G.R.No.151085.August20,2008.

JOEMAR ORTEGA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES,respondent.
Criminal Law; Rape; In rape, actual penetration of the victims
organorruptureofthehymenisnotrequiredtheslightesttouchingof
thelipsofthefemaleorganorofthelabiaofthepudendumconstitutes
rape.Insum,weareconvincedthatpetitionercommittedthecrimeof
rapeagainstAAA.Inaprosecutionforrape,thecomplainantscandoris
thesinglemostimportantfactor.Ifthecomplainantstestimonymeetsthe
testofcredibility,theaccusedcanbeconvictedsolelyonthatbasis.The
RTC,asaffirmedbytheCA,didnotdoubtAAAscredibility,andfound
noillmotiveforhertochargepetitioneroftheheinouscrimeofrapeand
topositivelyidentifyhimasthemalefactor.Bothcourtsalsoaccorded
respect to BBBs testimony that he saw petitioner having sexual
intercoursewithhisyoungersister.WhilepetitionerassertsthatAAAs
povertyisenoughmotivefortheimputationofthecrime,wediscardsuch
assertionfornomotherorfatherlikeMMMandFFFwouldstoopsolow
astosubjecttheirdaughtertothetribulationsandtheembarrassmentofa
publictrialknowingthatsuchatraumaticexperiencewoulddamagetheir
daughterspsycheandmar herlifeifthechargeisnottrue.Wefind
petitionersclaimthatMMMinflictedtheabrasionsfoundbyDr.Jocson
in the genitalia of AAA, in order to extort money from petitioners
parents,highlyincredible.Lastly,itmustbenotedthatinmostcasesof
rapecommittedagainstyounggirlslikeAAAwhowasonly6yearsold
then, total penetration of the victims organ is improbable due to the
smallvaginalopening.Thus,ithasbeenheldthatactualpenetrationof
thevictimsorganorruptureofthehymenisnotrequired.Therefore,itis
notnecessaryforconvictionthatthepetitionersucceededinhavingfull
penetration,becausetheslightesttouchingofthelipsofthefemaleorgan
orofthelabiaofthepudendumconstitutesrape.
Same;Same;ExemptingCircumstances;Onewhoactsbyvirtueof
anyoftheexemptingcircumstances,althoughhecommitsacrime,bythe
completeabsenceofanyoftheconditionswhichconstitutefree
_______________
*THIRDDIVISION.

451

VOL.562,AUGUST20,2008
Ortegavs.People
willorvoluntarinessoftheact,nocriminalliabilityariseswhilethere
isacrimecommitted,nocriminalliabilityattaches.Foronewhoacts

byvirtueofanyoftheexemptingcircumstances,althoughhecommitsa
crime,bythecompleteabsenceofanyoftheconditionswhichconstitute
freewillorvoluntarinessoftheact,nocriminalliabilityarises.Therefore,
whilethereisacrimecommitted,nocriminalliabilityattaches.Thus,in
Guevarrav.Almodovar,169SCRA476(1989),weheld:[I]tisworthyto
note the basic reason behind the enactment of the exempting
circumstancesembodiedinArticle12oftheRPC;thecompleteabsence
of intelligence, freedom of action, or intent, or on the absence of
negligenceonthepartoftheaccused. Inexpoundingonintelligenceas
thesecondelementof dolus,Alberthasstated:Thesecondelementof
dolus is intelligence; without this power, necessary to determine the
moralityofhumanactstodistinguishalicitfromanillicitact,nocrime
can exist, and because . . . the infant (has) no intelligence, the law
exempts(him)fromcriminalliability.Itisforthisreason,therefore,
whyminorsnineyearsofageandbelowarenotcapableofperforminga
criminalact.
Same;ExemptingCircumstances;JuvenileJusticeandWelfareAct
of2006(R.A.9344);ByvirtueofR.A.No.9344,theageofcriminal
irresponsibilityhasbeenraisedfrom9to15yearsold;Penallawswhich
arefavorabletotheaccusedaregivenretroactiveeffect.Section64of
thelawcategoricallyprovidesthatcasesofchildren15yearsoldand
below,atthetimeofthecommissionofthecrime,shallimmediatelybe
dismissedandthechildshallbereferredtotheappropriatelocalsocial
welfare and development officer (LSWDO). What is controlling,
therefore, withrespect to theexemption from criminal liability of the
CICL,isnottheCICLsageatthetimeofthepromulgationofjudgment
buttheCICLsageatthetimeofthecommissionoftheoffense.Inshort,
byvirtueofR.A.No.9344,theageofcriminalirresponsibilityhasbeen
raisedfrom9to15yearsold.Giventhisprecisestatutorydeclaration,itis
imperative that this Court accord retroactive application to the
aforequotedprovisionsofR.A.No.9344pursuanttothewellentrenched
principle in criminal lawfavorabilia sunt amplianda adiosa
restrigenda. Penal laws which are favorable to the accused are given
retroactiveeffect.ThisprincipleisembodiedinArticle22oftheRevised
PenalCode,whichprovides:Art.22.Retroactiveeffectofpenallaws.
Penallawsshallhavearetroactiveeffectinsofarastheyfavorthepersons
452

452

SUPREMEC
Ortegavs.People
guiltyofafelony,whoisnotahabitualcriminal,asthistermis

definedinRule5ofArticle62ofthisCode,althoughatthetimeofthe
publicationofsuchlaws,afinalsentencehasbeenpronouncedandthe
convictisservingthesame.
Same;Same;Same;StatutoryConstruction;Intentisthesoulofthe
law.TheCourtisboundtoenforcethislegislativeintent,whichisthe
dominant factor in interpreting a statute. Significantly, this Court has
declaredinanumberofcases,thatintentisthesoulofthelaw,viz.:The
intent of a statute is the law. If a statute is valid it is to have effect
accordingtothepurposeandintentofthelawmaker.Theintentisthe
vitalpart,theessenceofthelaw,andtheprimaryruleofconstructionis
toascertainandgiveeffecttotheintent.Theintentionofthelegislaturein
enactingalawisthelawitself,andmustbeenforcedwhenascertained,
although it may not be consistent with the strict letter of the statute.
Courtswillnotfollowtheletterofastatutewhenitleadsawayfromthe
trueintentandpurposeofthelegislatureandtoconclusionsinconsistent
withthegeneralpurposeoftheact.Intentisthespiritwhichgiveslifeto
alegislativeenactment.Inconstruingstatutesthepropercourseistostart
outandfollowthetrueintentofthelegislatureandtoadoptthatsense
which harmonizes best with the context and promotes in the fullest
mannertheapparentpolicyandobjectsofthelegislature.
Same;Same;Same;Same;Penallawsareconstruedliberallyin
favoroftheaccused.Penallawsareconstruedliberallyinfavorofthe
accused.Inthiscase,theplainmeaningofR.A.No.9344sunambiguous
language, coupled with clear lawmakers intent, is most favorable to
herein petitioner. No other interpretation is justified, for the simple
languageofthenewlawitselfdemonstratesthelegislativeintenttofavor
theCICL.
Same;Same;Same;Same;WhileR.A.No.9344exemptschildren15
yearsoldandbelowfromcriminalliability,Section6thereofexpressly
providesthatthereisnoconcomitantexemptionfromcivilliability.
Whilethelawexemptspetitionerfromcriminalliabilityforthetwo(2)
counts of rape committed against AAA, Section 6 thereof expressly
provides that there is no concomitant exemption from civil liability.
Accordingly,thisCourtsustainstherulingoftheRTC,dulyaffirmedby
the CA, that petitioner and/or his parents are liable to pay AAA
P100,000.00ascivilindemnity.Thisawardisin
453

VOL.562,AUGUST20,2008
Ortegavs.People
thenatureofactualorcompensatorydamages,andismandatoryupona

convictionforrape.
Same;Rape;Damages;Moraldamagesaregrantedinrecognition
ofthevictimsinjurynecessarilyresultingfromtheodiouscrimeofrape.
The RTC erred in not separately awarding moral damages, distinct
fromthecivilindemnityawardedtotherapevictim.AAAisentitledto
moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 for each count of rape,
pursuant to Article 2219 of the Civil Code, without the necessity of
additionalpleadingorproofotherthanthefactofrape.Moraldamages
aregrantedinrecognitionofthevictimsinjurynecessarilyresultingfrom
theodiouscrimeofrape.
Same;StatutoryConstruction;Courts;TheCourthasnodiscretion
togivestatutesameaningdetachedfromthemanifestintendmentand
languageofthelawitstaskisconstitutionallyconfinedonlytoapplying
the law and jurisprudence to the proven facts.The Court is fully
cognizant that our decision in the instant case effectively exonerates
petitionerofrape,aheinouscrimecommittedagainstAAAwhowasonly
achildatthetenderageofsix(6)whenshewasrapedbythepetitioner,
and one who deserves the laws greater protection. However, this
consequenceisinevitablebecauseofthelanguageofR.A.No.9344,the
wisdomofwhichisnotsubjecttoreviewbythisCourt.Anyperception
that the result reached herein appears unjust or unwise should be
addressed to Congress. Indeed, the Court has no discretion to give
statutesameaningdetachedfromthemanifestintendmentandlanguage
ofthelaw.Ourtaskisconstitutionallyconfinedonlytoapplyingthelaw
andjurisprudencetotheprovenfacts,andwehavedonesointhiscase.

PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofadecisionoftheCourtof
Appeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
Valencia,Ciocon,Babao,Valencia,DeLaPaz,Dionela,
RavinaandPandanLawOfficesforpetitioner.
TheSolicitorGeneralforrespondent.
454

454

SUPREMECO
Ortegavs.People

NACHURA,J.:
Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking the
reversaloftheCourtofAppeals(CA)Decision datedOctober
1

26,2000whichaffirmed intoto theDecision oftheRegional

TrialCourt(RTC)ofBacolodCity,Branch50,datedMay13,
1999,convictingpetitionerJoemarOrtega4(petitioner)ofthe
crimeofRape.
TheFacts
3

Petitioner, thenabout 14yearsold, waschargedwith the

crimeofRapeintwoseparateinformationsbothdatedApril20,
1998,forallegedlyrapingAAA, thenabouteight(8)yearsof
age.Theaccusatoryportionsthereofrespectivelystate:
5

_______________

1Rollo,pp.1232.
2Penned by Associate Justice Ruben T. Reyes (now a member of this
Court), with Associate Justices Mariano M. Umali and Rebecca De Guia
Salvadorconcurring;id.,atpp.3552.
3PennedbyJudgeRobertoS.Chiongson;id.,atpp.5475.
4AlsoreferredtoasJomarOrtega,JoemarOrtigaandJoemartOrtigain
otherpleadingsanddocuments.
5AsthebirthcertificateshowsthatpetitionerwasbornonAugust8,1983
(Records,p.157),hewasonlythirteen(13)yearsoldinAugustandDecember
1,1996.Hewasalreadyfourteen(14)yearsoldatthetimeofthefilingofthe
twoInformationscharginghimofrape.
6PerthisCourtsResolutiondatedSeptember19,2006inA.M.No.0411
09SC, as well as our ruling in People v. Cabalquinto (G.R. No. 167693,
September19,2006,502SCRA419),pursuanttoRepublicActNo.9262also
knownastheAntiViolenceAgainstWomenandTheirChildrenActof2004
and its implementing rules, the real name of the victim and those of her
immediate family members other than the accused are to be withheld and
fictitiousinitialsareinsteadusedtoprotectthevictimsprivacy.Likewise,the
exact address of the victim is to be deleted (People v. Rentoria, G.R. No.
175333,September21,2007,533SCRA708).
455

VOL.562,AUGUST20,2008
Ortegavs.People
CriminalCaseNo.9819083
That sometime in August, 1996, in the Municipality of XXX,
Province of YYY, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
HonorableCourt,theabovenamedaccused,bymeansofforce,violence

and intimidation, did then and there, (sic) willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously(sic)hadcarnalknowledgeofand/orsexualintercoursewith
thesaidAAA,aminor,thenabout6yearsold,againstherwill.
CONTRARYTOLAW.7
CriminalCaseNo.9819084
Thatonoraboutthe1stdayofDecember,1996,intheMunicipality
ofXXX,ProvinceofYYY,Philippines,andwithinthejurisdictionofthis
HonorableCourt,theabovenamedaccused,bymeansofforce,violence
and intimidation, did then and there, (sic) willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously(sic)hadcarnalknowledgeofand/orsexualintercoursewith
thesaidAAA,aminor,thenabout6yearsold,againstherwill.
CONTRARYTOLAW.8

UponarraignmentonSeptember10,1998,petitionerpleaded
not guilty to the offense charged. Thus, trial on the merits
ensued.Inthecourseofthetrial,twovaryingversionsarose.
VersionoftheProsecution
OnFebruary27,1990,AAAwasborntospousesFFFand
MMM. AmonghersiblingsCCC,BBB,DDD,EEEandGGG,
AAA is the only girl in the family. Before these disturbing
events, AAAs family members were close friends of
petitioners family, aside from the fact that they were good
neighbors.However,BBBcaughtpetitionerrapinghisyounger
sisterAAAinsidetheirownhome.BBBthenin
9

10

_______________

7CARollo,pp.2122.
8Id.,atpp.2324.
9RTCOrderdatedSeptember10,1998;Records,p.83.
10CertificateofLiveBirthofAAA;id.,atp.167.
456

456

SUPREMECO
Ortegavs.People
formedtheirmotherMMMwhointurnaskedAAA. There,
AAAconfessedthatpetitionerrapedherthree(3)timesonthree
(3)differentoccasions.
The first occasion happened sometime in August 1996.
MMMleftherdaughterAAA,then6yearsoldandsonBBB,
then 10 years old, in the care of Luzviminda Ortega
11

12

(Luzviminda),motherofpetitioner,fortwo(2)nightsbecause
MMMhadtostayinahospitaltoattendtoherothersonwho
was sick. During the first night at petitioners residence,
petitioner entered the room where AAA slept together with
Luzvimindaandherdaughter.PetitionerwokeAAAupandled
her to the sala. There petitioner raped AAA. The second
occasionoccurredthefollowingday,againatthepetitioners
residence. Observing that nobody was around, petitioner
broughtAAAtotheircomfortroomandrapedherthere.AAA
testifiedthatpetitionerinsertedhispenisintohervaginaandshe
feltpain.Inalloftheseinstances,petitionerwarnedAAAnotto
tellherparents,otherwise,hewouldspankher. AAAdidnot
tellherparentsaboutherordeal.
The third and last occasion happened in the evening of
December1,1996.PetitionerwenttothehouseofAAAand
joined her and her siblings in watching a batterypowered
television. At that time, Luzviminda was conversing with
MMM.WhileAAAssiblingswerebusywatching,petitioner
called AAA to come to the room of CCC and BBB. AAA
obeyed. While inside the said room which was lighted by a
kerosenelamp,petitionerpulledAAAbehindthedoor,removed
hispantsandbrief,removedAAAsshortsandpanty,andina
standingpositioninsertedhispenisintothevaginaofAAA.
AAAdescribedpetitionerspenisasaboutfive(5)
13

14

15

_______________

11TSN,October26,1998,pp.833.
12AlsoreferredtoasLuzvimindaOrtigainotherpleadingsanddocuments.
13TSN,November6,1998,p.13.
14Id.,atpp.1319.
15Id.,atpp.3350.
457

VOL.562,AUGUST20,2008
Ortegavs.People
inches long and the size of two (2) ballpens. She, likewise,
narratedthatshesawpubichaironthebaseofhispenis.
ThislastincidentwascorroboratedbyBBBinhistestimony.
16

WhenBBBwasabouttodrinkwaterintheirkitchen,ashewas
passingbyhisroom,BBBwasshockedtoseepetitionerand
AAA bothnakedfromtheir waistdowninthe actof sexual
intercourse. BBB saw petitioner holding AAA and making a
pumpingmotion.Immediately,BBBtoldpetitionertostop;the
latter, in turn, hurriedly left. Thereafter, BBB reported the
incidenttohismother,MMM.
MMMtestifiedthatwhensheaskedAAAaboutwhatBBB
saw,AAAtoldherthatpetitionerinsertedhisfingersandhis
penisintohervagina.MMMlearnedthatthiswasnottheonly
incident that petitioner molested AAA as there were two
previousoccasions.MMMalsolearnedthatAAAdidnotreport
herordealtothemoutoffearthatpetitionerwouldspankher.
MMM testified that when BBB reported the matter to her,
petitionerandLuzvimindaalreadyleftherhouse.Afterwaiting
forAAAsbrotherstogotosleep,MMM,withaheavyheart,
examined AAAs vagina and she noticed that the same was
reddishandawhitishfluidwascomingoutfromit.SpousesFFF
and MMM were not able to sleep that night. The following
morning,ataboutfouroclock,MMMcalledLuzvimindaand
petitionertocometotheirhouse.MMMconfrontedLuzviminda
aboutwhatpetitionerdidtoherdaughter,andconsequently,she
demanded that AAA should be brought to a doctor for
examination.
MMM, together with Luzviminda, brought AAA to Dr.
LucifreeKatalbas (Dr.Katalbas),theRuralHealthOfficerof
thelocalitywhoexaminedAAAandfoundnoindicationthat
17

