Title
Sierra y Caneda vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 182941
Decision Date
Jul 3, 2009
A 15-year-old petitioner convicted of rape was exempted from criminal liability under R.A. No. 9344, as his age was proven through testimonial evidence, retroactively applying the law.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 182941)

Facts:

  • Antecedent Facts
    • In August 2000, thirteen-year-old AAA and her friend BBB were playing on the second floor of their family home in Palatiw, Pasig, when petitioner Robert Sierra y Caneda arrived armed with a knife, undressed BBB and had sexual intercourse with her, then undressed AAA and likewise had sexual intercourse with her, warning AAA not to divulge the incident.
    • AAA later informed her teacher (Elena Gallano) and a parent (Dolores Mangantula), who brought her to the barangay office; a subsequent medical examination revealed a hymenal laceration consistent with sexual abuse.
  • Procedural History
    • Information and Trial
      • Petitioner, then 15 years old, was charged under Article 266-A, RPC (R.A. 8353) with qualified rape of his sister AAA, 13, by force, violence, and intimidation.
      • He pleaded not guilty, raising denial and alibi, supported by his mother CCC and witness BBB, who denied the rape of BBB and claimed AAA bore a grudge.
    • RTC Decision (April 5, 2006)
      • Convicted petitioner of qualified rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordering indemnity (₱75,000), moral (₱50,000), and exemplary damages (₱25,000).
    • Court of Appeals (CA) Decision (February 29, 2008; Resolution May 22, 2008)
      • Affirmed conviction but modified penalty to reclusion temporal maximum; damages affirmed.
      • Held petitioner not exempt under R.A. No. 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act) due to failure to prove age and disqualification from suspension of sentence for crimes punishable by reclusion perpetua.
    • Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court under Rule 45 challenging the CA’s application of R.A. No. 9344.

Issues:

  • Whether the CA erred in not applying paragraph 1, Section 6 of R.A. No. 9344 to exempt petitioner from criminal liability as a 15-year-old at the time of the offense.
  • Whether the CA erred in placing on the defense the burden to present a birth certificate to invoke Section 6 of R.A. No. 9344, contrary to the law’s provisions on burden of proof regarding age.
  • Whether the CA erred in applying this Court’s ruling in Declarador v. Hon. Gubaton to deny the benefit of exemption under R.A. No. 9344.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.