Leader: Bai Monisa T. Gampong,, RN James J. Bernal, CPA Kenneth A. Dubria Jazzle Therese Q.

Gomez 1-Sanchez Roman Group 2 Legal Research August 17, 2011

A. Legal Topic: Rise of Criminality among Youth Offenders B. Legal Issue: How does age affect the criminal liability of a youth offender under RA 9344? C. Case Digests: 1. Valcesar Estioca v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 173876, June 27, 2008 2. Joemar Ortega v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 151085, August 20, 2008 3. Robert Sierra v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 182941, July 3, 2009 4. Raymund Madali and Rodel Madali v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 180380, August 4, 2009 5. People of the Philippines v. Richard Sarcia, G.R. No. 169641, September 10, 2009 6. Robert Remiendo v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 184874, October 9, 2009 7. Salvador Atizado and Salvador Monreal v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 173822, October 13, 2010 8. People of the Philippines v. Jerwin Quintal, et. al, G.R. No. 184170, February 2, 2011 9. People of the Philippines v. Hermie M. Jacinto, G.R. No. 182239, March 16, 2011 10. People of the Philippines v. Urban Salcedo, et. al. G.R. No. 186523. June 22, 2011 D. Laws Cited: 1. Republic Act No. 9344: Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 2. A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC: Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law 3. Presidential Decree No. 603: The Child and Youth Welfare Code 4. Republic Act No. 8353: The Anti-Rape Law of 1997 5. Republic Act No. 7610: Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act 6. Republic Act No. 9262: Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 7. A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC: Rule on Violence Against Women and Their Children 8. 9. Republic Act No. 9346: An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines Republic Act No. 7659: An Act to Impose the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes 10. A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC: Amendments to the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure to Govern Death Penalty Cases

Valcesar Estioca v. People of the Philippines GR 173876; June 27, 2008 Facts: On July 28, 2001, Alforque saw Esctioca and Bacus destroyed the padlock of the main door of the classroom of Ms. Selina M. Panal where the colored TV, karaoke and a stand fan were located. They brought the said items to the school gate and handed it to Boniao and Handoc who were waiting in the tricycle. After Estioca, Bacus and Boniao boarded the tricycle, Handoc drove the same and they sped away. They were found guilty of the crime of robbery by the lower court and they appealed to the Court of Appeals. When R.A. No. 9344 took effect, Boniao was acquitted since he was a minor at the time of the crime but without prejudice to his civil liability. Issues: Whether R.A. No. 9344 can retroact to Boniaos case. Ruling: Although the crime was committed on July 28, 2001 and Republic Act No. 9344 took effect only on May 20, 2006, the said law should be given retroactive effect in favor of Boniao who was not shown to be a habitual criminal. He was released to the custody of his parents or guardian pursuant to Sections 6 and 20 of Republic Act No. 9344. However, Boniaos civil liability is not extinguished pursuant to the second paragraph of Section 6, Republic Act No. 9344, Boniao should be held jointly liable with petitioner, Bacus, and Handoc for the payment of the stolen items. Reasoning/s: Boniao who was barely 14 years of age at the time he committed the crime is exempted from criminal liability. A child fifteen years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. However, the child shall be subjected to an intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of this Act. The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced in accordance with existing laws. Policy: Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, although at the time of the publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same.

Joemar Ortega v. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 151085; August 20, 2008 Facts: On April 20, 1998, Joemar Ortega, 13 years of old, was charged with a crime of rape against a 6 year-old minor allegedly committed on August and December 1996. On May 13, 1999, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Joemar of the alleged crime which was subsequently affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA) on October 26, 2000. After the motion for reconsideration was dismissed by the CA, the accused filed a petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court (SC). On April 28, 2006, while the petition with the SC was still pending, Republic Act (RA) 9344 or the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 was enacted and took effect on May 20, 2006. RA 9344 provides that at the time of the commission of the crime, a child whose age was 15 years old and below will be exempted from criminal liability. Issue: Whether or not RA 9344 may be given retroactive effect, thus exempting the petitioner, who is now already 25 years old, from the criminal liability of the crime he committed. Ruling: By virtue of R.A. No. 9344, the age of criminal irresponsibility has been raised from 9 to 15 years old. What is controlling with respect to the exemption from criminal liability of the children in conflict with law (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. Accordingly, the criminal cases filed against the petitioner are hereby dismissed. Petitioner is hereby referred to the local social welfare and development officer of the locality for the appropriate intervention program. Reasoning/s: The legislative intent for R.A. No. 9344's retroactivity is patent from the deliberations on the bill in the Senate. The intention of the legislature in enacting a law is the law itself, and must be enforced when ascertained, although it may not be consistent with the strict letter of the statute. The retroactive application of R.A. No. 9344 is also justified under Article 22 of the RPC, as amended, which provides that penal laws are to be given retroactive effect insofar as they favor the accused who is not found to be a habitual criminal. Policy: The 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). However, while the law exempts the youth offender from criminal, it does not expressly provide that there is a concomitant exemption from civil liability.