18

19

_______________

16Id.,atpp.7374.
17Supranote11,atpp.934.
18TSN,October28,1998,pp.2164.
19Also referred to as Dr. Lucifre Katalbas or Dr. Katalbas in other
pleadingsanddocuments.
458

458

SUPREMECO
Ortegavs.People

she was molested. Refusing to accept such findings, on

December12,1996,MMMwenttoDr.JoyAnnJocson(Dr.
Jocson),MedicalOfficerIVoftheBacolodCityHealthOffice.
Dr.Jocsonmadeanunofficialwrittenreport showingthatthere
wereabrasionsonbothrightandleftofthelabiaminoraanda
smalllacerationattheposteriorfourchette.Shealsofoundthat
theminorinjuriesshesawonAAAsgenitalswererelatively
fresh; and that such abrasions were superficial and could
disappearafteraperiodof3to4days.Dr.Jocson,however,
indicated in her certification that her findings required the
confirmationoftheMunicipalHealthOfficerofthelocality.
Subsequently,anamicablesettlement wasreachedbetween
the two families through the DAWN Foundation, an
organizationthathelpsabusedwomenandchildren.Partofthe
settlementrequiredpetitionertodepartfromtheirhousetoavoid
contactwithAAA. Assuch,petitionerstayedwithacertain
priestinthelocality.However,afewmonthslater,petitioner
wenthomeforbriefvisitsandinordertobringhisdirtyclothes
forlaundry.Atthesightofpetitioner,AAAsfatherFFFwas
infuriatedandconfrontationsoccurred.Atthisinstance,AAAs
parents went to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI)
which assisted them in filing the three (3) counts of rape.
However,theprosecutorsofficeonlyfiledthetwo(2)instant
cases.
VersionoftheDefense
Petitioner was born on August 8, 1983 to spouses Loreto
(Loreto)andLuzvimindaOrtega. Heisthesecondchildof
20

21

22

23

24

_______________

20Records,pp.155155A.
21Id.,atp.112.
22Supra note16,atp.65.PleasealsoseeCertificationdatedFebruary5,
1998,attestingtothefactthatanamicablesettlementwasenteredintobythe
twofamilies;Records,p.156.
23TSN,January19,1999,pp.413.
24Supranote5.
459

VOL.562,AUGUST20,2008
Ortegavs.People
threesiblingsanelderbrotherandayoungersister.Petitioner
deniedtheaccusationsmadeagainsthim.Hetestifiedthat:his
parentsandAAAsparentsweregoodfriends;whenMMMleft
AAAandherbrotherstothecareofhismother,petitionerslept
inaseparateroomtogetherwithBBBandCCCwhileAAA
slepttogetherwithLuzvimindaandhisyoungersister;henever
touched or raped AAA or showed his private parts to her;
petitionerdidnotthreatenAAAinanyinstance;hedidnotrape
AAAintheformerscomfortroom,buthemerelyaccompanied
andhelpedAAAcleanupasshedefecatedandfearedthetoilet
bowl; in the process of washing, he may have accidentally
touchedAAAsanus;onDecember1,1996,petitionertogether
withhisparents,wenttoAAAshouse; theyweredancingand
playingtogetherwithalltheotherchildrenatthetime;while
theyweredancing,petitionerhuggedandliftedAAAupina
playfulact,attheinstanceofwhichBBBranandreportedthe
mattertoMMM,whoatthetimewaswithLuzviminda,saying
that petitioner and AAA were having sexual intercourse;
petitionerexplainedtoMMMthattheywereonlyplaying,and
thathecouldnothavedonetoAAAwhathewasaccusedof
doing,astheyweretogetherwithherbrothers,andhetreated
AAAlikeayoungersister; BBBwaslying;AAAsparentsand
hisparentsdidnotgetangryathimnordidtheyquarrelwith
each other; petitioner and his parents peacefully left AAAs
houseataboutnineoclockintheevening;however,atabout
four oclock in the morning, petitioner and his parents were
summonedbyMMMtogotothelattershouse;uponarriving
there they saw BBB being maltreated by his father as AAA
pointedtoBBBastheonewhomolestedher;andMMMand
25

26

27

_______________
25TSN,March16,1999,pp.326.
26PetitionersCounterAffidavitdatedJanuary6,1998;Records,pp.158

159.
27TSN,March25,1999,pp.78.
460

460

SUPREMECO
Ortegavs.People
LuzvimindaagreedtobringAAAtoadoctorforexamination.
Luzviminda corroborated the testimony of her son. She
testifiedthat:hersonwasaminoratthetimeoftheincident;
CCCandBBBwerethechildrenofMMMinherfirstmarriage,
while AAA and the rest of her siblings were of the second
marriage; CCC and BBB are halfbrothers of AAA; when
MMM entrusted AAA and her brothers to her sometime in
Augustof1996,shesleptwithAAAandheryoungestdaughter
inaseparateroomfrompetitioner;onDecember1,1996,she
wasatAAAshousewatchingtelevisionandconversingwith
MMM,whileFFFandLoretowerehavingadrinkingspreein
thekitchen;fromwheretheywereseated,shecouldclearlysee
all the children, including petitioner and AAA, playing and
dancinginthediningarea;shedidnothearanyunusualcryor
noiseatthetime;whiletheywereconversing,BBBcameto
MMM saying that petitioner and AAA were having sexual
intercourse; upon hearing such statement, Luzviminda and
MMM immediately stood up and looked for them, but both
mothersdidnotfindanythingunusualasallthechildrenwere
playinganddancinginthediningarea;LuzvimindaandMMM
justlaughedatBBBsstatement;theparentsofAAA,atthat
time,didnotexamineherinordertoverifyBBBsstatementnor
didtheygetangryatpetitioneroratthem;andtheypeacefully
left AAAs house.However,the following day,MMM woke
Luzvimindaup,sayingthatFFFwasspankingBBBwithabelt
asAAAwaspointingtoBBBnortopetitionerastheonewho
molestedher.Atthisinstance,Luzvimindaintervened,telling
FFFnottospankBBBbutinstead,tobringAAAtoadoctorfor
examination.LuzvimindaaccompaniedMMMtoDr.Katalbas
who found no indication that AAA was molested. She also
accompaniedhertoDr.Jocson.Aftergettingtheresultsofthe
28

examinationconductedbyDr.Jocson,theywenttothepolice
and at this instance only did Luzviminda learn that MMM
accusedpeti
_______________

28Supranote25,atpp.1724.
461

VOL.562,AUGUST20,2008
Ortegavs.People
tioner of raping AAA. Petitioner vehemently denied to
Luzviminda that he raped AAA. Thereafter, MMM and
Luzvimindawenttotheiremployerwhorecommendedthatthey
should seek advice from the Womens Center. At the said
Center, both agreed on an amicable settlement wherein
petitionerwouldstayawayfromAAA.Thus,petitionerstayed
withacertainpriestinthelocalityforalmosttwo(2)years.But
almosteverySaturday,petitionerwouldcomehometovisithis
parentsandtobringhisdirtyclothesforlaundry.Everytime
petitionercamehome,FFFbadmouthedpetitioner,callinghim
a rapist. Confrontations occurred until an altercation erupted
wherein FFF allegedly slapped Luzviminda. Subsequently,
AAAsparentsfiledtheinstantcases.
TheRTCsRuling
29

OnMay13,1999,theRTCheldthatpetitionersdefensesof
denial cannot prevail over the positive identification of
petitionerastheperpetratorofthecrimebyAAAandBBB,who
testified with honesty and credibility. Moreover, the RTC
opinedthatitcouldnotperceiveanymotiveforAAAsfamily
toimputeaseriouscrimeofRapetopetitioner,consideringthe
closerelationsofbothfamilies.Thus,theRTCdisposedofthis
caseinthiswise:
FORALLTHEFOREGOING,theCourtfindstheaccusedJoemar
OrtegaYFelisarioGUILTYbeyondreasonable doubtas Principalby
DirectParticipationofthecrimeofRAPEaschargedinCriminalCases
Nos. 9819083 and 9819084 and there being no aggravating or
mitigatingcircumstance,heissentencedtosufferthepenaltyofTwo(2)

