RA 9344

Group 3
WOMEN AND CHILDREN

The Law
RA 9344 CICL

RA 9344 The Juvenile Justice and

Welfare Act
This

law became effective on May 20,2006

Its

Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) were

enacted on September 19, 2006.

This

law was crafted after repeated acts of imprisoning

little children. Appalled by such practices the
international community demanded for certain nations,
the Philippines included, to adhere to UN Convention on
Child Rights (1990), which the Philippines is a signatory
to.

Art. 40 of the UN Convention on

Child Rights
Right

of CICL to legal help and fair treatment in

a justice system that respects their rights.

lly
To

set a minimum age below which children

cannot be held criminally responsible

To

provide the minimum guarantees for the

fairness and quick resolution of judicial or
alternative proceedings

Philippine Laws (before RA 9344)

National

Laws protecting the Rights of Children in

Conflict with the Law (CICL)were limited.

P.D.

No. 603 or the Child and Youth Welfare Code

spelled out special procedures in handling CICL Studies
showed a gap in the implementation of the law.

Formal

education of child offenders who were enrolled

at the time ofarrestwasdisrupted.Atthesame time
they also learn vices such as smoking, gambling,
drinking and substance abuse from the adult prison
facilities.

What did RA 9344 do?

It

set a new minimum age standard.

Under

RPC it was 1) child under 9 years of age (no

need discernment) and 2) a child who was 9 to under
15 years of age without discernment that was
exempted. RA 9344 increased such

It

gave the Judge greater power to assess if the

child had DISCERNMENT.
There

is discernment when the minor knows the

consequence and circumstance of his acts.

What did RA 9344 do?

It

provided facilities for the children

separate from the prison facilities of
the adults.
It introduced the automatic suspension
of sentence.
Provided a presumption of minority.

Treatment of Children below the

age of criminal responsibility
Release the child immediately of the
parent or guardian.
Notify the local social welfare and
development officer to determine the
appropriate programs in consultation
with the child.

Treatment of Children below the

age of criminal responsibility

If parent or guardian cannot be located or refuse to take

custody, release the child to any of the following:

A duly registered NGO or Religious Organization

A barangay official or any member of the barangay council for

the protection of children.

Local social welfare and development officer or DWSD.

Under No Circumstances will they be brought to a

detention facility.

Procedure for taking the child into

custody
1.

Explain to the child in simple language in a

dialect that he/she can understand why he/she
is being placed under custody and the offense
he/she allegedly committed;

2.

Properly identify himself/herself and present

proper identification to the child;

Procedure for taking the child into

custody
3.

Refrain from using vulgar or profane words and

from sexually harassing or abusing or making
sexual advances on the child in conflict with the
law;

4.

Avoid displaying or using any firearm, weapon,

handcuff or other instruments of force or
restraint, unless absolutely necessary and only
after all other methods of control have been
exhausted and have failed;

Procedure for taking the child into

custody
5. Refrain

from subjecting the child in

conflict with the law to greater
restraint than is necessary for his/her
apprehension;
6. Avoid violence and unnecessary force;
7. Determine the age of the child;

Procedure for taking the child into

custody
8.

Immediately but not later than 8 hours after

apprehension, turn over custody of the child to the
Social Welfare and Development office or other
accredited NGOs and notify the childs apprehension.
The social welfare development officer shall explain to
the child and the childs parents/guardians the
consequences of the childs acts with a view towards
counseling and rehabilitation, diversion from the
criminal justice system and reparation, if appropriate.;

Procedure for taking the child into

custody
9.

Take the child immediately to the

proper medical and health officer for a
thorough physical and mental
examination. The examination results
shall be kept confidential unless
otherwise ordered by the Family
Court.;

Procedure for taking the child into

custody
10. Make

sure that all statements signed by the child

during investigation shall be witnessed by the childs
parents or guardians, social worker or legal counsel in
attendance who shall affix his/her signature to the
statement.
A child in conflict with the law shall only be searched
by the law enforcement officer of the same gender
and shall not be locked up in a detention cell.

Jurisprudence

People vs. Gambao

706 SCRA 508, October 11, 2013

Dilangalen
and Mr. X

Lucia Chan fish

dealer Manila

f
t
p
m
te
t
A

d
e
l
ai

People vs. Gambao

706 SCRA 508, October 11, 2013

Lucia Chan fish

dealer Manila

Chan
kidnapped

Dilangalen
and Mr. X

People vs. Gambao

706 SCRA 508, October 11, 2013
Included in
the group
was a 17 year
old girl
Perepenian
The group of 7
kidnappers
wanted a
P400,000 as
ransom

People vs. Gambao

706 SCRA 508, October 11, 2013
Kidnappers
met with
Chans
daughter

Police
intercepted

The group of 7
kidnappers
were arrested

People vs. Gambao

706 SCRA 508, October 11, 2013

Arraignment:
Plea of guilty

The RTC held the group,

including Perepenian, for
Kidnapping for Ransom.