Robert Sierra v. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 182941; July 3, 2009 Facts: Robert Sierra was accused of raping his sister in their dwelling on August 2000 when allegedly the former was 15 years of age and the latter was 13 years of age respectively. On April 5, 2006, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Robert for the crime of qualified rape and sentenced him with the punishment of reclusion perpetua plus civil liability. Petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) invoking the provisions of RA 9344 to exempt him from criminal liability. The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC with a modification, that the petitioner has to suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal maximum instead of reclusion perpetua, on the ground that the defense failed to clearly establish and prove the age of the accused to be 15 years old or below at the time of the commission of the crime so as to exempt him from criminal liability. Issues: a) Who bears the burden of proving the minority of the offender? b) What evidences are needed to determine the age of the offender? Ruling: The defense has the burden of showing by evidence that the petitioner was 15 years old or less when he committed the rape charged. Section 7 of RA 9344 provides that the age of a child may be determined from the child's birth certificate, baptismal certificate or any other pertinent documents. In the absence of these documents, age may be based on information from the child himself/herself, testimonies of other persons, the physical appearance of the child and other relevant evidence. In case of doubt as to the age of the child, it shall be resolved in his/her favor. Reasoning/s: The burden of evidence, after the prosecution has presented the evidence it believes is sufficient to prove the required elements of the crime, 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. Testimonial evidence is competent evidence to prove the accuseds minority and age. Policy: Evidentiary weight is given 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.

Raymund Madali and Rodel Madali v. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 180380; August 4, 2009 Facts: On April 13, 1999, Rodel, Raymund, Bernardino and Jovencio, together with AAA, went to a place near the Romblon National High School. As they reached their destination, Rodel & Raymund inflicted physical injuries to AAA which caused the latters death. They warned Jovencio not to divulge to anyone what he saw otherwise, they would kill him. At the time of the crime, Raymund and Rodel were minors, 14 years old and 16 years old respectively. The lower court found them guilty of homicide. Petitioners elevated the case to the Court of Appeals and during the pendency of the appeal, R.A. No. 9344 took effect. Issue: Whether or not Raymund and Rodel should be exempted from criminal liability. Ruling: Pursuant to Sec. 64 of RA 9344, exempts from criminal liability a minor fifteen (15) years or below at the time of the commission of the offense, Raymund was exempted from criminal liability. He was released to the custody of his parents in pursuant to Sec. 20 of RA 9344. Pursuant to Sec. 6 of RA 9344, if a child is above 15 and below 18 years old, the finding of discernment is necessary to determine if he would be exempted from criminal liability. Rodel was sentenced to six months and one day of prision correccional to eight years and one day of prision mayor, but the imposition of said penalty was suspended pursuant to Sec 38 of RA 9344. Reasoning/s: Raymund was only 14 years of age at the time he committed the crime and should be exempted from criminal liability. As to Rodels situation, it must be borne in mind that he was 16 years old at the time of the commission of the crime. Rodel knew that killing AAA was a condemnable act and should be kept in secrecy. He fully appreciated the consequences of his unlawful act. However, instead of pronouncing the judgment of conviction, the court shall place the child in conflict with the law under suspended sentence, without need of application. Policy: The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced in accordance with existing laws. Upon suspension of sentence and after considering the various circumstances of the child, the court shall impose the appropriate disposition measures as provided in the Supreme Court Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law.

