People of the Philippines vs. CICL XXX265302

Republic Act No. 9346 removed "death" from the graduated scale of penalties under Article 71 of the Revised Penal Code, such that reclusion perpetua is the highest remaining penalty in the scale for purposes of graduating penalties. Consequently, when a privileged mitigating circumstance such as minority warrants the imposition of a penalty one degree lower, the penalty next lower than reclusion perpetua is reclusion temporal, not death.

The accused-appellant, XXX265302, was a child in conflict with the law under Republic Act No. 9344, the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act, being 15 years old at the time of the alleged offense. The victim, AAA265302, was a six-year-old girl at the time of the incident. The case involves the interplay between the statutory interdiction of the death penalty under Republic Act No. 9346, enacted in 2006, and the graduated scale of penalties under Article 71 of the Revised Penal Code, as well as the special rules governing the criminal liability and sentencing of children in conflict with the law under Republic Act No. 9344.

XXX265302, a 15-year-old child in conflict with the law, was charged with rape for having carnal knowledge of AAA265302, a five-year-old girl, in December 2014 in the Municipality of ███████, Province of Laguna. AAA265302 knew XXX265302 as her "playmate," and he invited her and seven other kids to his house, where she was the only girl. Inside the house, XXX265302 removed AAA265302's short pants and underwear, ordered her to lie down on a wooden bed, went on top of her, inserted his penis into her vagina, and made push-and-pull movements. AAA265302 felt pain and cried, and XXX265302 warned her not to tell anybody or he would punch her. AAA265302 then went home with another child named Vera. Unbeknownst to XXX265302, another minor named Ken saw how XXX265302 had carnal knowledge of AAA265302.

For the defense, XXX265302 interposed denial and alibi, claiming he was not home at the time of the incident. He alleged that from December 1 to 15, 2014, he was at ███████ High School playing basketball after class, and from December 16 to 31, he stayed at his grandmother's house in ███████, Laguna. He claimed the case was filed against him because he was the oldest among the suspects. The defense also presented Jayson Agliones, who testified that he saw Ken and three others sexually molest AAA265302.

The prosecution proved AAA265302's age through her Certificate of Live Birth, showing she was born on June 25, 2009, making her only six years old at the time of the rape. AAA265302 testified in a clear, convincing, and straightforward manner, narrating how XXX265302 molested her, and demonstrated the act of rape by forming a circle with her fingers and inserting her index finger. During cross-examination, AAA265302 gave contradictory statements on whether XXX265302's penis touched or was inserted into her vagina, but she corrected herself during re-direct examination, stating that XXX265302 inserted his penis into her vagina twice and that it was painful. Ken corroborated AAA265302's testimony, stating that he saw XXX265302 holding AAA265302's hips with their private parts attached, and that he saw the penis inserted inside the vagina. The Medico-Legal Report dated March 18, 2015 stated that AAA265302's hymen remained intact.

The Social Case Study Report submitted by the Provincial Social Welfare and Development Office found that XXX265302 had discernment in life but acted without discernment on the case since he strongly denied involvement, and recommended counseling and a diversion program. The trial court ordered the social welfare officer to implement an Intervention Program to determine XXX265302's civil liability.

• Credibility of the Victim's Testimony: XXX265302 argued that there were inconsistencies in AAA265302's statements contrary to human instinct and experience, particularly that she testified her other playmates took turns raping her but did not allege this in her sworn statement or file charges against them, and that her mother was coaching her after she gave an inconsistent statement during cross-examination about the alleged insertion and touching of the accused's penis on her vagina.
• Carnal Knowledge: XXX265302 argued that the prosecution failed to prove carnal knowledge, pointing to AAA265302's testimony during cross and re-direct examinations that XXX265302's penis did not touch her vagina, and that the Medico-Legal Report stating her hymen remained intact created serious doubt as to whether she was telling the truth.
• Discernment: XXX265302 insisted that the prosecution failed to establish discernment when committing the crime, as the prosecution did not exert efforts to determine discernment and that he could fully appreciate the consequences of the alleged act.