ReclusionTemporal initsmediumperiod.ApplyingtheIndeterminate
SentenceLaw,theaccusedshallbeimprisonedforeachcaseforaperiod
of Six (6) years and One (1) day of Prision Mayor, as minimum, to
Fifteen(15)yearsof ReclusionTemporal,asmaximum.Theaccusedis
condemnedtopaytheoffendedpartyAAA,thesumof P100,000.00as
indemnificationforthetwo(2)rapes(sic).
_______________

29TSN,January26,1999,pp.887.
462

462

SUPREMECO
Ortegavs.People
Aggrieved,petitionerappealedtheRTCDecisiontotheCA.
Taking into consideration the age of petitioner and upon
postingofthecorrespondingbailbondforhisprovisionalliberty
intheamountof P40,000.00,theRTCorderedthepetitioners
releasependingappeal.
TheCAsRuling
OnOctober26,2000,theCAaffirmed intoto therulingof
theRTC,holdingthatthepetitionersdefenseofdenialcould
notprevailoverthepositiveidentificationofthepetitionerby
thevictimAAAandherbrotherBBB,whichwerecategorical,
consistentandwithoutanyshowingofillmotive.TheCAalso
heldthattherespectivemedicalexaminationsconductedbythe
twodoctorswereirrelevant,asitisestablishedthattheslightest
penetrationofthelipsofthefemaleorganconsummatesrape;
thus,hymenallacerationisnotanelementofrape.Moreover,
theCAopinedthatpetitioneractedwithdiscernmentasshown
byhiscovertacts.Finally,theCAaccordedgreatweightand
respecttothefactualfindingsoftheRTC,particularlyinthe
evaluationofthetestimoniesofwitnesses.
Petitioner filed his Motion for Reconsideration of the
assailedDecisionwhichtheCAdeniedinitsResolution dated
November7,2001.
Hence,thisPetitionbasedonthefollowinggrounds:
30

31

32

33

I.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS HAS OVERLOOKED

CERTAIN FACTS OF SUBSTANCE AND VALUE WHICH IF

CONSIDEREDMIGHTAFFECTTHERESULTOFTHECASE.
_______________

30Notice ofAppeal and Urgent Motion for Releaseon Recognizance pending

AppealdatedMay17,1999;Records,pp.251252.
31ReleaseOrderdatedJune11,1999;id.,atp.275.
32Rollo,pp.7683.
33Id.,atp.53.
463

VOL.562,AUGUST20,2008
Ortegavs.People
II.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE
ERROR WHEN IT FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE MEDICAL
FINDINGSOFDR.LUCIFREEKATALBAS.
III.
THE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER COURT, AFFIRMED BY THE
APPELLATE COURT, THAT PETITIONERAPPELLANT IN FACT
COMMITTED AND IS CAPABLE OF COMMITTING THE
ALLEGED RAPE WITHIN THE RESIDENCE OF THE VICTIM
WHERE SEVERAL OF THE ALLEGED VICTIMS FAMILY
MEMBERSANDTHEIRRESPECTIVEMOTHERSWEREPRESENT
ISIMPROBABLEANDCONTRARYTOHUMANEXPERIENCE.
IV.
THEHONORABLEAPPELLATECOURTERREDINUPHOLDING
THEFACTSSETFORTHBYTHEALLEGEDVICTIMREGARDING
THE CIRCUMSTANCES ATTENDING THE COMMISSION OF
RAPESOMETIMEINAUGUST1996.34

Petitionerarguesthat,whileitistruethatthefactualfindings
oftheCAareconclusiveonthisCourt,wearenotprevented
from overturning such findings if the CA had manifestly
overlooked certain facts of substance and value which if
consideredmightaffecttheresultofthecase.Petitionerstresses
thatfromthetestimoniesofAAAandBBB,itcanbededuced
thatpenetrationwasachieved;thus,AAAfeltpain.Petitioner
contends that assuming the allegations of AAA are true that
petitioner inserted his fingers and his penis into her vagina,
certainlysuchactswouldleavecertainabrasions,woundsand/or

lacerationsonthegenitaliaofAAA,takingintoconsideration
herageatthetimeandtheallegedsizeofpetitionerspenis.
However,suchallegationiscompletelybeliedbythemedical
report of Dr. Katalbas who, one day after the alleged rape,
conductedamedicalexaminationonAAAandfoundthatthere
werenosignsorindicationsthatAAAwasrapedormolested.
PetitionersubmitsthattheCA
_______________

34Id.,atpp.2122.
464

464

SUPREMECO
Ortegavs.People
committedagraveerrorwhenitdisregardedsuchmedicalreport
sinceitdisprovestheallegationoftheexistenceofrapeand,
consequently,theprosecutionfailedtoproveitscase;thus,the
presumption of innocence in favor of the petitioner subsists.
Moreover,petitioneropinesthatlikeAAA,petitionerisalsoa
childofthebarriowhoisinnocent,unsophisticatedandlacks
sexual experience. As such, it is incredible and contrary to
humanreasonthata13yearoldboywouldcommitsuchactin
theverydwellingofAAA,whosereactiontopain,attheageof
six,couldnotbecontrolledorsubdued.Petitionerclaimsthat
povertywasMMMsmotiveinfilingtheinstantcase,asshe
wanted to extort money from the parents of the petitioner.
Petitioner points out that the medical report of Dr. Jocson
indicatedthattheabrasionsthatwereinflictedonthegenitaliaof
AAAwererelativelyfreshandthesamecoulddisappearwithin
aperiodof3to4days.ConsideringthatDr.Jocsonconducted
the medical examination on December 12, 1996, or after the
lapseofeleven(11)daysaftertheallegedincidentofrape,and
thatAAAsparentsonly filedthe instantcase after almosta
year,inordertodeterLuzvimindafromfilingacaseofslander
bydeedagainstFFF,itisnotinconceivablethatMMMinflicted
saidabrasionsonAAAtoprovetheircaseandtodepartfrom
the initial confession of AAA that it was actually BBB who

rapedher.Finally,petitionersubmitsthatAAAandBBBwere
merelycoachedbyMMMtofabricatethesestories.
On the other hand, respondent People of the Philippines
throughtheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral(OSG)contendsthat:
theargumentsraisedbythepetitioneraremerereiterationsof
hisdisquisitionsbeforetheCA;theRTC,asaffirmedbythe
CA,didnotrelyonthetestimoniesofbothdoctorssincedespite
theabsenceofabrasions,rapeisconsummatedevenwiththe
slightest penetration of the lips of the female organ; what is
relevantinthiscaseisthereliabletestimony
35

_______________

35Supranote1.PleaseseealsoPetitionersReplydatedFebruary10,2003;
id.,atpp.113119.
465

VOL.562,AUGUST20,2008
Ortegavs.People
ofAAAthatpetitionerrapedherinAugustandDecemberof
1996; even in the absence of force, rape was committed
consideringAAAsageatthattime;assuch,AAAdidnothave
anyillmotiveinaccusingpetitioner;anditisestablishedthat
thecrimeofrapecouldbecommittedeveninthepresenceof
otherpeoplenearby.Moreover,theOSGreliesonthedoctrine
thattheevaluationmadebyatrialcourtisaccordedthehighest
respect as it had the opportunity to observe directly the
demeanorofawitnessandtodeterminewhethersaidwitness
was telling the truth or not. Lastly, the OSG claims that
petitioneractedwithdiscernmentwhenhecommittedthesaid
crime,asmanifestedinhiscovertacts.
However, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9344, or the Juvenile
JusticeandWelfareActof2006,wasenactedintolawonApril
28, 2006 and it took effect on May 20, 2006. The law
establishes a comprehensive system to manage children in
conflictwiththelaw (CICL)andchildrenatrisk withchild
36

37

38

39

40

_______________

36OSGsCommentdatedMay27,2002;id.,atpp.96107.

37Entitled An Act Establishing A Comprehensive Juvenile Justice and

WelfareSystem,CreatingtheJuvenileJusticeandWelfareCouncilUnderthe
DepartmentofJustice,AppropriatingFundsThereforandForOtherPurposes.
38Declaradorv.Gubaton,G.R.No.159208,August18,2006,499SCRA
341,350.
39SECTION4.Definition of Terms.The following terms as used in
thisActshallbedefinedasfollows:
xxxx
(e)Child in Conflict with the Law refers to a child who is
allegedas,accusedof,oradjudgedas,havingcommittedanoffense
underPhilippinelaws.
xxxx
40(d)ChildatRiskreferstoachildwhoisvulnerabletoandattherisk
of committing criminal offenses because of personal, family and social
circumstances,suchas,butnotlimitedto,thefollowing:
(1)being abused by any person through sexual, physical,
psychological,mental,economicoranyothermeansand
466

466

SUPREMECO
Ortegavs.People
appropriate procedures and comprehensive programs and
services such as prevention, intervention, diversion,
rehabilitation, reintegration and aftercare programs geared
towards their development. In order to ensure its
implementation, the law, particularly Section 8 thereof, has
createdtheJuvenile
41

_______________

the parents or guardian refuse, are unwilling, or, unable to provide

protectionforthechild;
(2)beingexploitedincludingsexuallyoreconomically;
(3)being abandoned or neglected, and after diligent search and
inquiry,theparentorguardiancannotbefound;
(4)coming from a dysfunctional or broken family or without a
parentorguardian;
(5)beingoutofschool;
(6)beingastreetchild;
(7)beingamemberofagang;
(8)livinginacommunitywithahighlevelofcriminalityordrug
abuse;and
(9)livinginsituationsofarmedconflict.