People of the Philippines v. Richard Sarcia G.R. No. 169641; September 10, 2009 Facts: Richard Sarcia, committed the crime of rape in 1996 when he was still a minor. He was charged with a penalty of death which was also affirmed by the Court of appeals in 2005. During the pendency of his appeal in the Supreme Court, Republic Act No. 9344 or the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 took effect. The accused was already 31 years old at that time. Issue: Whether or not RA 9344 is applicable to respondents case even if he was already 31 years old at the time of its effectivity. Ruling: Section 68 of Republic Act No. 9344 provides that persons who have been convicted and are serving sentence at the time of its effectivity, 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 its retroactive application. The judgment of the RTC had been promulgated, even before the effectivity of R.A. No. 9344. Thus, the application of Sec. 38 and 40 to the suspension of sentence is now moot and academic. However, accused shall be entitled to appropriate disposition under Sec. 51 which he shall be made to serve his sentence, in lieu of confinement in an agricultural camp and other training facilities. Reasoning/s: The Act allows the retroactive application for those who have been convicted and are serving sentence at the time of the effectivity of this said Act, and who were below the age of 18 years at the time of the commission of the offense. With more reason, the Act should apply to this case wherein the conviction by the lower court is still under review. A child in conflict with the law after conviction and upon order of the court, be made to serve his/her sentence, in lieu of confinement in a regular penal institution, agricultural camp and other training facilities that may be established, maintained, supervised and controlled by the BUCOR, in coordination with the DSWD. Policy: The intendment of the laws providing for the penalties of youth offenders is the childs restoration, rehabilitation and reintegration. The minority of the offender at the time of the commission of the offense is given great weight because it is the States duty to promote and protect their physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual, and social well-being.

Robert Remiendo v. People of the Philippines GR 184874; October 9, 2009

Facts: Robert was charged with a crime of rape against a minor allegedly committed on March and May 1997. He waited for AAAs parents to leave the house before defiling the latter and threatening to kick her if she should shout for help. He was a minor whose age is above 15 but below 18 years old at the time of the crime. He was then convicted of rape but on appeal invoked a suspension of sentence pursuant to R.A. No. 9344. By the time he was convicted by the trial court and before the case was elevated to the Court of Appeals, he was already 22 years old. Issues: Why is it important to establish if a minor acted with discernment in the commission of the crimes charged? W/N RA 9344 may be given retroactive effect, thus exempting the petitioner, who is convicted by RTC & already 22 y/o before the case was elevated to CA. Ruling: Pursuant to Sec. 6 of RA 9344, if a child is above 15 and below 18 years old, the finding of discernment is necessary to determine if he would be exempted from criminal liability. Culled from the records of this case, it is manifested that Robert acted with discernment, being able to distinguish between right and wrong and knowing fully well the consequences of his acts. Pursuant to Sec. 38 and 40 of RA 9344, the suspension of sentence can no longer be availed since by the time his sentence was imposed by the trial court, he was already 22 years old. Reasoning/s: His act of waiting for the AAAs parents to leave the house before defiling the latter and threatening to kick her if she should shout prove that Robert can differentiate what is right and wrong. He was born on January 21, 1982. The Joint Judgment was promulgated on October 27, 2004. Thus, at the time of the imposition of his sentence, he was already 22 years old and could no longer be considered a child for the purposes of the application of R.A. No. 9344. Policy: Discernment is the mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong. The prosecution is burdened to prove that the accused acted with discernment by evidence of physical appearance, attitude or deportment not only before and during the commission of the act, but also after and during the trial. The surrounding circumstances must demonstrate that the minor knew what he was doing and that it was wrong. Such circumstance includes the gruesome nature of the crime and the minors cunning and shrewdness.

Salvador Atizado and Salvador Monreal v. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 173822; October 13, 2010 Facts: Salvador Atixado and Salvador Monreal were accused of killing and murdering one Rogelio Llona on April 1994. Monreal averred that he was 17 years old at the time when the crime was allegedly committed. The RTC, however, convicted Atizado and Monreal for the crime of murder and sentenced them with reclusion perpetua. On appeal to the CA, the court affirmed the conviction in 2005. The RTC and the CA did not appreciate Monreals minority at the time of the commission of the murder. Issue: Whether or not RA 9344 can be given retroactive application to Monreals case Ruling: Pursuant to Article 68 (2) of the RPC, when the offender is over 15 and under 18 years of age, the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law is imposed. Based on Article 61 (2) of the RPC, reclusion temporal is the penalty next lower than reclusion perpetua to death. Monreal has been detained for over 16 years, that is, from the time of his arrest on May 18, 1994 until the present. Given that the entire period of Monreals detention should be credited in the service of his sentence, pursuant to Section 41 of Republic Act No. 9344, the revision of the penalty now warrants his immediate release from the penitentiary. Reasoning/s: Persons below the age of eighteen (18) years at the time of the commission of the offense that have been convicted and are serving sentence at the time of the effectivity of RA 9344 shall benefit from the its retroactive application. 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. Policy: The benefits in favor of children in conflict with the law as granted under Republic Act No. 9344 aims to promote the welfare of minor offenders through programs and services, such as delinquency prevention, intervention, diversion, rehabilitation and re-integration, geared towards their development.