People vs. Gambao

706 SCRA 508, October 11, 2013

Issue:
W/N the criminal liability of
Perpenian is proper pursuant to
RA 9344?

People vs. Gambao

706 SCRA 508, October 11, 2013
According

to RA 9344, there is a need to

determine whether Perenian acted with or
without discernment.

People vs. Gambao

706 SCRA 508, October 11, 2013
The

Court took note of the RTCs observation

during Perenians trial that she lied about
her real name, age, address because she
was scared of being identified with the
group.

People vs. Gambao

706 SCRA 508, October 11, 2013

Disposition:
Pursuant

to section 40, RA 9344,

sentence cannot be suspended as the
maximum age is 21 years old, where as
Perenian was 31 years old at the
promulgation of judgment.

People vs. Gambao

706 SCRA 508, October 11, 2013

Is

Perepenian a principal or an
accomplice only?

People vs. Gambao

706 SCRA 508, October 11, 2013

Is

Perepenian a principal or an
accomplice only?

People vs. Gambao

706 SCRA 508, October 11, 2013
Prosecution

did not present sufficient

evidence to hold her liable as a principal
since Perpenian entered the room
where Chan was being held and just
conversed with the other members
of the group that was not related to
the kidnapping.

However,

for being present and giving

moral support, she is liable as an

People vs. Gambao

706 SCRA 508, October 11, 2013

Comment:
We agree with the SC decision on not
applying the CICL since by the time of
promulgation of judgment, Perpenian
was already beyond the 21-years old
limit of the law.

People vs. Mantalaba

GR 186227, July 11, 2011

Task Force Regional Anti-Crime Emergency

Response (RACER) in Butuan City received a
report from an informer that a certain Allen
Mantalaba, who was 17 years old at the time,
was sellingshabu.

People vs. Mantalaba

GR 186227, July 11, 2011

A team of police officers conducted a

buy-bust operation. Using marked
money, two poseur-buyers
approached Mantalaba and bought
shabu from him.

People vs. Mantalaba

GR 186227, July 11, 2011

Police officers
made inventory.
Laboratory
examination =
positive of SHABU

People vs. Mantalaba

GR 186227, July 11, 2011

The RTC found Mantalaba

guilty.
CA affirmed Ruling of
RTC.

People vs. Mantalaba

GR 186227, July 11, 2011

Issue #1:
W/N Mantalaba is guilty?

People vs. Mantalaba

GR 186227, July 11, 2011

Issue #2:
W/N Mantalaba can avail
automatic suspension of his
sentence following RA 9344?

People vs. Mantalaba

GR 186227, July 11, 2011

The appellant filed his notice of appeal at the age of

19 (2005), hence, when RA 9344 became effective in
2006, appellant was 20 years old, and the case
having been elevated to the CA, the latter should
have suspended the sentence of the appellant
because he was already entitled to the provisions of
Section 38 of the same law, which now allows the
suspension of sentence of minors regardless of the
penalty imposed as opposed to the provisions of
Article 192 of P.D. 603.

People vs. Mantalaba

GR 186227, July 11, 2011

Disposition:
The appellant shall be entitled to appropriate
disposition under Section 51 of RA No. 9344,
which provides for the confinement of
convicted children in Agricultural Camps and
other Training Facilities.

People vs. Mantalaba

GR 186227, July 11, 2011

Comment:

People vs. CA
GR 1836552, February 25, 2015

AAA, a 16 year old from Lanao del Norte,

graduated highschool

People vs. CA
GR 1836552, February 25, 2015

She celebrated the night out with friends, including

the defendants: Carampatana, Alquizola (watcher of
Alquizola Lodging House), and Oporto (also a minor)

People vs. CA
GR 1836552, February 25, 2015

AAA, laid her head on Oportos lap, after feeling

dizzy. Oporto started kissing her, which angered
AAA, but her companions just laughed at this.
The accused continued to kiss and give her shots of
liquor. Things escalated and the next thing AAA
knew was she found herself naked on a bed, in
Alquizola Lodging House, with Oporto on top of her,
kissing her and having intercourse with her.

People vs. CA
GR 1836552, February 25, 2015

She cried and fell asleep. She woke up again and

this time Carampatana was having intercourse
with her. When she went home that morning, she
told her parents she was raped. Her mother beat
her but also sent her to the hospital for an
examination. Hospital noted that there were old
lacerations found in AAAs hymen (suggesting
this was not her first time for intercourse) and
semen.

People vs. CA
GR 1836552, February 25, 2015

The RTC found

Carampatana, Alquizola
(as an accomplice by
providing the venue), and
Oporto guilty of rape.