• Credibility of the Victim's Testimony: The People countered that the alleged inconsistencies in AAA265302's statements during cross-examination on whether any part of her and XXX265302's bodies came into contact were clarified during re-direct, where AAA265302 stated that XXX265302 raped her by referring to the act as "kinantot" and demonstrated it by inserting her right index finger into the hole formed by her left index finger.
• Discernment: The People averred that XXX265302's act of threatening AAA265302 is evidence of discernment in the commission of the crime.

• Carnal Knowledge: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that XXX265302 had carnal knowledge of AAA265302 despite the alleged inconsistencies in her testimony and the intact hymen finding.
• Discernment: Whether the prosecution sufficiently established that XXX265302 acted with discernment in committing the crime, notwithstanding the social worker's assessment that he acted without discernment.
• Proper Penalty: Whether the penalty imposed should be graduated with reference to reclusion perpetua as the highest penalty in the scale under Article 71 of the RPC, given the effect of Republic Act No. 9346 in removing "death" from the graduated scale.
• Suspended Sentence: Whether XXX265302, who has exceeded the age of 21 years, is still entitled to the benefits of the suspended sentence and confinement in an agricultural camp or other training facility under Republic Act No. 9344.
• Damages: Whether the amounts of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages should be increased in light of the heinous character of the crime.

• Carnal Knowledge: Yes. The prosecution proved carnal knowledge beyond reasonable doubt through AAA265302's clear and straightforward testimony, which was clarified during re-direct examination, and corroborated by prosecution witness Ken, who saw XXX265302's penis inserted inside AAA265302's vagina.
• Discernment: Yes. The totality of the facts and circumstances, including XXX265302's closing of all windows and doors and his threat to punch AAA265302 if she told anybody, established that he acted with discernment, notwithstanding the social worker's contrary assessment.
• Proper Penalty: The correct imposable penalty is reclusion temporal, the penalty next lower than reclusion perpetua, because Republic Act No. 9346 removed "death" from the graduated scale of penalties under Article 71 of the RPC, making reclusion perpetua the highest penalty in the scale.
• Suspended Sentence: Yes, but only to the extent of confinement in an agricultural camp or other training facility. The benefits of a suspended sentence can no longer apply because XXX265302 is now 25 years old, but the legislative intent of Republic Act No. 9344 supports extending the right to restoration, rehabilitation, and reintegration even to one who has exceeded the age limit of 21 years.
• Damages: Yes. The damages are increased to PHP 150,000.00 each for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, because the principal consideration for the award of damages is the penalty provided by law or imposable for the offense because of its heinousness, not the public penalty actually imposed.

• Carnal Knowledge: Statutory rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) of the RPC requires only two elements: (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman, and (2) the woman is 12 years of age or under. The crime is committed regardless of force, threat, intimidation, or grave abuse of authority; it is enough that the age of the victim is proven and that there was sexual intercourse. The absence of free consent is conclusively presumed when the victim is below the age of 12. Here, the prosecution proved AAA265302's age through her Certificate of Live Birth, showing she was born on June 25, 2009, making her only six years old at the time of the rape. The supposed inconsistency in AAA265302's statement was fully clarified in her re-direct examination, where she stated that XXX265302 inserted his penis into her vagina twice and that it was painful, and through the testimony of Ken, who saw the penis inserted inside the vagina. The Court recognized that "the intimidating atmosphere of a courtroom causes anxiety in children, and undermines their capacity to offer accurate testimonial evidence." The defense of denial and alibi was rejected because XXX265302 and AAA265302 were neighbors, and other than his assertions, he did not present independent evidence to prove he was somewhere else when the crime was committed. The medical finding that AAA265302's hymen was still intact does not negate rape, as the hymen may remain intact despite sexual intercourse due to various factors such as the forcefulness of the insertion, the size of the object inserted, and the changes occurring in a female child's body.