People of the Philippines v. Jerwin Quintal, et. al. G.R. No. 184170, February 2, 2011
Facts: On May 2, 2001, Vicente, together with 15-year old Jerwin Quintal, 16-year old Felipe Quintal and Larry Panti were charged in a crime of rape. The victim is a 16-year old girl, AAA. Vicente, Jerwin and Felipe were arrested while Larry remained at large. The RTC rendered judgment finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape. However, the judgment of conviction against Jerwin and Felipe was suspended and dismissed upon recommendation of DSWD. Vicente was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. On appeal, he challenged the credibility of the testimonies of AAA. The court then acquitted him based beyond reasonable doubt. Issue: What happens to the penalty of a minor under RA 9344? Ruling: Pursuant to R.A. No. 9344, the judgment of conviction against Jerwin Quintal and Felipe Quintal was suspended and they were confined at the Home for Boys in Naga City for rehabilitation. In 2009, the RTC ordered the dismissal of the cases against Jerwin and Felipe upon reconsideration and recommendation of the DSWD. They were returned to their respective families. Vicente was acquitted based beyond reasonable doubt. The credibility of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, as well as the inconclusive medical finding, tends to create doubt if AAA was indeed raped. However, they were ordered to individually pay the private complainant a civil indemnity and moral damages. Reasoning/s: A child over fifteen years old but less than eighteen years old at the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. However, the child shall be subjected to an intervention program or released to the custody of the parents or guardians. The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced in accordance with existing laws. The combination of all the circumstances are more than sufficient to create a reasonable doubt as to whether first, rape was actually committed and second, whether the accused were the perpetrators. The Court cannot disregard the nagging doubt with respect to the credibility of AAAs testimony, the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the barangay tanod and barangay kagawad, the purported confession put into writing and signed by all the accused; and the subsequent incidents relating to the case. Policy: The Court is well aware of the rule that findings of trial court relative to the credibility of the rape victim are normally respected and not disturbed on appeal, more so, if they are affirmed by the appellate court. It is only in exceptional circumstances that this rule is brushed aside, such as when the courts evaluation was reached arbitrarily, or when the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied certain facts or circumstances of weight and substance which could affect the result of the case.

People of the Philippines v. Hermie M. Jacinto G.R. No. 182239; March 16, 2011 Facts: Hermie M. Jacinto, committed the crime of rape against AAA, who was then five years old. The Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals found respondent guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape and was sentenced to death. However, the defense moved to reopen trial for reception of newly discovered evidence stating that appellant was apparently born on March 1, 1985 and that he was 17 years old when the crime was committed on January 28, 2003. Issue: Whether or not the minority of the accused during the commission of the crime is considered a privilege mitigating circumstance even though judgment has been rendered final. Ruling: Sec. 68 of RA 9344 allows the retroactive application of the Act to those who have been convicted and are serving sentence at the time of the effectivity of this said Act, and who were below the age of 18 years at the time of the commission of the offense. He is therefore sentenced to be confined in an agricultural camp, instead of serving time in prison. Reasoning/s: The respondent is entitled to a mitigating circumstance by reason of his minority during the commission of the crime. The age of the child in conflict with the law at the time of the promulgation of the judgment of conviction is not material. What matters is that the offender committed the offense when he/she was still of tender age. Policy: The offender shall be entitled to the right to restoration, rehabilitation and reintegration in accordance with the Act in order that he/she is given the chance to live a normal life and become a productive member of the community.

People of the Philippines v. Urban Salcedo, et. al. G.R. No. 186523; June 22, 2011
Facts: On June 2, 2001, the Abu Sayaff Group (ASG) led by Khadaffy Janjalani and Abu Sabaya abducted Shiela Tabuag, Reina Malonzo, Ediborah Yap, Joel Guillo and more in Lamitan and Lantawan. On October 13, 2001, a firefight broke out between the ASG and the military, giving Guillo and 3 other hostages the opportunity to escape from their captors. On even date, Tabuag was released together with 2 other hostages allegedly after paying ransom. On November 1, 2001, Malonzo was also released by order of Janjalani. On June 7, 2002, after a shootout between the ASG and the military at Siraway, Yap died at the hands of her captors. Thereafter, a manhunt by the military was conducted, where the accused were subsequently captured and held for trial. The RTC convicted them for the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with ransom. Iblong, Mandangan, Salcedo and Jaafar argued that they were minors at that time and should be exempted from criminal liability in pursuant to RA 9344.

