Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Lucia Chan was a fish dealer based in Manila and was expecting fish deliveries from her suppliers in the
province. On August 11, 1998, Theng Dilangalen and another person arrived at her house to inquire about a
certain passport allegedly misplaced in one of the fish delivery boxes. The passport was not found. The next
day, Dilangalen with another person, Tony Abao returned to the house. On the same evening, Dilangalen
returned to the house with an unidentified person and kidnapped Chan. Chan was forced to board a van and
taken to a certain house and was transferred to another house. The group demanded P400,000 as ransom
and instructed Chans son to deliver it at Chowking, Buendia Avenue. On August 14, 1998, the group took
the ransom money but were intercepted by the police. On October 16, 1998, the RTC held the group
including Perepenian who was 17 years old, for Kidnapping for Ransom. On June 28, 2005, the CA armed
the conviction but modified Perepenians conviction from penalty of death to penalty of reclusion perpetua
considering that she was only 17 years old at the time the oense was committed.
ISSUE:
w/n the criminal liability of Perpenian is proper pursuant to RA 9344?
HELD:
No. According to RA 9344, there is a need to determine whether Perenian acted with or without
discernment. The Court took note of the RTCs observation during Perenians trial that she lied about her real
name, age, address because she was scared of being identified with the group. The lying and the fear of
being identified with people whom she knew had done wrong are indicative of discernment. She knew,
therefore, that there was an ongoing crime being committed at the resort while she was there. It is apparent
that she was fully aware of the consequences of the unlawful act. Her minority cannot be considered as an
exempting circumstance but a privileged mitigating circumstance under Art. 68 of the RPC. Pursuant to
section 40, RA 9344, sentence cannot be suspended as the maximum age is 21 years old, where as Pernian
was 31 years old at the promulgation of judgment.
However, the Court held that the prosecution did not present sucient evidence to hold her liable as a
principal since Perpenian entered the room where Chan was being held and just conversed with the other
members of the group that was not related to the kidnapping. However, for being present and giving moral
support, she liable as an accomplice.
As an accomplice, the imposable penalty under the RPC is Reclusion Temporal and applying the privileged
mitigating circumstance of minority, the penalty of Prision Mayor should be imposed. Under the
indeterminate sentence law, the Court imposed a minimum of 6 months and one day of Prision Correcional
to 6 years and one day of Prision Mayor as maximum. The Court held that while section 51 of RA 9344
would have been applicable in confining Pernian in an agricultural camp, Pernian had already served her
actual term and exceeded the imposable penalty for her oense and ordered her immediate release from
detention.
People vs Mantalaba
Facts:
The Task Force Regional Anti-Crime Emergency Response (RACER) in Butuan City received a report from
an informer that a certain Allen Mantalaba, who was 17 years old at the time, was selling shabu.
A team of police officers conducted a buy-bust operation. Using marked money, two poseur-buyers
approached Mantalaba and bought shabu from him.
After the operation, and in the presence of the same barangay officials, the police officers made an
inventory of the items recovered from Mantalaba which are: (1) one big sachet of shabu which they
marked as RMP-1-10-01-03; (2) one small sachet of shabu which they marked as RMP 2-10-01-03; and (3)
two (2) pieces of one hundred pesos marked money and a fifty peso (P50) bill.
The laboratory examination revealed that the appellant tested positive for the presence of bright orange
ultra-violet fluorescent powder; and the crystalline substance contained in two sachets, separately
marked as RMP-1-10-01-03 and RMP-2-10-01-03, were positively identified as methamphetamine
hydrochloride.
Two separate Informations were filed (eventually consolidated) before the RTC of Butuan City against
appellant for violation of Sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165.
RTC found Mantalaba guilty. CA affirmed Ruling of RTC.
ISSUE: 1. Is he Guilty?
2. Can he avail automatic suspension of his sentence, following RA9344
HELD: Yes. Guilt beyond reasonable doubt proved through evidence procured from buy-bust operation and
testimony of witnesses, plus all the requirements for the proper chain of custody had been observed.