• Discernment: Under Section 6 of Republic Act No. 9344, a child above 15 years but below 18 years of age is exempt from criminal liability unless he or she has acted with discernment. Discernment is defined as the capacity of the child at the time of the commission of the offense to understand the difference between right and wrong and the consequences of the wrongful act. No presumption exists that a minor above 15 but below 18 years old acts with discernment; the prosecution must specifically prove as a separate circumstance that the minor accused committed the crime with discernment. The Court applied the guidelines in CICLXXX vs. People, which state that the determination of discernment shall take into account the ability of a child to understand the moral and psychological components of criminal responsibility and the consequences of the wrongful act, and that courts shall consider the totality of facts and circumstances, including the very appearance, attitude, comportment, and behavior of the minor before, during, and after the commission of the act, the gruesome nature of the crime, the minor's cunning and shrewdness, his utterances, his overt acts, the nature of the weapon used, his attempt to silence a witness, and his disposal of evidence. Although the social worker assessed that XXX265302 acted without discernment, the court is not bound by that assessment and may independently determine the existence of discernment. The Court agreed with the CA that the totality of the facts and circumstances showed discernment, as demonstrated by XXX265302's demeanor of closing all the windows and door when he sexually abused AAA265302 and his threat to punch her if she told anybody, showing that he knew fully well that what he did was wrong and was aware of the consequences.

• Proper Penalty: The crime committed against AAA265302 is Qualified Rape of a Minor since she was below 7 years old when the crime was committed. The prescribed penalty for rape committed against a victim below seven years old is death. However, XXX265302 was 15 years and six months old at the time of the rape, entitling him to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority under Article 68 of the RPC, which requires the imposition of the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law. The Court reiterated the ruling in People vs. Bon that Republic Act No. 9346 resulted in the statutory interdiction of the death penalty and that "death" as a penalty in Article 71 is no longer part of the equation for graduation of penalties. The highest remaining penalty in the scale of penalties under Article 71 is reclusion perpetua. Thus, the correct imposable penalty is reclusion temporal, the penalty next lower than reclusion perpetua. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, XXX265302 may be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty, the minimum of which shall be within the range of prision mayor (the penalty next lower in degree from reclusion temporal) or six years and one day to 12 years, and the maximum of which shall be within the range of reclusion temporal in its medium period, or 14 years, eight months and one day to 17 years and four months. The Court imposed the indeterminate penalty of 12 years of prision mayor, as minimum, to 14 years, eight months and one day of reclusion temporal, as maximum.

• Suspended Sentence: XXX265302 is entitled to suspension of his sentence under Section 38 of Republic Act No. 9344, being a minor at the time of the commission of the offense. However, the suspension of sentence lasts only until the child in conflict with the law reaches the maximum age of 21 years under Section 40 of the law. Since XXX265302 is now 25 years old, the benefits of a suspended sentence can no longer apply. Nevertheless, to give meaning to the legislative intent of the Act, the promotion of the welfare of a child in conflict with the law should extend even to one who has exceeded the age limit of 21 years, so long as he or she committed the crime when still a child. The age of the child at the time of the promulgation of the judgment of conviction is not material; what matters is that the offender committed the offense when still of tender age. Thus, XXX265302 may be confined in an agricultural camp or any other training facility in accordance with Section 51 of Republic Act No. 9344, and the case shall be remanded to the trial court to effect such confinement.