Issue: a. How is the minority of a youth offender proven? b. Whether or not they can benefit from the retroactive application of RA 9344 Ruling: Iblong, Mandangan, Salcedo and Jaafar cannot benefit from R.A. No. 9344. It should be emphasized that at the time the trial court was hearing the case and even at the time it handed down the judgment of conviction against accused on August 13, 2004, R.A. No. 9344 had not yet been enacted into law. The procedures laid down by the law to prove the minority of accused were not yet in place. Hence, the rule was still that the burden of proving the minority of the accused rested solely on the defense. The trial court, in the absence of any document stating the age of the aforementioned four accused, or any corroborating testimony, had to rely on its own observation of the physical appearance of accused to estimate their age. Reasoning/s: Iblong, claimed he was born on August 5, 1987; Mandangan stated his birth date as July 6, 1987; Salcedo said he was born on January 10, 1985; and Jaafar claimed he was born on July 13, 1981. If Jaafar's birth date was indeed July 13, 1981, then he was over 18 years of age when the crime was committed in June of 2001 and, thus, he cannot claim minority. It should be noted that the defense absolutely failed to present any document showing their date of birth, neither did they present testimonies of other persons such as parents or teachers to corroborate their claim of minority. The accused appeared to the trial court as no younger than twenty-four years of age, or in their mid-twenties, meaning they could not have been under eighteen (18) years old when the crime was committed. Policy: The burden of proving the minority of the accused lies solely on the defense. Evidentiary testimonies and documents are sufficient to justify such claims.

Synthesis of All Relevant Cases The Supreme Court has decided 10 cases on how age affects the criminal liability of a youth offender under RA 9344. In Ortega v. People, what is controlling with respect to the exemption from criminal liability of CICL is not the child's age at the time of the promulgation of judgment but the child's age at the time of the commission of the offense. In People v. Salcedo, et.al., the burden of proving the minority of the accused lies solely on the defense. Evidentiary testimonies and documents are sufficient to justify such claims. In Sierra v. People, the childs age may be determined from the child's birth/ baptismal certificate or any other pertinent documents. In the absence of these documents, age may be based on information from the child himself/herself, testimonies of other persons, the physical appearance of the child and other relevant evidences. In Remiendo v. People, the surrounding circumstances must demonstrate that the minor knew what he was doing and that it was wrong. Such circumstance includes the gruesome nature of the crime and the minors cunning and shrewdness. In Madali and Madali v. People, a child under 18 years old at the time of the commission of the offense is found guilty of the offense charged, the court shall determine and ascertain any civil liability which may have resulted from the offense committed. In People v. Quintal, et. al., a child over 15 years old but less than 18 years old at the time of the commission of the offense shall be subjected to an intervention program or released to the custody of their parents or guardians. In People v. Jacinto, even in heinous crimes, the childs welfare, best interests, restoration, rehabilitation and reintegration should still be a primordial or primary consideration. In Estioca v. People, penal laws shall have retroactive effect insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal. In Atizado and Monreal v. People, persons below the age of eighteen (18) years at the time of the commission of the offense that have been convicted and are serving sentence at the time of the effectivity of RA 9344 shall benefit from the its retroactive application. In People v. Sarcia, cases wherein the conviction by the lower court is still under review shall likewise benefit from its retroactive application. With the above synthesis of cases, we have concluded that the age of the youth offender is essential to the determination of his penalty because it may exempt him or mitigate his criminal liability in relation to the crime that he committed. RA 9344 has raised the age of criminal irresponsibility from 9 to 15 years old and the conditional responsibility from 15 to 18 years old. Consequently, youth offenders who are below 15 years old are exempted from criminal liability and those who are above15 but below 18 years old who acted without discernment are likewise exempt from criminal liability. On the other hand, those who acted with discernment can use their minority as a privileged mitigating circumstance which, in effect, will reduce their penalty next lower than that prescribed by law. But, instead of pronouncing the judgment of conviction, they are placed under suspended sentence, without need of application. Their cases shall immediately be dismissed and be released to the custody of their parents/ guardians or be subjected to an intervention program. But when they reach 18 years old, the court shall determine whether to discharge them, order execution of sentence, or extend the suspended sentence for a certain specified period or until they reach the maximum age of 21 years. It is worthy to note though that the exemption from criminal liability herein established doesnt include exemption from civil liability. The age of the child and discernment is given due consideration with regard to the promulgation of judgment. The Act is given retroactive application for those who have been convicted and are serving sentence before its effectivity, who were below 18 years old at the time of the commission of the offense and to cases wherein the conviction by the lower court is still under review.