Ortega vs. People of the Philippines

A child fifteen years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense is exempt from criminal liability under R.A. No. 9344, and this exemption applies retroactively to cases pending before the courts even if the child has already been convicted and has reached adulthood, provided the child was below fifteen at the time of the offense; the exemption from criminal liability does not extend to civil liability.

Petitioner Joemar Ortega and the victim AAA were children of two families who were close friends and good neighbors. AAA was born on February 27, 1990, and petitioner on August 8, 1983. At the time of the alleged rape incidents in August and December 1996, AAA was approximately six years old and petitioner was thirteen. The two families had a relationship of mutual trust, with AAA's mother occasionally entrusting her children to the care of petitioner's mother. The case acquired special significance because R.A. No. 9344, the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, was enacted while the petition was pending before the Supreme Court, raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility from nine to fifteen years and introducing transitory provisions for the dismissal of cases involving children below fifteen at the time of the offense.

Petitioner Joemar Ortega, born on August 8, 1983, was charged in two separate informations dated April 20, 1998, with the crime of rape against AAA, born on February 27, 1990, who was approximately six years old at the time of the alleged incidents. The two families were close friends and good neighbors. Upon arraignment on September 10, 1998, petitioner pleaded not guilty, and trial on the merits ensued with two varying versions emerging.

According to the prosecution, the first rape occurred sometime in August 1996, when AAA's mother MMM left AAA and her brother BBB in the care of petitioner's mother Luzviminda for two nights while MMM attended to a sick son at the hospital. During the first night at petitioner's residence, petitioner woke AAA and led her to the sala, where he raped her. The following day, observing that nobody was around, petitioner brought AAA to the comfort room and raped her there. AAA testified that petitioner inserted his penis into her vagina and she felt pain. In all instances, petitioner warned AAA not to tell her parents or he would spank her. The third and last occasion occurred on the evening of December 1, 1996, when petitioner went to AAA's house and joined her and her siblings in watching a battery-powered television. While AAA's siblings were busy watching, petitioner called AAA to the room of CCC and BBB. Inside the lighted room, petitioner pulled AAA behind the door, removed his pants and brief and AAA's shorts and panty, and in a standing position inserted his penis into her vagina. AAA described petitioner's penis as about five inches long and the size of two ballpens, with pubic hair at the base. This last incident was corroborated by BBB, who testified that while passing by his room to drink water, he saw petitioner and AAA both naked from the waist down in the act of sexual intercourse, with petitioner holding AAA and making a pumping motion. BBB told petitioner to stop, and the latter hurriedly left. BBB then reported the incident to MMM.

MMM testified that when she asked AAA about what BBB saw, AAA confessed that petitioner inserted his fingers and penis into her vagina and that there had been two previous occasions. AAA did not report the ordeal out of fear that petitioner would spank her. After her brothers went to sleep, MMM examined AAA's vagina and noticed it was reddish with a whitish fluid coming out. The following morning at about four o'clock, MMM summoned Luzviminda and petitioner, confronted Luzviminda, and demanded that AAA be brought to a doctor. MMM and Luzviminda brought AAA to Dr. Lucifree Katalbas, the Rural Health Officer, who found no indication that AAA was molested. Refusing to accept these findings, MMM went to Dr. Joy Ann Jocson of the Bacolod City Health Office on December 12, 1996, who made an unofficial written report showing abrasions on both sides of the labia minora and a small laceration at the posterior fourchette, with the minor injuries being relatively fresh and superficial, capable of disappearing within three to four days. An amicable settlement was subsequently reached through the DAWN Foundation, requiring petitioner to stay away from AAA, and petitioner stayed with a local priest for almost two years. However, when petitioner came home for brief visits, AAA's father FFF bad-mouthed him and confrontations occurred, culminating in an altercation where FFF allegedly slapped Luzviminda. AAA's parents then went to the NBI, which assisted in filing three counts of rape, though the prosecutor's office filed only the two instant cases.

