People v. Remiendo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Two criminal informations, both dated March 10, 2008, were filed against petitioner Robert Remiendo y Siblawan (Remiendo) for two counts of statutory rape. The informations alleged that in March and May 1997, at Badiwan, Tuba, Benguet, Remiendo willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously had carnal knowledge of AAA, a girl below 12 years of age. AAA, born on February 16, 1986, testified that Remiendo sexually assaulted her in March 1997 when she was alone at home, threatening her if she reported it. She was again assaulted in May 1997 in Remiendo's house, where he also threatened her. Dr. Ronald R. Bandonill, NBI Medico-Legal Officer, examined AAA on January 2, 1998, finding old lacerations of the hymen. Dr. Elsie I. Caducoy, a psychiatrist, examined AAA on July 12, 1998, finding her suffering from psychosis and organicity due to a prior accident, but opined she was conscious during the rapes as she could narrate the events. The defense presented Lea F. Chiwayan, a friend of AAA, who testified that AAA confided about being molested by her brother and father, and raped by Reynoso Cera, and that AAA later joked about Remiendo raping her. Dolores L. Daniel, AAA's Grade II teacher, described AAA as unruly and a liar. Remiendo denied the accusations, claiming he confronted AAA for spreading rumors and physically assaulted her out of anger, but denied the rape. Procedural History: Upon arraignment, Remiendo pled "not guilty" to both charges. A joint trial ensued before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 62, La Trinidad, Benguet. In its Joint Judgment dated October 27, 2004, the RTC found Remiendo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of statutory rape and sentenced him to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum for each count, and ordered him to pay civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages. Remiendo appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). In its Decision dated November 16, 2007, the CA affirmed the RTC's conviction but modified the civil liability, increasing moral damages to P50,000.00 and exemplary damages to P25,000.00 for each count. Remiendo's motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA in its Resolution dated October 3, 2008. The Petition: Remiendo filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court before the Supreme Court. He alleged that the Court of Appeals gravely erred in affirming his conviction for statutory rape despite the absence of evidence to prove the true and real age of the private complainant, arguing that the Certificate of Live Birth was not admitted by the RTC and that defense evidence (school records) indicated AAA was more than 12 years old. He also questioned AAA's credibility as a witness. Furthermore, Remiendo contended that the Court of Appeals gravely erred in not giving him the benefit accorded by Republic Act No. 9344, otherwise known as the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, claiming the prosecution failed to establish that he acted with discernment in the commission of the crimes charged.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in affirming the decision of the court a quo convicting petitioner of statutory rape despite the absence of evidence to prove the true and real age of the private complainant. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in not giving petitioner the benefit accorded to him by Republic Act No. 9344, known as the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, increasing the age of criminal responsibility.
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.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court disagreed with Remiendo's contention regarding the absence of proof of AAA's age. The Court reiterated the guidelines from People v. Pruna, which establish that the best evidence to prove the age of a rape victim is an original or certified true copy of the certificate of live birth. In this case, the prosecution offered a certified true copy of AAA's Certificate of Live Birth, which indicated she was born on February 21, 1986. This document, being a public document, is prima facie evidence of the fact of birth and does not require authentication, thus the RTC correctly appreciated it despite a prior order. Even assuming the Certificate of Live Birth was not appreciated, both AAA and her mother, BBB, testified that AAA was born on February 21, 1986, a fact neither denied nor objected to by the defense, which is sufficient under the Pruna guidelines. The Court clarified that the defense's argument of a judicial admission that AAA's birth date was February 21, 1983 (from a school record) was incorrect, as what was admitted was merely the entry in the document, not the truth of the date itself, and such an admission can be contradicted by showing palpable mistake. The Court also upheld the trial court's assessment of AAA's credibility, noting that testimonies of young rape victims deserve full credence, especially when corroborated by medico-legal findings of hymenal lacerations, and absent any improper motive to falsely testify. On Issue 2: The Supreme Court also disagreed with Remiendo's claim that he should benefit from Republic Act No. 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006). The Court explained that while Section 6 of R.A. No. 9344 exempts children above fifteen (15) but below eighteen (18) years of age from criminal liability unless they acted with discernment, the prosecution successfully established that Remiendo acted with discernment. His actions, such as waiting for AAA to be alone, threatening her to keep quiet, and his own testimony of being enraged when confronted about the rape, clearly demonstrated his mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong. Furthermore, the Court ruled that Remiendo's claim for the benefits of R.A. No. 9344 was rendered moot and academic by Section 40 of the same Act. Remiendo was born on January 21, 1982, and the Joint Judgment imposing his sentence was promulgated on October 27, 2004. At the time of sentencing, Remiendo was already 22 years old, exceeding the maximum age of twenty-one (21) years for which a child in conflict with the law may remain under suspended sentence or intervention programs under R.A. No. 9344.
Main Doctrine
The primary legal doctrine established and applied in this case concerns the elements and proof of statutory rape, specifically focusing on the age of the victim and the credibility of child witnesses. It reiterates that sexual intercourse with a girl below 12 years old constitutes statutory rape, and outlines a hierarchy of evidence for proving the victim's age, with the Certificate of Live Birth being the best evidence. Furthermore, the case clarifies the application of the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 (Republic Act No. 9344), particularly regarding the age of criminal responsibility and the cut-off age for availing its benefits, emphasizing that an accused who was a minor at the time of the offense but has reached 21 years of age at the time of sentencing can no longer avail of the suspended sentence provisions.