Article 13 MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES

Minority
1

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS HENRY ARPON Y JUNTILLA
G.R. No. 183563
December 14, 2011

FACTS: AAA was raped by his Uncle, Henry Arpon, once in 1995 when she was 8 years
old and 7 times in 1999 when she was 12 years old.
In defense, Arpon testified that the alleged first rape incident happened when he was
still 13 years old. He stated that in 1995 and 1999 he was living and working in Tacloban City
while the incident happened in a different Municipality. Furthermore, he did not go to AAAs
house because the latters parents were his enemies because he did not work with them in the
rice field. However, in the cross-examination, he admitted that he visits his parents who are
living 2 kilometers away from AAAs house, once every month.
RTC convicted Arpon of one count of statutory rape and seven counts of rape which was
qualified by AAAs minority and relationship. It found more credible the testimony of AAA as
she was in tears, inconsistencies were understandable, and medical findings confirmed that she
was indeed raped. Alibi of Arpon was disregarded.
Appealed to CA asserting that TC failed to consider his minority (13 and 17 years old) as
privileged mitigating circumstance. CA still affirmed RTCs decision.

ISSUE: Is Arpon entitled to the mitigating circumstance of minority?

HELD: The RTC and the Court of Appeals failed to consider in favor of the accused-appellant the
privileged mitigating circumstance of minority.
Section 7 of Republic Act No. 9344, otherwise known as the "Juvenile Justice and
Welfare Act of 2006," provides:
SEC. 7. Determination of Age. -- The child in conflict with the law shall enjoy the
presumption of minority. He/She shall enjoy all the rights of a child in conflict with the
law until he/she is proven to be eighteen (18) years of age or older. The age of a child
may be determined from the child's birth certificate, baptismal certificate or any other
pertinent documents. In the absence of these documents, age may be based on
information from the child himself/herself, testimonies of other persons, the physical
appearance of the child and other relevant evidence. In case of doubt as to the age of
the child, it shall be resolved in his/her favor.
In Sierra v. People, the Court deemed sufficient the testimonial evidence regarding the minority
and age of the accused provided the following conditions concur, namely: "(1) the absence of
any other satisfactory evidence such as the birth certificate, baptismal certificate, or similar
documents that would prove the date of birth of the accused; (2) the presence of testimony
from accused and/or a relative on the age and minority of the accused at the time of the
complained incident without any objection on the part of the prosecution; and (3) lack of any
contrary evidence showing that the accused's and/or his relatives' testimonies are untrue."
In the case at bar, it was only the testimony of Arpon which showed that he was a minor
at the time the crime was committed. No other evidence was presented to prove his claim.
Article 13 MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Minority
2

However, there was no objection from the prosecution and no contrary evidence was
presented.
Although the acts were committed before the effectivity of RA 9344, it is still applicable
to those children who have been convicted and serving sentences, and in the case of Sarcia, it
further stressed that with more reason that the act should be applicable to cases which are still
in review, as in this instant case.
Thus pursuant to RA 9344 Section 6 (1), the Court, thus, exempts Arpon from criminal
liability for the first count of rape but remains to be civilly liable thereof. For the second and
third counts of rape, the court held that Arpon was 17 years old and acted with discernment
because he threatened AAA that he will kill her mother.
Pursuant to Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code, in Sarcia case, when the offender is a
minor under eighteen (18) years of age, "the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law
shall be imposed, but always in the proper period. However, for purposes of determining the
proper penalty because of the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority, the penalty of
death is still the penalty to be reckoned with." Thus, for the second and third counts of rape,
the proper penalty imposable upon the accused-appellant is reclusion perpetua for each count.
Petition is DENIED. Decision AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS:
1.) For the first count of rape Arpon is EXEMPTED from criminal liability.
2.) Second and Third counts, GUILTY of 2 counts of QUALIFIED RAPE sentenced to suffer
penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count.


*Others:
SC agrees that the first rape incident happened but disagrees that all five counts committed in
July 1999 were proven with moral certainty. AAA merely described a single incident of rape.
She made no reference whatsoever to the other four instances of rape that were likewise
supposedly committed in the month of July 1999. The same is also true for the two (2) counts
of rape allegedly committed in August 1999. AAA narrated only one incident of rape. Testimony
of AAA was only able to establish three instances when the accused-appellant had carnal
knowledge of her.

sm_balbaboco9/6/13











Article 13 MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Minority
3






Approve:
Distance from Tacloban
Identification of accused as Uncle
Alibi of Arpon and alleged ill-motive on the part of AAA disregarded
Age of victim sufficiently proven.
Guidelines (Age of Victim)
1.) The best evidence - original or certified true copy of the certificate of live birth of such party.
2. Absence 1, similar authentic documents such as baptismal certificate and school records
which show the date of birth
3. If documents are lost or destroyed or otherwise unavailable, the testimony, if clear and
credible, of the victim's mother or a member of the family either by affinity or consanguinity
who is qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree such as the exact age or date of birth
of the offended party pursuant to Section 40, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence shall be
sufficient under the following circumstances:
a. If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she
is less than 7 years old;
b. If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she
is less than 12 years old;
c. If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she
is less than 18 years old.

4. In the absence of the above, the complainant's testimony will suffice provided that it is
expressly and clearly admitted by the accused.
5. Prosecution that has the burden of proving the age of the offended party. The failure of the
accused to object to the testimonial evidence regarding age shall not be taken against him.


Medical finding: "old, healed, incomplete" hymenal lacerations on the private part of AAA.
When the testimony of a rape victim is consistent with the medical findings, there is sufficient
basis to conclude that there has been carnal knowledge."

Statutory rape - What the law punishes is carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve years
old. Hence, force and intimidation are immaterial; the only subject of inquiry is the age of the
woman and whether carnal knowledge took place.