41SECTION8.Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council (JJWC).A

JuvenileJusticeandWelfareCouncil(JJWC)isherebycreatedandattachedto
theDepartmentofJusticeandplacedunderitsadministrativesupervision.The
JJWC shall be chaired by an Undersecretary of the Department of Social
WelfareandDevelopment.Itshallensuretheeffectiveimplementationofthis
Actandcoordinationamongthefollowingagencies:
(a)CouncilfortheWelfareofChildren(CWC);
(b)DepartmentofEducation(DepEd);
(c)DepartmentoftheInteriorandLocalGovernment(DILG);
(d)PublicAttorneysOffice(PAO);
(e)BureauofCorrections(BUCOR);
(f)ParoleandProbationAdministration(PPA);
(g)NationalBureauofInvestigation(NBI);
(h)PhilippineNationalPolice(PNP);
(i)BureauofJailManagementandPenology(BJMP);
(j)CommissiononHumanRights(CHR);
467

VOL.562,AUGUST20,2008
Ortegavs.People
JusticeandWelfareCouncil(JJWC)andvesteditwithcertain
dutiesandfunctions suchastheformulationofpolicies
42

_______________

(k)TechnicalEducationandSkillsDevelopmentAuthority(TESDA);
(l)NationalYouthCommission(NYC);and
(m)Other institutions focused on juvenile justice and intervention
programs.
TheJJWCshallbecomposedofrepresentatives,whoseranksshallnotbe
lowerthandirector,tobedesignatedbytheconcernedheadsofthefollowing
departmentsoragencies:
(a)DepartmentofJustice(DOJ);
(b)DepartmentofSocialWelfareandDevelopment(DSWD);
(c)CouncilfortheWelfareofChildren(CWC);
(d)DepartmentofEducation(DepEd);
(e)DepartmentoftheInteriorandLocalGovernment(DILG);
(f)CommissiononHumanRights(CHR);
(g)NationalYouthCommission(NYC);and
(h)Two (2) representatives from NGOs, one to be designated by the
SecretaryofJusticeandtheothertobedesignatedbytheSecretaryofSocial
WelfareandDevelopment.
TheJJWCshallconvenewithinfifteen(15)daysfromtheeffectivityofthis
Act. The Secretary of Justice and the Secretary of Social Welfare and
Developmentshalldeterminetheorganizationalstructureandstaffingpattern

oftheJJWC.
TheJJWCshallcoordinatewiththeOfficeoftheCourtAdministratorand
thePhilippineJudicialAcademytoensuretherealizationofitsmandateand
theproperdischargeofitsdutiesandfunctions,ashereinprovided.
42SECTION9.Duties and Functions of the JJWC.The JJWC shall
havethefollowingdutiesandfunctions:
(a)TooverseetheimplementationofthisAct;
(b)ToadvisethePresidentonallmattersandpoliciesrelatingtojuvenile
justiceandwelfare;
(c)To assist the concerned agencies in the review and redrafting of
existingpolicies/regulationsorintheformulationofnewonesinlinewiththe
provisionsofthisAct;
468

468

SUPREMECO
Ortegavs.People
andstrategiestopreventjuveniledelinquencyandtoenhance
theadministrationofjuvenilejusticeaswellasthetreatment
_______________

(d)Toperiodicallydevelopacomprehensive3to5yearnationaljuvenile
interventionprogram,withtheparticipationofgovernmentagenciesconcerned,
NGOsandyouthorganization;
(e)To coordinate the implementation of the juvenile intervention
programsandactivitiesbynationalgovernmentagenciesandotheractivities
whichmayhaveanimportantbearingonthesuccessoftheentirenational
juvenile intervention program. All programs relating to juvenile justice and
welfareshallbeadoptedinconsultationwiththeJJWC;
(f)Toformulate andrecommendpolicies andstrategies inconsultation
withchildrenforthepreventionofjuveniledelinquencyandtheadministration
of justice, as well as for the treatment and rehabilitationofthe childrenin
conflictwiththelaw;
(g)Tocollectrelevantinformationandconductcontinuingresearchand
supportevaluationsandstudiesonallmattersrelatingtojuvenilejusticeand
welfare,suchas,butnotlimitedto:
(1)theperformanceandresultsachievedbyjuvenileintervention
programs and by activities of the local government units and other
governmentagencies;
(2)the periodic trends, problems and causes of juvenile
delinquencyandcrimes;and
(3)the particular needs of children in conflict with the law in
custody.
ThedatagatheredshallbeusedbytheJJWCintheimprovementofthe
administrationofjuvenilejusticeandwelfaresystem.

TheJJWCshallsetupamechanismtoensurethatchildrenareinvolvedin
researchandpolicydevelopment.
(h)Through duly designated persons and with the assistance of the
agenciesprovidedintheprecedingsection,toconductregularinspectionsin
detentionandrehabilitationfacilitiesandtoundertakespotinspectionsontheir
owninitiativeinordertocheckcompliancewiththestandardsprovidedherein
andtomakethenecessaryrecommendationstoappropriateagencies;
(i)Toinitiateandcoordinatetheconductoftrainingsforthepersonnelof
theagenciesinvolvedintheadministrationofthejuve
469

VOL.562,AUGUST20,2008
Ortegavs.People
andrehabilitationoftheCICL.Thelawalsoprovidesforthe
immediatedismissalofcasesofCICL,specificallySections64,
65,66,67and68ofR.A.No.9344sTransitoryProvisions.
ThesaidTransitoryProvisionsexpresslyprovide:
43

TitleVIII
TransitoryProvisions
SECTION64.ChildreninConflictwiththeLawFifteen(15)Years
OldandBelow.UponeffectivityofthisAct,casesofchildrenfifteen
(15)yearsoldandbelowatthetimeofthecommissionofthecrimeshall
immediately be dismissed and the child shall be referred to the
appropriatelocalsocialwelfareanddevelopmentofficer.Suchofficer,
uponthoroughassessmentofthechild,shalldeterminewhethertorelease
thechildtothecustodyofhis/herparents,orreferthechildtoprevention
programs,asprovidedunderthisAct.Thosewithsuspendedsentences
and undergoing rehabilitation at the youth rehabilitation center shall
likewisebereleased,unlessitiscontrarytothebestinterestofthechild.
SECTION65.Children Detained Pending Trial.If the child is
detainedpendingtrial,theFamilyCourtshallalsodeterminewhetheror
notcontinueddetentionisnecessaryand,ifnot,determineappropriate
alternativesfordetention.Ifdetentionisnecessaryandhe/sheisdetained
withadults,thecourtshallimmediatelyorderthetransferofthechildtoa
youthdetentionhome.
SECTION66.InventoryofLockedupandDetainedChildrenin
ConflictwiththeLaw.ThePNP,theBJMPandtheBUCORarehereby
directedtosubmittotheJJWC,withinninety(90)
_______________

nilejusticeandwelfaresystemandthejuvenileinterventionprogram;

(j)TosubmitanannualreporttothePresidentontheimplementationofthisAct;
and
(k)To perform such other functions as may be necessary to implement the
provisionsofthisAct.
43JJWCs Council Resolution No. 3, Series of 2006 entitled Guidelines to
ImplementtheTransitoryProvisionsofR.A.9344,datedJuly11,2006.
470

470
Ortegavs.People
days from the effectivity of this Act, an inventory of all children in
conflictwiththelawundertheircustody.
SECTION67.ChildrenWhoReachtheAgeofEighteen(18)Years
PendingDiversionandCourtProceedings.Ifachildreachestheageof
eighteen (18) years pending diversion and court proceedings, the
appropriate diversion authority in consultation with the local social
welfareanddevelopmentofficerortheFamilyCourtinconsultationwith
the Social Services and Counseling Division (SSCD) of the Supreme
Court,asthecasemaybe,shalldeterminetheappropriatedisposition.In
case the appropriate court executes the judgment of conviction, and
unlessthechildinconflictwiththelawhasalreadyavailedofprobation
underPresidentialDecreeNo.603orothersimilarlaws,thechildmay
apply for probation if qualified under the provisions of the Probation
Law.
SECTION68.ChildrenWhoHaveBeenConvictedandareServing
Sentences.Personswhohavebeenconvictedandareservingsentence
atthetimeoftheeffectivityofthisAct,andwhowerebelowtheageof
eighteen(18)yearsatthetimeofthecommissionoftheoffenseforwhich
theywereconvictedandareservingsentence,shalllikewisebenefitfrom
the retroactive application of this Act. They shall be entitled to
appropriatedispositionsprovidedunderthisActandtheirsentencesshall
beadjustedaccordingly.Theyshallbeimmediatelyreleasediftheyareso
qualifiedunderthisActorotherapplicablelaws.