Petitioner denied all accusations. He testified that when MMM entrusted AAA and her brothers to Luzviminda's care, he slept in a separate room with BBB and CCC while AAA slept with Luzviminda and his younger sister. He claimed he never touched or raped AAA, and that he merely accompanied and helped AAA clean up as she defecated and feared the toilet bowl, possibly accidentally touching her anus in the process. Regarding the December 1, 1996 incident, petitioner testified that he and his parents were at AAA's house dancing and playing with all the children; while dancing, he hugged and lifted AAA in a playful act, at which point BBB ran and reported to MMM that petitioner and AAA were having sexual intercourse. Petitioner explained to MMM that they were only playing and that he could not have done what he was accused of, as they were together with her brothers and he treated AAA like a younger sister. Luzviminda corroborated petitioner's testimony, stating she could see all the children playing and dancing from where she sat, heard no unusual cry, and that both mothers laughed at BBB's statement. She further testified that the following morning, MMM woke her saying FFF was spanking BBB because AAA pointed to BBB, not petitioner, as the one who molested her. The RTC found petitioner's defenses of denial insufficient against the positive identification by AAA and BBB, who testified with honesty and credibility, and found no motive for AAA's family to impute such a serious crime given the close relations of both families.

• Overlooked Facts: Petitioner argued that the CA overlooked certain facts of substance and value which, if considered, might affect the result of the case, warranting the Supreme Court's review despite the general conclusiveness of the CA's factual findings.
• Medical Findings of Dr. Katalbas: Petitioner contended that the medical report of Dr. Katalbas, conducted one day after the alleged rape and finding no signs or indications of molestation, disproved the allegation of rape. He argued that if AAA's allegations of penetration were true, such acts would leave abrasions, wounds, or lacerations on her genitalia given her age and the alleged size of petitioner's penis, and the absence thereof sustained the presumption of innocence.
• Improbability of the Commission: Petitioner maintained that it was incredible and contrary to human reason that a thirteen-year-old boy would commit rape in the very dwelling of AAA, where several of her family members and both mothers were present, and that the reaction of a six-year-old to pain could not be controlled or subdued.
• Ill Motive and Fabrication: Petitioner claimed that poverty was MMM's motive in filing the case, as she wanted to extort money from petitioner's parents. He suggested that MMM inflicted the abrasions found by Dr. Jocson to prove their case and to depart from AAA's initial confession that BBB was the one who raped her, noting that Dr. Jocson's examination was conducted eleven days after the alleged incident and the case was filed almost a year later. Petitioner submitted that AAA and BBB were coached by MMM to fabricate the stories.

• Reiteration of Arguments: Respondent through the OSG contended that petitioner's arguments were mere reiterations of his disquisitions before the CA.
• Consummation of Rape: Respondent argued that the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, did not rely on the medical testimonies since rape is consummated even with the slightest penetration of the lips of the female organ, making the medical reports irrelevant. What was relevant was AAA's reliable testimony that petitioner raped her in August and December 1996, and even in the absence of force, rape was committed given AAA's age.
• Credibility of Witnesses: Respondent relied on the doctrine that the trial court's evaluation of witness credibility is accorded the highest respect, as it had the opportunity to observe directly the demeanor of witnesses and determine whether they were telling the truth. AAA had no ill motive in accusing petitioner, and rape could be committed even in the presence of other people nearby.
• Discernment: Respondent claimed that petitioner acted with discernment when he committed the crime, as manifested in his covert acts.
• Inapplicability of R.A. No. 9344: Respondent posited that petitioner was no longer covered by Section 64 of R.A. No. 9344 since he was convicted in 1999 and the conviction was affirmed in 2001, and with petitioner approximately twenty-five years old, he no longer qualified as a child. The OSG claimed the retroactive effect of Section 64 applied only if the child-accused was still below eighteen years old, and that while favorable penal laws may be given retroactive application, this principle does not apply if the law itself provides conditions for its application.

• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Whether petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape as found by both the RTC and the CA.
• Retroactive Application of R.A. No. 9344: Whether the pertinent provisions of R.A. No. 9344, particularly Section 6 and the Transitory Provisions (Section 64), apply to petitioner's case, considering that he was merely thirteen years old at the time of the commission of the alleged rape.

• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Yes. The Court was convinced that petitioner committed the crime of rape against AAA, based on the credible testimony of the victim and the corroborating testimony of BBB, with no ill motive shown for the accusation.
• Retroactive Application of R.A. No. 9344: Yes. R.A. No. 9344 applies retroactively to petitioner's case. Being below fifteen years of age at the time of the commission of the offense, petitioner is exempt from criminal liability, and the criminal cases against him must be dismissed, though civil liability is not extinguished.

• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: In a prosecution for rape, the complainant's candor is the single most important factor; if the testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused can be convicted solely on that basis. The RTC, as affirmed by the CA, did not doubt AAA's credibility and found no ill motive for her to charge petitioner with rape and to positively identify him as the malefactor. BBB's testimony that he saw petitioner having sexual intercourse with AAA was accorded respect. Petitioner's assertion that poverty was MMM's motive was discarded, as no parent would subject a daughter to the tribulations of a public trial knowing the traumatic experience would damage her psyche if the charge were untrue. The claim that MMM inflicted the abrasions found by Dr. Jocson to extort money was found highly incredible. Regarding the medical findings, the Court held that in cases of rape committed against young girls, total penetration is improbable due to the small vaginal opening; actual penetration or rupture of the hymen is not required, and the slightest touching of the lips of the female organ or the labia of the pudendum constitutes rape. Thus, the absence of hymenal laceration does not negate the commission of rape.

• Retroactive Application of R.A. No. 9344: Section 6 of R.A. No. 9344 explicitly provides that a child fifteen years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. Section 64 of the law categorically provides that cases of children fifteen years old and below at the time of the commission of the crime shall immediately be dismissed. What is controlling with respect to the exemption from criminal liability 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. By virtue of R.A. No. 9344, the age of criminal irresponsibility was raised from nine to fifteen years. The Court accorded retroactive application to these provisions pursuant to the principle of favorabilia sunt amplianda adiosa restrigenda — penal laws favorable to the accused are given retroactive effect — as embodied in Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code. This principle has been given expanded application in instances involving special laws. The legislative intent for retroactivity was patent from the Senate deliberations, where senators explicitly discussed that children who currently have criminal liability but who, because of the retroactive effect of the measure, will now be exempt, should be released. The Court rejected the OSG's argument that petitioner no longer qualified as a child, holding that the plain meaning of the law's unambiguous language, coupled with clear lawmakers' intent, was most favorable to petitioner. Petitioner was duly proven to be thirteen years old at the time of the commission of the crime through his certificate of live birth, his own testimony, and his mother's testimony, and his age was never assailed in any proceeding. However, while the law exempts petitioner from criminal liability, Section 6 expressly provides that there is no concomitant exemption from civil liability. The Court sustained the RTC's award of P100,000 as civil indemnity and additionally awarded P50,000 as moral damages for each count of rape pursuant to Article 2219 of the Civil Code, without need of additional pleading or proof other than the fact of rape.

• Exempting Circumstance of Minority under R.A. No. 9344 — A child fifteen years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense is exempt from criminal liability and shall be subjected to an intervention program. A child above fifteen but below eighteen is likewise exempt unless he acted with discernment. The controlling factor is the child's age at the time of the commission of the offense, not at the time of promulgation of judgment. The exemption from criminal liability does not include exemption from civil liability. The Court applied this doctrine retroactively to petitioner, who was thirteen at the time of the rape, resulting in the dismissal of the criminal cases while sustaining his civil liability.

• Retroactive Application of Favorable Penal Laws (Favorabilia sunt amplianda adiosa restrigenda) — Penal laws which are favorable to the accused are given retroactive effect, pursuant to Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code. This principle has been given expanded application in certain instances involving special laws. The Court applied R.A. No. 9344 retroactively to petitioner's case even though he had already been convicted and had reached adulthood, because the law's plain language and legislative intent demonstrated a clear purpose to favor children in conflict with the law.

• Credibility of the Rape Victim's Testimony — In a prosecution for rape, the complainant's candor is the single most important factor. If the complainant's testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused can be convicted solely on that basis. The trial court's evaluation of witness credibility is accorded the highest respect, as it had the opportunity to observe directly the demeanor of the witness.

• Consummated Rape Without Full Penetration — Actual penetration of the victim's organ or rupture of the hymen is not required for the consummation of rape. The slightest touching of the lips of the female organ or of the labia of the pudendum constitutes rape. In cases involving young girls, total penetration is improbable due to the small vaginal opening, and hymenal laceration is not an element of rape.

• Legislative Intent as the Soul of the Law — The intent of a statute is the law itself and must be enforced when ascertained, although it may not be consistent with the strict letter of the statute. Courts will not follow the letter of a statute when it leads away from the true intent and purpose of the legislature. The Court relied on this principle to confirm the retroactive application of R.A. No. 9344, citing the Senate deliberations as evidence of legislative intent.

