review on the CA decision (CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00717) which affirmed,
with modification the decision of Regional Trial Court of Ligao City.

DOCTRINE:
Acts Contrary to Law- Acts that are unlawful or is in violation of a legal regulation
or statute.
RA 9344- An act known as the "Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006." It
shall cover the different stages involving children at risk and children in conflict
with the law from prevention to rehabilitation and reintegration.

SUMMARY: The accused-appellant Richard O. Sarcia alias Nogi is guilty beyond

reasonable doubt of the crime of rape committed against AAA, and sentenced him to
suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and to pay the amount of P50,000.00 as civil
indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and the cost of the suit. However, the CA
modified the penalties imposed by the RTC by imposing the death penalty, increasing the
award of civil indemnity to P75,000.00, and awarding P25,000.00 as exemplary
damages, aside from the P50,000.00 for moral damages.

The crime of rape was allegedly committed sometime in 1996 against AAA, a five (5) year
old girl. After almost four (4) years, AAAs father filed a complaint for acts of
lasciviousness against herein accused-appellant on July 7, 2000.

FACTS:

On December 16, 1996, five-year-old [AAA], together with her [cousin and two
other playmates], was playing in the yard of Saling Crisologo when the accused-
appellant invited her to the backyard of the house and raped her. AAAs cousin
witnessed what happened.
A complaint for acts of lasciviousness was filed against the accused-appellant.
Upon review, his charges were upgraded to rape.
The court found the accused-appellant guilty of the crime and imposed the penalty.
July 15, 2004, accused-appellant filed an appeal.
The accused denied the allegations on grounds of:
o Testimonies of AAA and cousin are inconsistent.
o AAAs inability to recall the crime.
o Delay in filling
 o Absence of proof of force or intimidation
o Negative lacerations based on medical report.
The RTC found accused-appellant guilty and imposed the penalty of reclusion
perpetua as well as civil indemnity of P50,000.00 and moral damages
of P50,000.00.
Case was forwarded to CA, its decision of July 14, 2005, in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No.
000717, affirmed with modification the judgment of conviction pronounced by the
trial court.
The case was elevated to the SC for further review.
RA 9344 took effect while the case was pending before the SC.

ISSUE: The following are the issues of the case:

Whether or not accused-appellant was guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether or not (If the accused-appellant is guilty), the penalty imposed was
proper.
Whether or not accused-appellant can avail of the retroactive effect of RA
9344.

HELD:
The decision of the CA dated July 14, 2005 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00717 is
hereby AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS: (1) the penalty of death imposed
on accused-appellant is reduced to reclusion perpetua; 53 and (2) accused-appellant is
ordered to pay the victim the amount of P75,000.00 and P30,000.00 as moral damages
and exemplary damages, respectively. The award of civil indemnity in the amount of
P75,000.00 is maintained. However, the case shall be REMANDED to the court a quo for
appropriate disposition in accordance with Sec. 51 of R.A. 9344

On being guilty.
Yes. Accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The claim of the accused-
appellant regarding inconsistent in testimonies does not affect the veracity of the
testimonies. The discrepancies regarding date and time, does not make the information
defective. The medical report finding the victim with no laceration is not indispensable in
the crime of rape. The rape victim's delay or hesitation in reporting the crime does not
destroy the truth of the charge nor is it an indication of deceit.

On penalty imposition
Under Art. 335 of the RPC, the imposable penalty for statutory rape is death. However,
accused-appellant is entitled to privileged mitigating circumstance of minority because he
was 18 years old at the time of the commission of the offense. Since the prosecution was
not able to prove the exact date and time when the rape was committed, it is not certain
that the crime of rape was committed on or after he reached 18 years of age in 1996.
On retroactive effect of RA9344
Yes, RA9344 provides for its retroactive application as follows:
Sec. 68. Children Who Have Been Convicted and are Serving Sentence.
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. . .

RATIO: The legislative intent, to apply to heinous crimes the automatic suspension of
sentence of a child in conflict with the law can be gleaned from the Senate
deliberations 50 on Senate Bill No. 1402 (Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Act of 2005), the pertinent portion of which is quoted below:
If a mature minor, maybe 16 years old to below 18 years old is charged, accused
with, or may have committed a serious offense, and may have acted with
discernment, then the child could be recommended by the Department of Social
Welfare and Development (DSWD), by the Local Council for the Protection of
Children (LCPC), or by my proposed Office of Juvenile Welfare and Restoration
to go through a judicial proceeding; but the welfare, best interests, and
restoration of the child should still be a primordial or primary consideration. Even
in heinous crimes, the intention should still be the child's restoration,
rehabilitation and reintegration. . . .