Ostensibly,theonlyissuethatrequiresresolutioninthiscase
iswhetherornotpetitionerisguiltybeyondreasonabledoubtof
the crime of rape as found by both the RTC and the CA.
However,withtheadventofR.A.No.9344whilepetitioners
caseispendingbeforethisCourt,anewissuearises,namely,
whether the pertinent provisions of R.A. No. 9344 apply to
petitionerscase,consideringthatatthetimehecommittedthe
allegedrape,hewasmerely13yearsold.

SUPREMEC

Insum,weareconvincedthatpetitionercommittedthecrime
of rape against AAA. In a prosecution for rape, the
complainantscandoristhesinglemostimportantfactor.Ifthe
complainantstestimonymeetsthetestofcredibility,the
471

VOL.562,AUGUST20,2008
Ortegavs.People
accusedcanbeconvictedsolelyonthatbasis. TheRTC,as
affirmedbytheCA,didnotdoubtAAAscredibility,andfound
noillmotiveforhertochargepetitioneroftheheinouscrimeof
rape and to positively identify him as the malefactor. Both
courtsalsoaccordedrespecttoBBBstestimonythathesaw
petitioner having sexual intercourse with his younger sister.
WhilepetitionerassertsthatAAAspovertyisenoughmotive
fortheimputationofthecrime,wediscardsuchassertionforno
motherorfatherlikeMMMandFFFwouldstoopsolowasto
subjecttheirdaughtertothetribulationsandtheembarrassment
ofapublictrialknowingthatsuchatraumaticexperiencewould
damagetheirdaughterspsycheandmarherlifeifthechargeis
nottrue. WefindpetitionersclaimthatMMMinflictedthe
abrasionsfoundbyDr.JocsoninthegenitaliaofAAA,inorder
to extort money from petitioners parents, highly incredible.
Lastly,itmustbenotedthatinmostcasesofrapecommitted
againstyounggirlslikeAAAwhowasonly6yearsoldthen,
totalpenetrationofthevictimsorganisimprobableduetothe
small vaginal opening. Thus, it has been held that actual
penetrationofthevictimsorganorruptureofthehymenisnot
required. Therefore,itisnotnecessaryforconvictionthatthe
petitioner succeeded in having full penetration, because the
slightesttouchingofthelipsofthefemaleorganorofthelabia
ofthepudendumconstitutesrape.
However,foronewhoactsbyvirtueofanyoftheexempting
circumstances,althoughhecommitsacrime,bythecomplete
absenceofanyoftheconditionswhichconstitutefree
44

45

46

47

_______________

44People of the Philippines v. Jose Magbanua, G.R. 176265, April 30,

2008,553SCRA698.
45Llavev.People,G.R.No.166040,April26,2006,488SCRA376,401.
46Peoplev.Villarama,445Phil.323,340;397SCRA306,321(2003).
47Peoplev.Bascugin,G.R.No.144195,May25,2004,429SCRA140,
150,citingPeoplev.Clopino,290SCRA432(1998).
472

472

SUPREMECO
Ortegavs.People
will or voluntariness of the act, no criminal liability arises.
Therefore, while there is a crime committed, no criminal
liabilityattaches.Thus,inGuevarrav.Almodovar, weheld:
[I]tisworthytonotethebasicreasonbehindtheenactmentof
the exempting circumstances embodied in Article 12 of the
RPC;thecompleteabsenceofintelligence,freedomofaction,
orintent,orontheabsenceofnegligenceonthepartofthe
accused.Inexpoundingonintelligenceasthesecondelementof
dolus,Alberthasstated:
Thesecondelementof dolus isintelligence;without
thispower,necessarytodeterminethemoralityofhuman
actstodistinguishalicitfromanillicitact,nocrimecan
exist,andbecause...theinfant(has)nointelligence,the
lawexempts(him)fromcriminalliability.
Itisforthisreason,therefore,whyminorsnineyearsofageand
belowarenotcapableofperformingacriminalact.
InitsComment datedApril24,2008,theOSGpositedthat
petitionerisnolongercoveredbytheprovisionsofSection64
of R.A. No. 9344 since as early as 1999, petitioner was
convictedbytheRTCandtheconvictionwasaffirmedbythe
CAin2001.R.A.No.9344waspassedintolawin2006,and
with the petitioner now approximately 25 years old, he no
longer qualifies as a child as defined by R.A. No. 9344.
Moreover,theOSGclaimedthattheretroactiveeffectofSection
64ofR.A.No.9344isapplicableonlyifthechildaccusedis
stillbelow18yearsoldasexplainedunderSections67and68
thereof.TheOSGalsoassertedthatpetitionermayavailhimself
48

49

50

oftheprovisionsofSection38 ofR.A.No.9344pro
51

_______________

48Reyes, TheRevisedPenalCode,bookI,14thed.,1998,p.204,citing
Guevara.
49G.R. No. 75256, January 26, 1989, 169 SCRA 476, 482 (Citations
omitted)(Emphasissupplied).
50Rollo,pp.128133.
51Sec.38ofR.A.No.9344provides,towit:
473

VOL.562,AUGUST20,2008
Ortegavs.People
viding for automatic suspension of sentence if finally found
guilty. Lastly, the OSG argued that while it is a recognized
principle that laws favorable to the accused may be given
retroactiveapplication,suchprincipledoesnotapplyifthelaw
itselfprovidesforconditionsforitsapplication.
Wearenotpersuaded.
Section6ofR.A.No.9344clearlyandexplicitlyprovides:
SECTION6.MinimumAgeofCriminalResponsibility.Achild
fifteen(15)yearsofageorunderatthetimeofthecommissionofthe
offenseshallbeexemptfromcriminalliability.However,thechildshall
besubjectedtoaninterventionprogrampursuanttoSection20ofthis
Act.
Achildabovefifteen(15)yearsbutbeloweighteen(18)yearsofage
shalllikewisebeexemptfromcriminalliabilityandbesubjectedtoan
interventionprogram,unlesshe/shehasactedwithdiscernment,inwhich
case, such child shall be subjected to the appropriate proceedings in
accordancewiththisAct.
The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not
include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced in
accordancewithexistinglaws.
_______________

SECTION38.Automatic Suspension of Sentence.Once the

child who is under eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the
commissionoftheoffenseisfoundguiltyoftheoffensecharged,the
courtshalldetermineandascertainanycivilliabilitywhichmayhave
resultedfromtheoffensecommitted.However,insteadofpronouncing
thejudgmentofconviction,thecourtshallplacethechildinconflict
withthelawundersuspendedsentence,withoutneedofapplication:

Provided,however,Thatsuspensionofsentenceshallstillbeapplied
evenifthejuvenileisalreadyeighteenyears(18)ofageormoreatthe
timeofthepronouncementofhis/herguilt.
Upon suspension of sentence and after considering the various
circumstancesofthechild,thecourtshallimposetheappropriatedisposition
measuresasprovidedintheSupremeCourtRuleonJuvenilesinConflictwith
theLaw.
474

474

SUPREMECO
Ortegavs.People
Likewise,Section64ofthelawcategoricallyprovidesthat
cases of children 15years old and below,at the time of the
commissionofthecrime,shallimmediatelybedismissedand
thechildshallbereferredtotheappropriatelocalsocialwelfare
and development officer (LSWDO). What is controlling,
therefore,withrespecttotheexemptionfromcriminalliability
of the CICL, is not the CICLs age at the time of the
promulgationofjudgmentbuttheCICLsageatthetimeofthe
commissionoftheoffense.Inshort,byvirtueofR.A.No.9344,
theageofcriminalirresponsibilityhasbeenraisedfrom9to15
yearsold.
Giventhisprecisestatutorydeclaration,itisimperativethat
this Court accord retroactive application to the aforequoted
provisions of R.A. No. 9344 pursuant to the wellentrenched
principleincriminallawfavorabiliasuntampliandaadiosa
restrigenda.Penallawswhicharefavorabletotheaccusedare
givenretroactiveeffect. ThisprincipleisembodiedinArticle
22oftheRevisedPenalCode,whichprovides:
52