• Damages: The principal consideration for the award of damages should still be "the penalty provided by law or imposable for the offense because of its heinousness, not the public penalty actually imposed on the offender." The amendatory effects of Republic Act No. 9346 extend only to the application of the death penalty but not to the definition or classification of crimes. The classification of qualified rape as "heinous" remains, and Republic Act No. 9346 does not serve as basis for the reduction of civil indemnity and other damages that adhere to heinous crimes. In People vs. Jugueta, the Court set the amount of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages for qualified rape where the penalty imposed is death but reduced to reclusion perpetua because of Republic Act No. 9346 to PHP 100,000.00 each. In People vs. ABC260708, the Court clarified that the law and jurisprudence set the minimum amounts of civil indemnity and damages but do not provide for a ceiling, and increased the amounts to PHP 150,000.00 each in view of the depravity of the qualified rape committed against the minor victim. Accordingly, XXX265302 is adjudged to pay the victim civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages of PHP 150,000.00 each, with interest of 6% per annum from the finality of judgment until full payment.

• Statutory Rape (Article 266-A(1)(d), RPC) — Statutory rape requires only two elements: (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman, and (2) the woman is 12 years of age or under. The crime is committed regardless of force, threat, intimidation, or grave abuse of authority; it is enough that the age of the victim is proven and that there was sexual intercourse. The absence of free consent is conclusively presumed when the victim is below the age of 12 since, at that age, the law presumes that the victim does not possess discernment and is incapable of giving intelligent consent to the sexual act. The Court applied this doctrine in affirming the conviction, finding that the prosecution proved AAA265302's age through her Certificate of Live Birth and proved carnal knowledge through her testimony and corroborating witness testimony.

• Discernment (Section 6, Republic Act No. 9344) — Discernment is the capacity of the child at the time of the commission of the offense to understand the difference between right and wrong and the consequences of the wrongful act. No presumption exists that a minor above 15 but below 18 years old acts with discernment; the prosecution must specifically prove as a separate circumstance that the minor accused committed the crime with discernment. The determination of discernment is undertaken preliminarily by a social worker and finally by the court, and the social worker's assessment is merely evidentiary and not binding upon the court. Courts shall consider the totality of facts and circumstances, including: (i) the very appearance, attitude, comportment, and behavior of the minor before, during, and after the commission of the act; (ii) the gruesome nature of the crime; (iii) the minor's cunning and shrewdness; (iv) the utterances of the minor; (v) his overt acts before, during, and after the commission of the crime; (vi) the nature of the weapon used; (vii) his attempt to silence a witness; and (viii) his disposal of evidence or hiding of the corpus delicti. The Court applied this doctrine in finding that XXX265302 acted with discernment based on his closing of all windows and doors and his threat to punch the victim.

• Effect of Republic Act No. 9346 on Article 71 of the RPC — Republic Act No. 9346 resulted in the statutory interdiction of the death penalty for crimes where the penalty prescribed by law for the offense is death, and for purposes of graduating the penalty in case the law prescribes a penalty lower or higher by one or more degrees than another given penalty under Article 71 of the RPC. As such, "death" as a penalty in Article 71 is no longer part of the equation for graduation of penalties, and the highest remaining penalty in the scale of penalties is reclusion perpetua. The Court applied this doctrine in determining that the penalty next lower than reclusion perpetua is reclusion temporal, which was the proper penalty for XXX265302 given the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority.

• Intact Hymen Does Not Negate Rape — The absence of injury on the victim's hymen does not negate rape, in view of the medical possibility for a hymen to remain intact despite a history of sexual intercourse. The presence or absence of injuries would depend on different factors, such as the forcefulness of the insertion, the size of the object inserted, the method by which the injury was caused, the changes occurring in a female child's body, and the length of healing time. The Court applied this doctrine in rejecting XXX265302's argument that the intact hymen created serious doubt as to whether rape was committed.

• Denial and Alibi as Defenses — Denial is an "intrinsically weak defense which must be supported by strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility." Alibi is the "weakest of all defenses, for it is easy to contrive and difficult to disprove." For alibi to prosper, the accused must establish two elements: (1) he was not at the locus delicti at the time the offense was committed; and (2) it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. The Court applied this doctrine in rejecting XXX265302's defenses, as he and the victim were neighbors and he presented no independent evidence to prove he was elsewhere.

