ORTEGA V. PEOPLE (CRIMINAL)

Section 6 of RA 9344 clearly and explicitly provides:

Section 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility - A child 15 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.

A child above 15 years but below 18 years of age shall likewise be exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to an intervention program, unless he/she acted with discernment, in which case, such child shall be subjected to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act.

The exemption from criminal liability here in established doe snot include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced in accordance with existing laws. Likewise, 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. What is controlling, therefore, with respect to the exemption from criminal liability of the CICL (Child In Conflict With Law), is not the CICL's age at the time of the promulgation of the judgment bu the CICL's age at the time of the commission of the offense. In short, by virtue of RA 9344, the age of criminal irresponsibility has been raised from 9 to 15 years old.

Given this precise statutory declaration, it is imperative that this Court accord retroactive application to the provisions of RA 9344 pursuant to the well-entrenched principle in criminal law - penal laws which are favorable to the accused are given retroactive effect.

Moreover, penal laws are construed liberally in favor of the accused. In this case, the plain meaning of RA 9344's unambiguous language, coupled with clear lawmaker's intent is most favorable to herein petitioner.

It bears stressing that the petitioner was only 13 years old at the time of the commission of the alleged rape. This was duly proven by the certificate of live birth, by petitioner's own testimony, and by the testimony of his mother. Furthermore, petitioner's age was never assailed in any of the proceedings before the RTC and the CA. Indubitably, petitioner, at the time of the commission of the crime, was below 15 years of age. Under RA 9344, he is exempted from criminal liability.

RAIT V. PEOPLE (CRIMINAL, REMEDIAL)

Petitioner argues that he should be acquitted of the crime of attempted rape. If he is to be found guilty of any offense, he should be convicted only of unjust vexation as in Baleros case.

Petition is denied.

First, the findings of fact of the trial court especially when affirmed by the CA are conclusive upon this Court. In this case, the trial court found the acts imputed to petitioner to have been duly proven by the evidence beyond reasonable doubt. We are bound by such finding.

Unlike in Baleros, the acts of the petitioner clearly establish his intention to commence the act of rape. Petitioner had already successfully removed the victim's clothing and had inserted his finger into her vagina. It is not empty speculation to conclude that these acts were preparatory to the act of raping her. Had it not been for the victim's strong physical resistance, petitioner's next step would be, logically, having carnal knowledge of the victim.

***Case happened in 1993 when the new Anti-Rape Law of 1997 (RA 9353) has taken effect. After its effectivity, INSERTION OF A FINGER IN THE VAGINA is consummated rape by sexual assault (second form of rape).

Article 266-A. Rape. When and How Committed.

Rape is committed -

x x x x

2. By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.

PEOPLE V. TUAZON (CRIMINAL, RAPE)

Article 335. When and how rape is committed. Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:

1. by using force or intimidation;
2. xxx
3. when the woman is under 12 years of age or is demented.

The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.

Moreover, Tuazon shall not be eligible for parole pursuant to the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Section2 thereof provides that the law shall not apply to persons convicted of offenses punished with death penalty or life imprisonment. Although the law makes no reference to persons convicted to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua such as Tuazon herein, the Court has consistently held that the Indeterminate Sentence Law likewise does not apply to persons sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

Physical resistance need not be established in rape when intimidation is exercised upon the victim who submits against her will tot her rapist's lust because of fear for her life or personal safety. Because of victim's youthfulness, coupled with the act that offender is her stepfather, it was easy for her to believe that offender would make good his threat to kill her should she resist.

The Court has acknowledged in several cases that the hesitance of the victim in reporting the crime to the authorities is not necessarily an indication of a fabricated charge. This is especially true when the delay can be attributed to the pattern of fear instilled by the threats of bodily harm made by a person who exercises moral ascendancy over the victim.