• "What is controlling, therefore, with respect to the exemption from criminal liability of the 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." — This passage articulates the controlling rule for determining exemption from criminal liability under R.A. No. 9344, establishing that the age at the time of the offense is the determinative factor.

• "Given this precise statutory declaration, it is imperative that this Court accord retroactive application to the aforequoted provisions of R.A. No. 9344 pursuant to the well-entrenched principle in criminal law - favorabilia sunt amplianda adiosa restrigenda. Penal laws which are favorable to the accused are given retroactive effect." — This states the ratio decidendi for the retroactive application of R.A. No. 9344, anchoring the ruling on the established principle of favorable penal law retroactivity.

• "However, while the law exempts petitioner from criminal liability for the two (2) counts of rape committed against AAA, Section 6 thereof expressly provides that there is no concomitant exemption from civil liability." — This defines the scope of the exemption under R.A. No. 9344, clarifying that criminal exemption does not extinguish the obligation to pay civil indemnity and damages.

• "Therefore, it is not necessary for conviction that the petitioner succeeded in having full penetration, because the slightest touching of the lips of the female organ or of the labia of the pudendum constitutes rape." — This articulates the doctrinal rule on the consummation of rape, frequently cited in subsequent jurisprudence on sexual offenses against minors.

• People vs. Jose Magbanua, G.R. 176265, April 30, 2008 — Cited for the proposition that in a prosecution for rape, the complainant's candor is the single most important factor, and if the testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused can be convicted solely on that basis.
• Guevarra vs. Almodovar, G.R. No. 75256, January 26, 1989, 169 SCRA 476 — Cited for the principle behind exempting circumstances in Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code, specifically the complete absence of intelligence, freedom of action, or intent as the basis for exempting minors from criminal liability.
• People vs. Villarama, 445 Phil. 323 (2003) — Cited for the rule that in cases of rape committed against young girls, total penetration is improbable due to the small vaginal opening, and actual penetration or rupture of the hymen is not required.
• People vs. Bascugin, G.R. No. 144195, May 25, 2004 — Cited for the doctrine that the slightest touching of the lips of the female organ or of the labia of the pudendum constitutes rape, itself citing People vs. Clopino.
• People vs. Quiachon, G.R. No. 170236, August 31, 2006, 500 SCRA 704 — Cited for the principle that penal laws favorable to the accused are given retroactive effect (favorabilia sunt amplianda adiosa restrigenda).
• Go vs. Dimagiba, G.R. No. 151876, June 21, 2005 — Cited for the expanded application of the retroactivity principle to special laws, citing a line of cases including People vs. Langit, Gonzales vs. Court of Appeals, People vs. Ganguso, and People vs. Simon.
• Llave vs. People, G.R. No. 166040, April 26, 2006, 488 SCRA 376 — Cited for the proposition that no parent would stoop so low as to subject a daughter to the tribulations of a public trial if the charge of rape were not true.

• Section 6, R.A. No. 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006) — Provides that a child fifteen years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability and subjected to an intervention program; a child above fifteen but below eighteen is likewise exempt unless acting with discernment; the exemption does not include exemption from civil liability. Applied as the statutory basis for exempting petitioner from criminal liability while sustaining his civil liability.
• Section 64, R.A. No. 9344 (Transitory Provisions) — Provides that upon effectivity of the Act, cases of children fifteen years old and below at the time of the commission of the crime shall immediately be dismissed and the child referred to the appropriate local social welfare and development officer. Applied as the basis for dismissing the criminal cases against petitioner and referring him to the local social welfare and development officer.
• Article 22, Revised Penal Code — Provides that penal laws shall have retroactive effect insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony who is not a habitual criminal, even if a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same. Applied as the doctrinal basis for according retroactive effect to R.A. No. 9344.
• Article 12, Revised Penal Code (Exempting Circumstances) — The Court discussed the rationale behind exempting circumstances, particularly the complete absence of intelligence, freedom of action, or intent, as the basis for exempting minors from criminal liability.
• Article 2219, Civil Code — Provides the basis for awarding moral damages. Applied to sustain the award of P50,000 as moral damages for each count of rape, without need of additional pleading or proof other than the fact of rape.

Justices Ynares-Santiago (Chairperson), Austria-Martinez, and Chico-Nazario concurred.