People vs. CA
GR 1836552, February 25, 2015
The CA reversed the RTC decision
and based their reason entirely on
the defendants testimonies (that
AAA was promiscuous and
consented to the sexual acts by not
showing physical resistance,
discounting the fact that they got
her intoxicated deliberately).
CA also stressed that AAAs mothers unusual reaction of
hitting her was inconsistent with that of a parent who found
out her daughter was raped.

People vs. CA
GR 1836552, February 25, 2015

Issue:
W/N the CA acted in grave abuse
of its discretion?

People vs. CA
GR 1836552, February 25, 2015

CA
decision

PATENT
NULLITY

People vs. CA
GR 1836552, February 25, 2015

Due
Process

It appears that in
reaching its judgment,
the CA merely relied on
the evidence presented
by the defense and
utterly disregarded
that of the
prosecution.

People vs. CA
GR 1836552, February 25, 2015
SC:

CA:
AAA

was conscious

Never

showed any
physical resistance

Never

AAA was HEAVILY INTOXICATED

All elements of rape was present

Offender

fought against
respondents

had carnal knowledge;

and

cried out for

help
Never

Force

and intimidation

Accused forced AAA to drink more

Never denied having sexual

intercourse

People vs. CA
GR 1836552, February 25, 2015
CA:

SC:

AAA

Defenses testimony were unusual

and incredible

Defense having a rehearsed

witness

agreed did not

shout or offer any
physical resistence

People vs. CA
GR 1836552, February 25, 2015

Disposition:
Since

Oporto was a minor during the

time he raped AAA, RA 9344 must apply
to him.

Case

remanded to lower court for proper

application

People vs. CA
GR 1836552, February 25, 2015
Sec. 51. Confinement of Convicted Children in
Agricultural Camps and Other Training Facilities.
A child in conflict with the law may, after conviction and
upon order of the court, be made to serve his/her
sentence, in lieu of confinement in a regular penal
institution, in an agricultural camp and

other training facilities that may be

established, maintained, supervised and controlled by
the BUCOR, in coordination with the DSWD.

People vs. CA
GR 1836552, February 25, 2015
Comment:
CICL are entitled to appropriate disposition under
Section 51, RA 9344, which extends even to one who
has exceeded the age limit of 21 years, so long as he
committed the crime when he was still a child. The case
took more than ten years to be resolved. This is an
unfortunate speed, and not uncommon in the country.
Curiously, the Court of Appeals was quick to reverse
the findings and decision of the RTC (even though
the investigation and facts laid out were strong and
clear.)

Atizado vs. People

G.R. 173822, October 13, 2010

Atizano and Montreal barged in on the house of

Desder

Atizado vs. People

G.R. 173822, October 13, 2010

Where Llona was a guest and they suddenly

shot at Llona. After the shooting, they fled.

Atizado vs. People

G.R. 173822, October 13, 2010
RTC convicted Atizado
and Monreal for the
crime of murder and
sentenced them with
reclusion perpetua.
On appeal to the CA, the
court
affirmed
RTCs
decision. MR denied.
Hence, this petition

Atizado vs. People

G.R. 173822, October 13, 2010

However, it appears that Salvador

Monreal was a minor of 17 years at
the time of the commission of the
crime, as proved by his counteraffidavit, the police blotter, and the
testimony of one of the defense
witnesses.

But no Birth Certificate was ever

presented during trial.

Atizado vs. People

G.R. 173822, October 13, 2010

ISSUE:
W/N the
imposing
perpetua
minority
offense.

lower courts erred in

the penalty of reclusion
to Monreal despite his
at the time of the

Atizado vs. People

G.R. 173822, October 13, 2010
Disposition:

The penalty imposed on Monreal is incorrect in view of his minority.

Under Article 248 of the RPC, the penalty for murder isreclusion
perpetua to death.

Butreclusion perpetuawas not the correct penalty for Monreal due to

his being a minor over 15 but under 18 years of age.

RTC and the CA did not appreciate Monreals minority at the time of
the commission of the murder probably because his birth certificate
was not presented at the trial.

Monreal was a minor below 18 years of age when the crime was
committed on April 18, 1994 as attested to by the numerous evidences.

Atizado vs. People

G.R. 173822, October 13, 2010

Monreals minority was legally sufficient, for it conformed with

the norms subsequently set under Section 7 of Republic Act No.
9344:
Section 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

he/she is proven to be eighteen (18)

conflict with the law until

years old or

older.

Per Article 68(2) of the Revised Penal Code, when a minor

commits an offense, the penalty next lower in degree shall be
imposed.

Atizado vs. People

G.R. 173822, October 13, 2010

Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the imposable

penalty should be prision mayor in any of its periods, as a
minimum period, up to reclusion temporal in its medium
period, as the maximum.