• Damages for Qualified Rape — The principal consideration for the award of damages is the penalty provided by law or imposable for the offense because of its heinousness, not the public penalty actually imposed on the offender. The amendatory effects of Republic Act No. 9346 extend only to the application of the death penalty but not to the definition or classification of crimes. The law and jurisprudence set the minimum amounts of civil indemnity and damages but do not provide for a ceiling, and the minimum amounts can be validly increased when the circumstances warrant. The Court applied this doctrine in increasing the damages to PHP 150,000.00 each in view of the depravity of the qualified rape committed against the minor victim.

• "The enactment of Republic Act No. 9346 in 2006 resulted in the statutory interdiction of the death penalty for crimes where the penalty prescribed by law for the offense is death and for purposes of graduating the penalty in case the law prescribes a penalty lower or higher by one or more degrees than another given penalty under Article 71 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). As such, 'death' as a penalty in Article 71 is no longer part of the equation for graduation of penalties." — This passage states the core doctrinal ruling on the effect of Republic Act No. 9346 on the graduated scale of penalties, which is central to the penalty imposed in this case.

• "We have repeatedly held that the crime is committed regardless of force, threat, intimidation, or grave abuse of authority; it is enough that the age of the victim is proven and that there was sexual intercourse. The absence of free consent is conclusively presumed when the victim is below the age of 12 since, at that age, the law presumes that the victim does not possess discernment and is incapable of giving intelligent consent to the sexual act." — This passage articulates the elements of statutory rape and the conclusive presumption of lack of consent for victims below 12 years old, which is the controlling doctrine for the conviction.

• "Discernment is defined as the capacity of the child at the time of the commission of the offense to understand the difference between right and wrong and the consequences of the wrongful act. No presumption exists that a minor above 15, but below 18 years old acts with discernment. During the trial, the prosecution must specifically prove as a separate circumstance that the minor accused committed the crime with discernment." — This passage defines discernment and establishes the burden on the prosecution to prove it as a separate circumstance, which is the controlling doctrine for the criminal liability of the minor accused.

• "The principal consideration for the award of damages should still be 'the penalty provided by law or imposable for the offense because of its heinousness, not the public penalty actually imposed on the offender.'" — This passage articulates the standard for determining damages in heinous crimes, which supports the Court's increase of the damages awarded to the victim.

• People vs. Bon, 536 Phil. 897 (2006) — Controlling precedent on the effect of Republic Act No. 9346 on the graduated scale of penalties under Article 71 of the RPC, holding that "death" is no longer part of the equation for graduation of penalties and that the highest remaining penalty is reclusion perpetua. The Court relied on this case in determining the proper penalty for XXX265302.

• CICLXXX vs. People, 938 Phil. 32 (2023) — Controlling precedent on the guidelines for determining discernment in children in conflict with the law, enumerating the factors that courts shall consider in assessing whether a minor acted with discernment. The Court applied these guidelines in finding that XXX265302 acted with discernment.

• People vs. ABC260708, 950 Phil. 199 (2024) — Controlling precedent on the proper designation of the offense when the elements of both statutory rape and qualified rape are present, establishing the guidelines for denominating the crime as "Qualified Rape of a Minor." The Court applied these guidelines in designating the crime committed against AAA265302.

• People vs. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016) — Followed on the amounts of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages for qualified rape where the penalty imposed is death but reduced to reclusion perpetua because of Republic Act No. 9346, setting the amounts at PHP 100,000.00 each. The Court distinguished this case by increasing the amounts to PHP 150,000.00 each in view of the depravity of the crime.

• People vs. Jacinto, 661 Phil. 224 (2011) — Followed on the application of Republic Act No. 9344 to a child in conflict with the law who has exceeded the age limit of 21 years, holding that the promotion of the welfare of a child in conflict with the law should extend even to one who has exceeded the age limit, so long as the crime was committed when still a child. The Court applied this ruling in ordering confinement in an agricultural camp or other training facility.