The appellant, who is now beyond the age of twenty-one (21) years can no longer avail of the provisions of
Sections 38 and 40 of RA 9344 as to his suspension of sentence, because such is already moot and academic. It is
highly noted that this would not have happened if the CA, when this case was under its jurisdiction, suspended the
sentence of the appellant. The records show that the appellant filed his notice of appeal at the age of 19 (2005),
hence, when RA 9344 became effective in 2006, appellant was 20 years old, and the case having been elevated to
the CA, the latter should have suspended the sentence of the appellant because he was already entitled to the
provisions of Section 38 of the same law, which now allows the suspension of sentence of minors regardless of the
penalty imposed as opposed to the provisions of Article 192 of P.D. 603. Nevertheless, the appellant shall be
entitled to appropriate disposition under Section 51 of RA No. 9344, which provides for the confinement of
convicted children in Agricultural Camps and other Training Facilities.
knowledge of the victim; and (2) such act was accomplished through force
or intimidation; or when the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious; or when the victim is under twelve years of age.34 Here, the
accused intentionally made AAA consume hard liquor more than she could
handle. They still forced her to drink even when she was already obviously
inebriated. They never denied having sexual intercourse with AAA, but the
latter was clearly deprived of reason or unconscious at the time the private
respondents ravished her. The CA, however, readily concluded that she
agreed to the sexual act simply because she did not shout or offer any
physical resistance, disregarding her testimony that she was rendered weak
and dizzy by intoxication, thereby facilitating the commission of the crime.
The defenses testimonies were seemingly unusual and incredible. The
defense of consensual copulation was belatedly invoked and seemed to
have been a last ditch effort to avoid culpability. The SC also noted the
defense having a rehearsed witness.
SC revered the CA decision but this time finding all three guilty of
conspiracy to rape AAA. Since Oporto was a minor during the time he raped
AAA, RA 9344 must apply to him. For this reason, the case is remanded to
the lower court for proper application.
Sec. 51. Confinement of Convicted Children in Agricultural Camps and
Other Training Facilities.A child in conflict with the law may, after
conviction and upon order of the court, be made to serve his/her sentence,
in lieu of confinement in a regular penal institution, in an agricultural camp
and other training facilities that may be established, maintained, supervised
and controlled by the BUCOR, in coordination with the DSWD.
Per Article 68(2) of the Revised Penal Code, when a minor commits an offense, the penalty next lower in
degree shall be imposed. Hence, it should be reclusion temporal. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
the imposable penalty should be prision mayor in any of its periods, as a minimum period, up to reclusion
temporal in its medium period, as the maximum.
Monreal has been detained for over 16 years, that is, from the time of his arrest on May 18, 1994 until the
present. Given that the entire period of Monreals detention should be credited in the service of his sentence,
pursuant to Section 41 of Republic Act No. 9344, the revision of the penalty warranted his immediate release
from the penitentiary.
This is in consonance with the retroactivity of the law (RA 9344) for children who have been convicted and
are currently serving their sentences pursuant of Section 68 thereof.
COMMENTS:
This case illustrates the application of retroactivity of the law insofar as it benefits the minor even though he
is already serving his sentence. This is but proper given the benevolent purpose of the law, which is to
express the application of restorative justice to children in conflict with the law. Restorative justice is a
system focusing on the rehabilitation of the offender and their reintegration into society.
Furthermore, this case illustrates the mandate of the courts, and the prosecution, in exerting all efforts to
ascertain the age of the accused. Even despite the failure of presenting a birth certificate, the fact of minority
can be established by other facts, and should be properly appreciated by the courts.
However, despite the express provision of the law, personally it seems more appropriate to limit the extent of
the application of this leniency to minors depending on the severity of the crime committed. In this case,
willingly committing and conspiring to commit murder, using treacherous tactics, without provocation
whatsoever, is a heinous crime that deserves the maximum extent of punishment of the law. However, such
matter is best left to the discretion and wisdom of the legislature.
No, the penalty of imprisonment did not violate the provisions of RA 9344 because the penalty was
imposed as a last recourse after holding him to be disqualified from probation and from the suspension of
his sentence, and the term of his imprisonment was for the shortestduration permitted by the law.
International agreements on the administration of juvenile justice are also consistent in recognizing that
imprisonment is a valid form of disposition, provided it is imposed as a last resort and for the minimum
necessary period. Following Section 51 of Republic Act No. 9344, the petitioner, although he has to serve
his sentence, may serve it in an agricultural camp or other training facilities to be established,
maintained, supervised and controlled by the Bureau of Corrections, in coordination with the Department
of Social Welfare and Development, in a manner consistent with the offender childs best interest. Such
service of sentence will be in lieu of service in the regular penal institution.