Monreal has been detained for over 16 years, that is, from
the time of his arrest on May 18, 1994 until the present.

This is in consonance with the retroactivity of the law (RA

9344) for children who have been convicted and are currently
serving their sentences pursuant of Section 68 thereof.

Atizado vs. People

G.R. 173822, October 13, 2010
Comments:

This
case
illustrates
the
application
of
retroactivity of the law insofar as it benefits the
minor even though he is already serving his
sentence. This is but proper given the
benevolent purpose of the law, which is to
express the application of restorative justice to
children in conflict with the law. Restorative
justice is a system focusing on the rehabilitation
of the offender and their reintegration into
society.

Atizado vs. People

G.R. 173822, October 13, 2010

Furthermore, this case illustrates the mandate of the

courts, and the prosecution, in exerting all efforts to
ascertain the age of the accused. Even despite the
failure of presenting a birth certificate, the fact of
minority can be established by other facts, and
should be properly appreciated by the courts.

However, despite the express provision of the law,

personally it seems more appropriate to limit the
extent of the application of this leniency to minors
depending on the severity of the crime committed.

Hubilla vs. People

G.R. No. 176102, November 26, 2014

Rosal Hubilla stabbed the victim Jason using a bladed weapon.

Hubilla vs. People

G.R. No. 176102, November 26, 2014

The victim was later brought to a Hospital where he stayed for more than a
month. however, when the victim went back to the hospital for a check-up,
it was discovered that his stab wound had a complication. The victim was
subjected to another operation, but died the day after, due to organ failure
overwhelming infection, and that the underlined cause of death was a stab
wound.

Hubilla vs. People

G.R. No. 176102, November 26, 2014
The petitioner was charged with homicide
in the Regional Trial Court of Naga City,
and after trial was found guilty and was
sentenced to suffer the indeterminate
penalty of imprisonment for four years
and one day of prision correccional, as
minimum, to eight years and one day of
prision mayor, as maximum.
CA affirmed RTCs decision.
Hence, this petition.

Hubilla vs. People

G.R. No. 176102, November 26, 2014
ISSUE:
I.

II.

W/N Petitioner was entitled to the benefits of probation and

suspension of sentence under Republic Act No. 9344.

W/N W/N imposing the penalty of imprisonment contravened

the provisions of Republic Act No. 9344 and other international
agreements.

Hubilla vs. People

G.R. No. 176102, November 26, 2014
Disposition:
I. The petitioner is not entitled to the benefits of probation.
Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum of the
indeterminate sentence should be within the penalty next lower
than the imposable penalty. Republic Act No. 9344 nowhere
allows the trial and appellate courts the discretion to reduce or
lower the penalty further, even for the sake of enabling the
child in conflict with the law to qualify for probation.
The petitioner is also not entitled to the suspension of his
sentence. although Section 38 of Republic Act No. 9344 allows
the suspension of the sentence of a child in conflict with the
law adjudged as guilty of a crime, the suspension is available
only until the child offender turns 21 years of age, pursuant to
Section 40 of Republic Act No. 9344.

Hubilla vs. People

G.R. No. 176102, November 26, 2014
Thus, even if the petitioner here was then a
minor at the time of the commission of the crime,
being 17 years, four months and 28 days old when
he committed the homicide, he was already well
over 23 years of age at the time of his conviction for
homicide by the RTC on July 19, 2006. Hence, the
suspension of his sentence was no longer legally
feasible or permissible.

Hubilla vs. People

G.R. No. 176102, November 26, 2014
II. The penalty of imprisonment did not violate the
provisions

of

RA

9344

because

the

penalty

was

imposed as a last recourse after holding him to be

disqualified from probation and from the suspension of
his sentence, and the term of his imprisonment was for
the shortest duration permitted by the law.
International agreements on the administration of
juvenile justice are also consistent in recognizing that
imprisonment is a valid form of disposition, provided it

Hubilla vs. People

G.R. No. 176102, November 26, 2014
Following Section 51 of Republic Act No. 9344,
the

petitioner,

although

he

has

to

serve

his

sentence, may serve it in an agricultural camp or

other

training

maintained,

facilities

supervised

to

and

be

established,

controlled

by

the

Bureau of Corrections, in coordination with the

Department of Social Welfare and Development, in a
manner consistent with the offender childs best
interest. Such service of sentence will be in lieu of

Hubilla vs. People

G.R. No. 176102, November 26, 2014
Comment:
It is harsh that the minor in this case was
not qualified to apply for probation and
suspension of his sentence. After all, the
accused minor cannot be deemed to
understand fully the consequences of his
actions since he is not yet mentally mature.
However, as the latin maxim goes, "dura lex
sed lex."-- the law is harsh but it is the law.