• People vs. Sarcia, 615 Phil. 97 (2009) — Followed on the principal consideration for the award of damages, holding that the penalty provided by law or imposable for the offense because of its heinousness, not the public penalty actually imposed, is the basis for damages. The Court applied this ruling in increasing the damages awarded.

• People vs. Bay-od, 845 Phil. 644 (2019) — Followed on the medical possibility for a hymen to remain intact despite a history of sexual intercourse, affirming convictions for rape despite the absence of injury on the victim's hymen. The Court applied this ruling in rejecting XXX265302's argument based on the intact hymen finding.

• People vs. Castillo, 871 Phil. 73 (2020) — Followed on the weakness of denial and alibi as defenses, requiring the accused to establish that he was not at the locus delicti and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime. The Court applied this ruling in rejecting XXX265302's defenses.

• Article 266-A(1)(d), Revised Penal Code — Defines statutory rape as carnal knowledge of a woman under 12 years of age or who is demented, even though none of the circumstances of force, threat, intimidation, fraudulent machination, or grave abuse of authority be present. The Court applied this provision in finding XXX265302 guilty of statutory rape.

• Article 266-B, Revised Penal Code — Prescribes the penalty for rape and provides that the death penalty shall be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the aggravating/qualifying circumstances, including when the victim is a child below seven years old. The Court applied this provision in designating the crime as Qualified Rape of a Minor.

• Article 68, Revised Penal Code — Provides that upon a person over fifteen and under eighteen years of age, the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be imposed, but always in the proper period. The Court applied this provision in determining the penalty for XXX265302, who was 15 years and six months old at the time of the offense.

• Article 71, Revised Penal Code — Establishes the graduated scales of penalties, with "death" at the top of Scale No. 1. The Court held that Republic Act No. 9346 removed "death" from this scale, making reclusion perpetua the highest remaining penalty for purposes of graduation.

• Article 64(1), Revised Penal Code — Provides the rules for the application of penalties, including the indeterminate sentence. The Court applied this provision in imposing the indeterminate penalty of 12 years of prision mayor to 14 years, eight months and one day of reclusion temporal.

• Section 6, Republic Act No. 9344 — Establishes the minimum age of criminal responsibility, providing that a child above 15 years but below 18 years of age is exempt from criminal liability unless he or she has acted with discernment. The Court applied this provision in determining XXX265302's criminal liability.

• Section 38, Republic Act No. 9344 — Provides for the automatic suspension of sentence for a child under 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the offense who is found guilty, requiring the court to determine civil liability and place the child under suspended sentence. The Court applied this provision in considering XXX265302's entitlement to suspension of sentence.

• Section 40, Republic Act No. 9344 — Provides that the suspension of sentence lasts until the child in conflict with the law reaches the maximum age of 21 years. The Court applied this provision in finding that the benefits of a suspended sentence can no longer apply to XXX265302, who is now 25 years old.

• Section 51, Republic Act No. 9344 — Provides that a child in conflict with the law may, after conviction and upon order of the court, be made to serve his or her sentence in an agricultural camp or other training facilities established, maintained, supervised, and controlled by the BUCOR, in coordination with the DSWD. The Court applied this provision in remanding the case to the trial court for XXX265302's confinement in an agricultural camp or other training facility.

• Article 2229, Civil Code — Provides for exemplary or corrective damages, which are imposed in addition to moral, temperate, liquidated, or compensatory damages, and may be imposed by way of example in addition to compensatory damages. The Court applied this provision in awarding exemplary damages to the victim.

Gesmundo, C.J., Leonen, SAJ., Caguioa, Hernando, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, Zalameda, Gaerlan, Rosario, Lopez, J., Marquez, and Kho, Jr., JJ., concurred. Dimaampao, J., took no part due to prior participation in the proceedings before the Court of Appeals. Singh, J., was on leave.

N/A — No dissenting opinions were noted in the case text.