In People of the Philippines vs. Bernardo Cortezano and Joel Cortezano, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of two individuals for four counts of rape. Despite being minors at the time of the offense, the Court found that they acted with discernment, understanding the difference between right and wrong, thus making them criminally liable. This case underscores that perpetrators of heinous crimes cannot escape accountability merely based on their age, emphasizing the importance of discernment in determining criminal liability for minors.

When Trust Betrays: The Dark Side of Familial Abuse and Justice

This case unfolds in Barangay Azucena, Camarines Sur, where AAA, a young girl, became a victim of repeated sexual abuse by her uncles, Bernardo and Joel Cortezano. The incidents, occurring in 1990 when AAA was just seven years old and her uncles were minors themselves, reveal a shocking betrayal of trust within a family setting. This breach of familial sanctity raises profound legal and ethical questions about the accountability of young offenders and the justice system’s response to heinous crimes against children.

The series of appalling events began in May 1990, while AAA was staying with her grandparents. Joel and Bernardo Cortezano, exploiting their niece’s vulnerability, committed multiple acts of rape. The prosecution presented a compelling case, detailing the physical and emotional trauma inflicted upon AAA. She recounted the horrific experiences of being forced into a room, overpowered, and subjected to sexual assault, while the appellants threatened her into silence. Adding to the gravity, the medical examination report confirmed physical evidence of the abuse, corroborating AAA’s testimony and lending further credence to her claims. The emotional toll on AAA was palpable in court, as she broke down in tears while reliving the events.

The defense, predictably, hinged on alibi and denial. Bernardo claimed he was away working, while Joel asserted he was in Manila seeking medical treatment. However, the prosecution dismantled their defenses by providing substantial evidence undermining their claims. Records from the Philippine General Hospital contradicted Joel’s assertion of confinement. Witnesses were produced with certified documentation proving the impossibility of him being at the hospital during the alleged confinement date, clearly showing that he consulted on an outpatient basis only on specified dates and had never been admitted in 1990. This evidence, combined with the implausibility of the defense, reinforced the prosecution’s case.

The core legal challenge was determining the criminal liability of the Cortezanos, given their status as minors at the time of the offenses. Under Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code, minors under 15 are generally exempt from criminal liability unless they acted with discernment. The Supreme Court applied the standard set forth in Valentin v. Duqueña, where the term discernment is defined as “mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong.” Here, the actions and behavior of Joel and Bernardo pointed toward that the duo had the mental capacity to differentiate what is morally upright versus morally repugnant. This included their premeditation in coercing the victim and employing lookouts to ensure their actions went undetected.

The Supreme Court concluded that both Bernardo and Joel acted with discernment. This conclusion stemmed from the strategic planning, threat, intimidation, use of saliva, and subsequent cover-up, which suggested a clear understanding of their actions’ wrongful nature. Because of that, they became criminally liable in spite of being minors.

Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code states that the penalty for rape committed by two or more persons is reclusion perpetua to death. However, due to their minority, Article 68(1) of the Revised Penal Code mitigated their sentences to an indeterminate prison term of 9 years and 1 day to 12 years.

The Supreme Court decision underscores the need for stringent legal consequences when minors commit grave offenses with full comprehension of their criminality. The justices emphasized that family ties could not be wielded as shields against justice, stating that the accused’s crimes harmed AAA, both physically and mentally, and thereby disrupting her life and future. The court sentenced them to an indeterminate prison term, in addition to ordering each of them to pay AAA moral damages, exemplary damages, and civil indemnity. This part of the Supreme Court’s ruling sends a resolute signal that exploitation and abuse, irrespective of familial connections, will be treated seriously and met with commensurate penal remedies.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the minor offenders, Joel and Bernardo Cortezano, could be held criminally liable for rape, given their age at the time of the crime. The court needed to determine if they acted with discernment.
What does “acting with discernment” mean in this context?	“Acting with discernment” refers to the mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong. The prosecution had to prove that the minors understood that their actions were morally and legally wrong.
How did the Court determine that the minors acted with discernment?	The Court considered several factors, including planning, use of threat, intimidation, the presence of lookouts, efforts to cover up the crime and the level of threats made against the minor-victim in case she divulged anything. These actions indicated they understood the wrongfulness of their behavior.
What was the significance of the medical examination in the case?	The medical examination report, confirming healed lacerations, corroborated AAA’s testimony and served as critical evidence that a sexual act had occurred. That the examination also showed resistance to a manual exam of the genitalia proved that she must have been forced.
What was the appellants’ defense in this case?	The appellants used the alibi of not being at the grandparents’ house during the period of sexual abuse in their attempt to escape the criminal liability of their abusive and morally repugnant behavior.
What was the original penalty for rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code?	The original penalty for rape committed by two or more persons under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code was reclusion perpetua to death.
How did the Court modify the sentence given the appellants were minors?	Because the appellants are minors, the sentence was modified to two degrees lower under Article 68(1) of the Revised Penal Code. Thus, the original penalty of death was downgraded and commuted to imprisonment.
What civil liabilities were imposed on the appellants?	The appellants were ordered to pay the victim moral damages of Php 50,000, exemplary damages of Php 25,000 and civil indemnity of Php 50,000 for the repeated rape for both the crimes described in Criminal Cases Nos. L-1679 and L-1680.

In conclusion, this case serves as a sobering reminder that while the law provides special consideration for minors, it does not offer them absolute immunity, especially when they act with the full understanding of their crimes. It emphasizes the justice system’s commitment to safeguarding vulnerable populations, no matter how close to them their perpetrators may be.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: People vs. Cortezano, G.R. No. 123140, September 23, 2003