53

Art.22.Retroactiveeffectofpenallaws.Penallawsshallhavea
retroactiveeffectinsofarastheyfavorthepersonsguiltyofafelony,who
isnotahabitualcriminal,asthistermisdefinedinRule5ofArticle62of
thisCode,althoughatthetimeofthepublicationofsuchlaws,afinal
sentencehasbeenpronouncedandtheconvictisservingthesame.
_______________
52OfficeoftheCourtAdministrator(OCA)CircularNo.1152006entitled
GuidelinesontheTransitoryProvisionsofR.A.9344ortheJuvenileJustice
andWelfareAct,datedAugust10,2006.
53Peoplev.Quiachon,G.R.No.170236,August31,2006,500SCRA704,

718.
475

VOL.562,AUGUST20,2008
Ortegavs.People
Wealsohaveextantjurisprudencethattheprinciplehasbeen
given expanded application in certain instances involving
speciallaws. R.A.No.9344shouldbenoexception.
Infact,thelegislativeintentforR.A.No.9344sretroactivity
isevenpatentfromthedeliberationsonthebillintheSenate,
quotedasfollows:
54

Sections6769OnTransitoryProvisions
SenatorSantiago.InSections67to69on TransitoryProvisions,pages34
to35,mayIhumblyproposethatweshouldinsert,afterSections67to
69,thefollowingprovision:
ALL CHILDREN WHO DO NOT HAVE CRIMINAL LIABILITY
UNDERTHISLAWPENDINGTHECREATIONOFTHEOFFICE
OF JUVENILE WELFARE AND RESTORATION (OJWR) AND
THELOCALCOUNCILFORTHEPROTECTIONOFCHILDREN
(LCPC) WITHIN A YEAR, SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY
TRANSFERREDTODSWDINSTITUTIONS,ANDDSWDSHALL
UNDERTAKE DIVERSION PROGRAMS FOR THEM,
PRIORITIZINGTHEYOUNGERCHILDRENBELOW15YEARS
OFAGEANDTHELIGHTEROFFENSES.
Theonlyquestionwillbe:WilltheDSWDhaveenoughfacilitiesforthese
adultoffenders?
Senator Pangilinan.Mr. President, according to the CWC, the DSWD
doesnothavethecapabilityatthemoment.Itwilltaketimetodevelop
thecapacity.
_______________
54Gov.Dimagiba,G.R.No.151876,June21,2005,460SCRA451,citing
Peoplev.Langit,392Phil.94,119;337SCRA323,344(2000),Gonzalesv.
Court of Appeals, 343 Phil. 297, 306; 277 SCRA 518 (1997), People v.
Ganguso,320Phil.324,340;250SCRA268,279(1995),andPeoplev.Simon,
234SCRA555,570(1994).
ThisdoctrinefollowstheruleenunciatedunderArt.10oftheRevisedPenal
Code which provides that the provisions thereof apply supplementarily to
speciallaws.
476

476

SUPREMECO
Ortegavs.People

Senator Santiago.Well, we can say that they shall be transferred

wheneverthefacilitiesareready.
Senator Pangilinan.Yes. Mr. President, just a clarification. When we
speakhereofchildrenwhodonothavecriminalliabilityunderthislaw,
wearereferringheretothosewhocurrentlyhavecriminalliability,but
because of the retroactive effect of this measure, will now be
exempt.Itisquiteconfusing.
SenatorSantiago.Thatiscorrect.
SenatorPangilinan.Inotherwords,theyshouldbereleasedeithertotheir
parents or through a diversion program, Mr. President. That is my
understanding.
SenatorSantiago.Yes,thatiscorrect.Buttherewillhavetobeaprocess
ofsiftingbeforethat.ThatiswhyIwasproposingthattheyshouldbe
giventotheDSWD,whichwillconductthesiftingprocess,exceptthat
apparently,theDSWDdoesnothavethephysicalfacilities.
SenatorPangilinan.Mr.President,conceptually,wehavenoargument.
Wewillnowhavetojustcraftittoensurethattheinputraisedearlier
bythegoodSenatorisincludedandthecapacityoftheDSWDtobe
able to absorb these individuals. Likewise, the issue should also be
incorporatedintheamendment.
The President.Just a question from the Chair. The moment this law
becomeseffective,allthosechildreninconflictwiththelaw,who
wereconvictedinthepresentPenalCode,forexample,whowill
now not be subject to incarceration under this law, will be
immediatelyreleased.Isthattheunderstanding?
SenatorPangilinan.Yes,Mr.President.
SenatorSantiago.Theywouldimmediatelyfallunder....
SenatorPangilinan.Thediversionrequirements,Mr.President.
SenatorSantiago.Yes.
The President.But since the facilities are not yet available, what will
happentothem?
SenatorSantiago.Well,dependingontheirage,whichhasnotyetbeen
settled.....provides,forexample,forcon
477

VOL.562,AUGUST20,2008
Ortegavs.People
ferencingfamilymediation,negotiation,apologies,censure,et
cetera.Thesemethodologieswillapply.Theydonotnecessarily
havetoremainindetention.

SenatorPangilinan.Yes,thatiscorrect,Mr.President.Butitwillstill
requiresomesortofinfrastructure,meaning,manpower.Thepersonnel
fromtheDSWDwillhavetoaddressthecounseling.So,theremustbe
atransitionintermsofbuildingthecapacityandabsorbingthosewho
willbenefitfromthismeasure.
ThePresident.Therefore,thatshouldbespecificallyprovidedforasan
amendment.
SenatorPangilinan.Thatiscorrect,Mr.President.
ThePresident.Allright.Isthereanyobjection? [Silence] Therebeing
none,theSantiagoamendmentisaccepted.
xxxx
PIMENTELAMENDMENTS
xxxx
SenatorPimentel.
xxxx
Now, considering that laws are normally prospective, Mr. President, in
theirapplication,Iwouldliketosuggest totheSponsorifhecould
incorporatesomekindofatransitoryprovisionthatwouldmake
thislawapplyalsotothosewhomightalreadyhavebeenconvicted
butareawaiting,letussay,executionoftheirpenaltiesasadults
when,infact,theyarejuveniles.
SenatorPangilinan.Yes,Mr.President.Wedohaveaprovisionunder
theTransitoryProvisionswhereinweaddresstheissueraisedby
the good Senator, specifically, Section 67. For example, Upon
effectivityofthisAct,casesofchildrenfifteen(15)yearsoldand
belowatthetimeofthecommissionofthecrimeshallimmediately
bedismissedandthechild
_______________
55

55DeliberationsoftheSenateonSenateBillNo.1402,November9,2005,
pp.4750(Emphasissupplied).

478

478

SUPREMECO
Ortegavs.People

shallbereferredtotheappropriatelocalsocialwelfareanddevelopment
officer.Sothatwouldbegivingretroactiveeffect.
SenatorPimentel.Ofcasesthatarestilltobeprosecuted.
SenatorPangilinan.Yes.
SenatorPimentel.Whataboutthosethathavealreadybeenprosecuted?I
was trying to cite the instance of juvenile offenders erroneously
convictedasadultsawaitingexecution.

