Case Digest (G.R. No. 182239)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Hermie M. Jacinto, G.R. No. 182239, March 16, 2011, Supreme Court First Division, Perez, J., writing for the Court.The prosecution (the People of the Philippines) charged Hermie M. Jacinto (the accused/appellant) by Information dated March 20, 2003 with rape of a five‑year‑old girl, AAA, allegedly committed on January 28, 2003 at about 7:00 p.m. The information alleged the qualifying circumstance of minority of the victim. At arraignment on July 15, 2003, appellant pleaded not guilty; during pretrial the defense admitted several documentary exhibits (victim’s birth certificate, police blotter, medical certificate).
Trial followed. The prosecution presented the victim AAA, her father FFF, and a rebuttal witness Julito Apiki. AAA, who knew appellant as “kuya,” testified that appellant led her from a roadside store to a rice field, removed her panties, boxed her chest, mounted her and inserted his penis into her vagina; she cried and returned home where her father found her injured and soiled. Medical certificates by Dr. Bernardita Gaspar and Dr. Christine Micabalo recorded multiple soft‑tissue injuries and hymenal lacerations consistent with penetration.
The defense interposed an alibi: appellant and defense witnesses (his aunt Gloria, Luzvilla Balucan, Antonia Perocho) testified he was at a birthday drinking session at the Perochos’ and that he made a quick three‑ to five‑minute trip to a nearby store to buy rum; Luzvilla also testified she saw Julito carry AAA. The defense sought to impute the crime to Julito. The trial court found inconsistencies in defense testimony, credited AAA’s positive identification and the medical findings, and on March 26, 2004 convicted appellant of rape and sentenced him to death with awards of civil indemnity and moral damages.
After the trial court learned appellant’s birth date indicated he was 17 at the time of the offense, it granted the defense motion to reopen for newly discovered evidence of minority and, applying the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority, reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua by order dated April 6, 2004. The case was transferred to the Court of Appeals for intermediate review (per People v. Mateo / internal rules) and on August 29, 2007 the Court of Appeals affirmed conviction but modified the penalty to an indeterminate term (prision mayor to reclusion temporal) and adjusted damages (civil indemnity P75,000; moral damages P75,000; exemplary damages P25,000).
Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the prosecution prove appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, considering the victim’s identification and the defense of alibi?
- What is the proper penal consequence given (a) the victim’s age at the time of the offense and (b) appellant’s minority at the time of the commission of the crime?
- Does Republic Act No. 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act) apply, and if so, is appellant entitled to automatic suspension of sentence or other disposition under that Act despite having exceeded twent...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)