Case: Sierra vs.

People
G.R. No.: 182941
Date: July 03,2009

FACTS:

This case is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the CA that affirmed with modification
the conviction of Robert Sierra, the petitioner for the crime of qualified rape rendered by the RTC branch 159,
Pasig City on April 5,2006. That on August 5,2000 in Pasig City the petitioner, a minor, 15 years old forcefully
and unlawfully have sexual intercourse with his sister, AAA, thirteen years old. The petitioner invoked that he
should be exempted of criminal liability for he was only 15 years old at the time the crime was committed.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the petitioner will be exempted from criminal liability under paragraph 1, section 6, of R.A. No.
9344

RULING:

Yes, the CA seriously erred when it rejected that the petitioner was only 15 years old at the time he
committed the crime. Thus, Section 7 of R.A. 9344 expressly states how the age of the child in conflict with the
law may be determined.

In pursuant to Section 64, R.A. 9344, Criminal Case for rape against the petitioner was dismissed.
Referring the petitioner to appropriate local Social Welfare and Development who in accordance with the
provisions of R.A. No. 9344.

R.A. No. 9344 was enacted into law on April 28, 2006 and took effect on May 20, 2006. Its intent is to
promote and protect the rights of a child in conflict with the law or a child at risk by providing a system that
would ensure that children are dealt with in a manner appropriate to their well-being through a variety of
disposition measures such as care, guidance and supervision orders, counseling, probation, foster care,
education and vocational training programs and other alter-natives to institutional care. More importantly in the
context of this case, this law modifies as well the minimum age limit of criminal irresponsibility for minor
offenders; it changed what paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended,
previously provided—i.e., from “under nine years of age” and “above nine years of age and under fifteen” (who
acted without discern-ment)—to “fifteen years old or under” and “above fifteen but below 18” (who acted
without discernment) in determining exemption from criminal liability. In providing exemption, the new law—as
the old paragraphs 2 and 3, Article 12 of the RPC did—presumes that the minor offenders completely lack the
intelligence to distinguish right from wrong, so that their acts are deemed involuntary ones for which they
cannot be held accountable. The current law also drew its changes from the principle of restorative justice that
it espouses; it considers the ages 9 to 15 years as formative years and gives minors of these ages a chance to
right their wrong through diversion and intervention measures.

In a criminal case, the burden of proof to establish the guilt of the accused falls upon the prosecution
which has the duty to prove all the essential ingredients of the crime; The defense, not the prosecution, has the
burden of showing by evidence that the accused was 15 years old or less when he committed the rape
charged—minority and age are not elements of the crime of rape.—Burden of proof, under Section 1, Rule 131
of the Rules on Evidence, refers to the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue in order to
establish his or her claim or defense. In a criminal case, the burden of proof to establish the guilt of the
accused falls upon the prosecution which has the duty to prove all the essential ingredients of the crime.

The prosecution completes its case as soon as it has presented the evidence it believes is sufficient to
prove the required elements. At this point, the burden of evidence shifts to the defense to disprove what the
prosecution has shown by evidence, or to prove by evidence the circumstances showing that the accused did
not commit the crime charged or cannot otherwise be held liable therefor. In the present case, the prosecution
completed its evidence and had done everything that the law requires it to do. The burden of evidence has now
shifted to the defense which now claims, by an affirmative defense, that the accused, even if guilty, should be
exempt from criminal liability because of his age when he committed the crime. The defense, therefore, not the
prosecution, has the burden of showing by evidence that the petitioner was 15 years old or less when he
committed the rape charged. This conclusion can also be reached by considering that minority and age are not
elements of the crime of rape; the prosecution therefore has no duty to prove these circumstances. To impose
the burden of proof on the prosecution would make minority and age integral elements of the crime when
clearly they are not. If the prosecution has a burden related to age, this burden relates to proof of the age of
the victim as a circumstance that qualifies the crime of rape.