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 Summary (G.R. No. 182941)

Facts of the Offense

In August 2000, AAA (13) and BBB were on the second floor of the family home when petitioner arrived with a knife, undressed BBB and had sexual intercourse with her, then undressed and had sexual intercourse with AAA. Petitioner threatened AAA not to tell anyone. AAA later reported the incident to a teacher and a parent, was brought to the barangay, and a physical examination disclosed a laceration on her hymen consistent with sexual abuse.

Criminal Information, Pleas and Defenses

Petitioner was charged by Information with rape (alleged as a 15‑year‑old minor) committed with lewd designs by means of force, violence and intimidation against his sister AAA (13). He pleaded not guilty and raised denial and alibi (claiming he was selling cigarettes) and argued that AAA fabricated the accusation because of a grudge. CCC, the parties’ mother, supported petitioner’s testimony and testified that petitioner was 15 at the time.

Trial Court and Court of Appeals Dispositions

The RTC (April 5, 2006) convicted petitioner of qualified rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua plus civil and moral/exemplary damages. The CA affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to reclusion temporal maximum; it denied exemption under RA 9344 because the defense did not present a birth certificate and because reclusion perpetua (the imposable penalty) allegedly disqualified suspension of sentence.

Issues on Appeal to the Supreme Court

The petition to the Supreme Court presented three central issues: (1) whether the CA erred in not applying RA 9344’s exemption for children 15 years old and under; (2) whether the CA erred in placing on the defense the burden to produce the birth certificate when RA 9344 assigns the burden of proof on age to the prosecution; and (3) whether the CA properly applied Declarador v. Gubaton to deny exemption under RA 9344.

Supreme Court’s Overall Disposition and Scope of Review

The Supreme Court granted the petition. It reviewed both guilt and the RA 9344 issues because a Rule 45 appeal opens the whole case. The Court found no reason to overturn the lower courts’ factual findings that sexual intercourse occurred and that AAA’s testimony was credible; consequently, the factual predicate for liability existed. Nevertheless, the Court found patent errors in the CA’s treatment of age, burden of proof, and evidentiary rules under RA 9344.

Legal Effect of RA 9344 and Its Scope

RA 9344, which took effect May 20, 2006, raises the minimum age of criminal responsibility so that a child 15 years old or under at the time of the offense is exempt from criminal liability and shall instead be subjected to an intervention program (Section 6). The law's remedial aims (restorative justice) and its explicit provisions (Sections 3, 7, 64, 68) require liberal construction in favor of the child in conflict with the law and permit retroactive application where favorable to the accused.

Burden of Proof on Age and Minority

The Supreme Court held that, as a general evidentiary matter, the prosecution bears the burden to prove the elements of the offense. Once the prosecution rests having presented evidence sufficient to show the elements of the crime, the burden of producing evidence shifts to the defense to rebut or raise affirmative defenses. Where the defense asserts exemption from criminal liability on the ground of minority under RA 9344, the defense has the burden to produce evidence establishing that the accused was 15 years old or younger at the time of the offense. Age and minority are not elements of the substantive crime of rape and therefore are not matters the prosecution must initially prove as to the accused.

Competency and Sufficiency of Testimonial Evidence to Prove Age

Section 7 of RA 9344 and Rule 30‑A permit age to be established by birth certificate, baptismal certificate, or other pertinent documents; in the absence of such documents, age may be established by the child’s own statement, testimonies of others, physical appearance and other relevant evidence, with every doubt resolved in favor of the child. The Court reiterated prior jurisprudence (e.g., U.S. v. Bergantino; U.S. v. Roxas; People v. Tismo; People v. Villagracia) accepting testimonial evidence of age where documentary proof is unavailable, especially when the testimony is unobjected to and uncontradicted. In this case petitioner and CCC (mother) testified to petitioner’s age; the prosecution did not object or present contrary evidence; hence testimonial evidence sufficed to establish that petitioner was not more than 15 years old at the time of the offense. The CA erred in rejecting such testimonial proof solely because the defense did not present a birth certificate.

Retroactive Application of RA 9344 Favorable to the Accused

The Court held that RA 9344 applies retroactively insofar as it benefits the accused (consistent with Article 22 of the RPC and the statute’s own Sections 64 and 68). The relevant temporal criterion is the accused’s age at the time the offense was committed, not the age at the time of trial or judgment. Because petitioner was 15 years old or younger at the time of the offense, he was entitled to the statutory exemption and the procedural disposition provided by RA 9344 (dismissal under Section 64 and referral to the local social welfare officer), notwithstanding that the offense occurred before the statute’s effectivity.

Civil Liability and Characterization of the Offense

RA 9344’s exemption from criminal liability does not extinguish civil liability. The Court clarified that civil liability must be determined according to the actual character of the offense as supported by evidence. The RTC and CA had characterized the offense as qualified rape (Article 266‑B) on the basis of relationship (sibling) and the victim’s minority. The Court found that while the sibling relationship was undisputed, the prosecution failed to establish AAA’s minority with the degree of proof required to elevate the offense to qualified rape under the applicable jurisprudential guidelines (People v. Pruna). In Pruna the Court set out the hierarchy of proof for the victim’s age (birth certificate, other authentic documents, testimony of mother/relatives under specified circumstances, or the complainant’s testimony if expressly admitted by the accused). Because the People did not sufficiently prove AAA’s exact age and the petitioner did not expressly admit it, the elements necessary to label the offense as qualified rape were not established. Thus, the appropriate legal characterization was simple rape under Article 266‑A(1).

Adjustment of Civil Awards

Given the Court’s conclusions, the Supreme Court modified the civil awards to reflect simple rape rather than qualified rape. The Court affirmed moral damages P50,000, adjusted c

    ...continue reading

    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.

    About Privacy Terms