Remiendo v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The respondent People filed informations charging the petitioner with statutory rape for alleged incidents occurring in March 1997 and May 1997. The complainant and her mother testified to the complainant's date of birth and a certified true copy of the complainant's Certificate of Live Birth was offered in evidence and reserved for marking. The prosecution presented medico-legal and psychiatric examinations; the medico-legal officer found healed hymenal lacerations consistent with defloration and the psychiatrist reported the complainant's mental condition. The defense contested the complainant's age and credibility through witnesses, a school record, and the accused's testimony denying the charges. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 62, La Trinidad, Benguet, rendered a Joint Judgment dated October 27, 2004, finding the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of statutory rape and imposing imprisonment and damages. The petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which rendered a Decision dated November 16, 2007 affirming the RTC judgment but modifying civil damages. The CA denied reconsideration in its Resolution dated October 3, 2007. The Petition: The petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court, principally alleging the absence of competent proof of the complainant's true age and entitlement to benefits under Republic Act No. 9344 (the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006) increasing the age of criminal responsibility, arguing lack of proof that he acted with discernment.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC conviction despite alleged absence of competent proof of the complainant's age. Whether the petitioner is entitled to exemption from criminal liability under Republic Act No. 9344 for being a child at the time of the commission of the offenses. Whether the complainant's credibility warranted reversal of the conviction.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Decision dated November 16, 2007 and the Resolution dated October 3, 2008 of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED. The RTC conviction and sentence for two counts of statutory rape are upheld; civil liabilities were modified by the CA to specified amounts per count.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the CA erred regarding proof of age: Applying People v. Pruna, the Court reiterated that the best evidence of the age of the offended party is an original or certified true copy of the certificate of live birth, and that such certificate is prima facie evidence of the fact of birth. The Court observed that a certified true copy of the complainant's Certificate of Live Birth was offered and reserved for marking and that both the complainant and her mother testified to the complainant's date of birth of February 21, 1986. The Court further explained that a certificate of live birth, being a public document, does not require authentication and can be rebutted only by clear and convincing evidence; the defense did not present such convincing rebuttal. The petitioner relied on an inconsistent entry in the school record, but the Court found that the prosecution's witnesses' testimony as to the complainant's birth date prevailed over the school entry, and that the prosecution's earlier acknowledgment regarding an entry in the school record did not amount to a judicial admission of the correct birth date. The Court also emphasized that the trial court's categorical finding as to the age of the victim is entitled to great weight because the trial court had the opportunity to observe the witnesses, and there was no showing of arbitrariness in that finding. On Whether petitioner is entitled to R.A. No. 9344 treatment: The Court explained that Section 6 of R.A. No. 9344 exempts children fifteen years of age or under from criminal liability, and that a child above fifteen but below eighteen may be exempted unless he acted with discernment. The Court defined discernment as the mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong and noted that the prosecution must prove discernment by reference to physical appearance, attitude or deportment before, during and after the commission of the act, and by surrounding circumstances showing awareness of wrongfulness. The Court found from the record that the petitioner acted with discernment: he waited until the complainant was alone, threatened the complainant during the incidents, and later demonstrated consciousness of wrongdoing by his conduct when confronted (slapping and intimidating the complainant). The Court also held that even if R.A. No. 9344 were applicable, Section 40 authorizes the court to order execution of sentence if the child reached majority while under suspended sentence; in any event the petitioner was over twenty-one at the time of sentence imposition, rendering the claim moot. Therefore the exemption under R.A. No. 9344 did not apply. On Credibility of the Complainant: The Court reiterated that the trial court's assessment of credibility deserves great weight because of its opportunity to observe demeanor; young victims' testimonies are generally worthy of belief because it is improbable they would concoct such serious charges. The Court held that the complainant's testimony was corroborated by the medico-legal findings of healed hymenal lacerations, and there was no evidence of improper motive to fabricate. Consequently, the Court found no reason to disturb the credibility findings of the RTC and CA.
Main Doctrine
A certificate of live birth is prima facie evidence of date of birth and the guidelines in People v. Pruna govern proof of the age of the offended party; the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act (R.A. No. 9344) exempts children from criminal liability only when they lack discernment, which must be proven by the circumstances.