Case Digest (G.R. No. 151085)
Facts:
Joemar Ortega v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 151085, August 20, 2008, Supreme Court Third Division, Nachura, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Joemar Ortega (then a juvenile) was charged by two informations dated April 20, 1998 with two counts of rape for acts alleged to have occurred in August 1996 and on December 1, 1996 against AAA, a female minor who was about six years old at the time. Upon arraignment petitioner pleaded not guilty and trial ensued before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacolod City, Branch 50.
The prosecution’s case rested primarily on AAA’s testimony recounting three occasions of sexual assault by petitioner and on the testimony of AAA’s brother BBB, who claimed to have seen petitioner and AAA in the act on December 1, 1996. AAA’s mother MMM testified to finding signs of injury and to bringing AAA for medical examinations. Two physicians testified: Dr. Lucifree Katalbas reportedly found no indication of molestation when she examined AAA one day after the December incident, while Dr. Joy Ann Jocson later reported abrasions and a small laceration when she examined AAA on December 12, 1996.
Petitioner and his mother Luzviminda denied the allegations, offered alternative explanations for the observations, and recounted an earlier amicable settlement between the families that required petitioner to live elsewhere. The RTC, after hearing witnesses and evaluating credibility, convicted petitioner on both counts of rape on May 13, 1999; it imposed an indeterminate sentence and ordered civil indemnity of P100,000.00. The RTC also granted release on bail pending appeal.
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC in toto by decision dated October 26, 2000 and denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on November 7, 2001. Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court. While the petition was pending here, Republic Act No. 9344 (the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006) was enacted and took effect in 2006–2007, raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility and including transitory provisions. The OSG filed a...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does R.A. No. 9344 (the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006), specifically Sections 6 and 64 and its transitory provisions, apply retroactively to petitioner who was 13 years old at the time of the alleged offenses, thereby exempting him from criminal liability?
- Was petitioner proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the two counts of rape as found by the RTC and affirmed by the CA?
- If petitioner is exempt from criminal liability under R.A. No. 9344, are civil indemnity and moral da...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)