SenatorPangilinan.Mr.President,wearewillingtoincludethatasan
additionalamendment,subjecttostyle.
Senator Pimentel.I would certainly appreciate that because that is a
realitythatwehavetoaddress,otherwiseinjusticewillreallybe...
SenatorPangilinan.Yes,Mr.President,wewouldalsoincludethatasa
separateprovision.
ThePresident.Inotherwords,evenafterfinalconvictionif,infact,the
offender is able to prove that at the time of the commission of the
offenseheisaminorunderthislaw,heshouldbegiventhebenefitof
thelaw.
SenatorPimentel.Yes,Mr.President.Thatiscorrect.
Senator Pangilinan.Yes, Mr. President. We accept that proposed
amendment.
56

TheCourtisboundtoenforcethislegislativeintent,whichis
thedominantfactorininterpretingastatute.Significantly,this
Courthasdeclaredinanumberofcases,thatintentisthesoulof
thelaw,viz.:
Theintentofastatuteisthelaw.Ifastatuteisvaliditistohave
effectaccordingtothepurposeandintentofthelawmaker.Theintentis
thevitalpart,theessenceofthelaw,andtheprimaryruleofconstruction
istoascertainandgiveeffecttotheintent.Theintentionofthelegislature
inenactingalawisthelawitself,andmustbeenforcedwhenascertained,
althoughitmaynotbeconsistent
_______________

56DeliberationsoftheSenateonSenateBillNo.1402,November22,2005,pp.
2729(Emphasissupplied).
479

VOL.562,AUGUST20,2008
Ortegavs.People
withthestrictletterofthestatute.Courtswillnotfollowtheletterofa
statute when it leads away from the true intent and purpose of the
legislatureandtoconclusionsinconsistentwiththegeneralpurposeofthe
act. Intent is the spirit which gives life to a legislative enactment. In
construingstatutesthepropercourseistostartoutandfollowthetrue
intentofthelegislatureandtoadoptthatsensewhichharmonizesbest
withthecontextandpromotesinthefullestmannertheapparentpolicy
andobjectsofthelegislature.57

Moreover,penallawsareconstruedliberallyinfavorofthe
accused. Inthiscase,theplainmeaningofR.A.No.9344s
unambiguouslanguage,coupledwithclearlawmakersintent,is
58

mostfavorabletohereinpetitioner.Nootherinterpretationis
justified, for the simple language of the new law itself
demonstratesthelegislativeintenttofavortheCICL.
Itbearsstressingthatthepetitionerwasonly13yearsoldat
thetimeofthecommissionoftheallegedrape.Thiswasduly
proven by the certificate of live birth, by petitioners own
testimony, and by the testimony of his mother. Furthermore,
petitionersagewasneverassailedinanyoftheproceedings
beforetheRTCandtheCA.Indubitably,petitioner,atthetime
ofthecommissionofthecrime,wasbelow 15yearsofage.
UnderR.A.No.9344,heisexemptedfromcriminalliability.
However, while the law exempts petitioner from criminal
liabilityforthetwo(2)countsofrapecommittedagainstAAA,
_______________

57CommissionerofInternalRevenuev.PhilippineAirlines,Inc.,G.R.No.
160528, October 9, 2006, 504 SCRA 91, 101102, citing Inding v.
Sandiganbayan,434SCRA388(2004); NationalTobaccoAdministrationv.
CommissiononAudit,370Phil.793;311SCRA755(1999),and Philippine
NationalBankv.OfficeofthePresident,322Phil.6,14;252SCRA5,11
(1996);Ongsiakov.Gamboa,86Phil.50,57(1950);Torresv.Limjap,56Phil.
141, 145146 (1931) citing Sutherland, Statutory Construction, Vol. II, pp.
693695.
58Celino,Sr.v.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.170562,June29,2007,526
SCRA 195, 202, citing People v. Ladjaalam, 395 Phil. 1; 340 SCRA 617
(2000).
480

480

SUPREMECO
Ortegavs.People
Section6thereofexpresslyprovidesthatthereisnoconcomitant
exemptionfromcivilliability.Accordingly,thisCourtsustains
therulingoftheRTC,dulyaffirmedbytheCA,thatpetitioner
and/orhisparentsareliabletopayAAA P100,000.00ascivil
indemnity.Thisawardisinthenatureofactualorcompensatory
damages,andismandatoryuponaconvictionforrape.
TheRTC,however,erredinnotseparatelyawardingmoral
damages,distinctfromthecivilindemnityawardedtotherape
victim. AAA is entitled to moral damages in the amount of

P50,000.00foreachcountofrape,pursuanttoArticle2219of
theCivilCode,withoutthenecessityofadditionalpleadingor
proofotherthanthefactofrape.Moraldamagesaregrantedin
recognitionofthevictimsinjurynecessarilyresultingfromthe
odiouscrimeofrape.
Afinalnote.Whileweregretthedelay,wetakeconsolation
inthefactthatalawintendedtoprotectourchildrenfromthe
harshness of life and to alleviate, if not cure, the ills of the
growingnumberofCICLandchildrenatriskinourcountry,has
beenenactedbyCongress.However,ithasnotescapedusthat
majorconcernshavebeenraisedontheeffectsofthelaw.Itis
worthmentioningthatintheRationalefortheProposedRuleon
ChildrenChargedunderR.A.No.9165,ortheComprehensive
DangerousDrugsActof2002,itwasfoundthat:
59

ThepassageofRepublicActNo.9344ortheJuvenileJusticeand
WelfareActof2006raisingtheageofcriminalirresponsibilityfrom9
yearsoldto15yearsoldhascompoundedtheproblemofemploymentof
children in the drug trade several times over. Law enforcement
authorities, Barangay Kagawads and the police, most particularly,
complain that drug syndicates have become more aggressive in using
children15yearsoldorbelowascouriersorfootsoldiersinthedrug
trade. They claim that Republic Act No. 9344 has rendered them
ineffective in the faithful discharge of their duties in that they are
proscribedfromtakingintocustodychildren15
_______________

59Peoplev.Blancaflor,466Phil.86,103;421SCRA354,365(2004),citing
Peoplev.Viajedor,401SCRA312(2003).
481

VOL.562,AUGUST20,2008
Ortegavs.People
yearsoldorbelowwhoopenlyflauntpossession,useanddeliveryor
distributionofillicitdrugs,simplybecausetheirageexemptsthemfrom
criminalliabilityunderthenewlaw.60

TheCourtisfullycognizantthatourdecisionintheinstant
caseeffectivelyexoneratespetitionerofrape,aheinouscrime
committedagainstAAAwhowasonlyachildatthetenderage
ofsix(6)whenshewasrapedbythepetitioner,andonewho

deserves the laws greater protection. However, this

consequenceisinevitablebecauseofthelanguageofR.A.No.
9344, the wisdom of which is not subject to review by this
Court. Anyperceptionthattheresultreachedhereinappears
unjustorunwiseshouldbeaddressedtoCongress.Indeed,the
Courthasnodiscretiontogivestatutesameaningdetachedfrom
themanifestintendmentandlanguageofthelaw.Ourtaskis
constitutionally confined only to applying the law and
jurisprudencetotheprovenfacts,andwehavedonesointhis
case.
WHEREFORE,inviewoftheforegoing,CriminalCaseNos.
9819083 and 9819084 filed against petitioner Joemar F.
OrtegaareherebyDISMISSED.Petitionerisherebyreferredto
thelocalsocialwelfareanddevelopmentofficerofthelocality
for the appropriate intervention program. Nevertheless, the
petitionerisherebyorderedtopayprivatecomplainantAAA,
civilindemnityintheamountofOneHundredThousandPesos
(P100,000.00) and moral damages in the amount of One
HundredThousandPesos(P100,000.00).Nocosts.
61

62

_______________

60A.M.No.0782SCRuleonChildrenChargedUnderRepublicAct
No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, effective
November5,2007,p.23.
61Peoplev.Garcia,424Phil.158,190;373SCRA134,160(2002),citing
Peoplev.Ladjaalam,supranote58.
62Evangelista v. Sistoza, 414 Phil. 874, 881; 362 SCRA 563, 569570
(2001),citingPeoplev.Ladjaalam,id.
482

482

SUPREMECO
Ortegavs.People

LetacopyofthisDecisionbefurnishedthetwoHousesof
CongressandtheJuvenileJusticeandWelfareCouncil(JJWC).
SOORDERED.
YnaresSantiago (Chairperson), AustriaMartinez,
Corona**andChicoNazario,JJ.,concur.

Criminalcasesagainstpetitionerdismissed.
Notes.It is not necessary that the force or intimidation
employedtocommitrapebesogreatorofsuchcharacteras
couldnotberesistedbecauseallthatisrequiredisthatitbe
sufficienttoconsummatethepurposewhichtheaccusedhadin
mind.Itisinstinctiveforayoung,unmarriedwomantoprotect
her honor and it is thus difficult to believe that she would
fabricate a tale of defloration, allow the examination of her
private parts, reveal her shame and permit herself to be the
subject of a public trial if she had not really been ravished.
(Peoplevs.DelaCruz,529SCRA109[2007])
Moral damages is automatically granted in rape cases
withoutneedoffurtherproofotherthanthecommissionofthe
crime, because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually
suffered moral injuries entitling her to such award, and the
presence of the aggravating circumstance of use of a deadly
weaponjustifiestheawardofexemplarydamages.(Peoplevs.
Hapin,531SCRA224[2007])
o0o
_______________
**AdditionalmemberreplacingAssociateJusticeRubenT.ReyesperRaffle
datedJuly30,2008.