In Robert Remiendo y Siblawan v. The People of the Philippines, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the petitioner for two counts of statutory rape, emphasizing that sexual intercourse with a girl below 12 years old constitutes rape. The court reiterated the guidelines for proving the age of the victim, giving primary consideration to the Certificate of Live Birth. Furthermore, the decision clarified the application of Republic Act No. 9344, the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act, particularly regarding discernment and its implications on criminal liability for offenders who were minors at the time of the offense but have reached adulthood by the time of sentencing.

When Discrepancies Arise: How Age is Determined in Statutory Rape Cases

This case revolves around Robert Remiendo’s conviction for statutory rape, a charge stemming from two incidents in 1997 involving AAA, who was allegedly below 12 years old at the time. The prosecution presented two criminal informations against Remiendo, asserting that he had carnal knowledge of AAA in March and May 1997. Remiendo pled not guilty, leading to a joint trial where the Regional Trial Court (RTC) found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision with modifications on the civil liability. The central issue in this case is whether the prosecution sufficiently proved that AAA was indeed below 12 years old at the time of the commission of the crimes and whether Remiendo should benefit from the provisions of the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006.

The determination of age in statutory rape cases is a critical aspect, as it directly influences the culpability of the accused. The Supreme Court, in this case, reiterated the guidelines for proving the age of the victim. The guidelines, as previously established in People v. Pruna, prioritize the Certificate of Live Birth as the best evidence. A Certificate of Live Birth is a public document and is prima facie evidence of the fact of birth. In the absence of a birth certificate, similar authentic documents like baptismal certificates or school records can be considered. If these are unavailable, the testimony of the victim’s mother or a qualified family member is admissible under specific circumstances. Only as a last resort can the complainant’s testimony suffice, provided it is expressly and clearly admitted by the accused.

In the present case, the prosecution offered a certified true copy of AAA’s Certificate of Live Birth, indicating she was born on February 21, 1986, which would make her under 12 years old during the alleged incidents in 1997. However, Remiendo argued that this certificate was not properly admitted by the RTC. The Supreme Court clarified that a certificate of live birth is a public document that does not need authentication and can only be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. Moreover, AAA and her mother both testified to AAA’s birthdate being February 21, 1986. This testimony was not effectively challenged by the defense.

Remiendo also claimed that a school record presented during the trial indicated AAA’s birth date as February 21, 1983. He argued that the prosecution’s agreement to this entry constituted a judicial admission. A judicial admission is a statement made by a party during court proceedings that dispenses with the need for proof regarding the admitted matter. However, the Court clarified that the prosecution only admitted that the school record contained this date, not that it was AAA’s correct birthdate. Therefore, the testimonies of AAA and her mother held greater weight, particularly in conjunction with the birth certificate.

Furthermore, Remiendo challenged AAA’s credibility as a witness, suggesting that her behavior and testimony were inconsistent with that of a rape victim. The Supreme Court emphasized the trial court’s superior position in assessing witness credibility, given its direct observation of their demeanor and testimony. The Court also noted that testimonies of young rape victims deserve full credence. It is unlikely that a young, immature girl would fabricate a story of sexual assault and subject herself to public scrutiny if the allegations were untrue. In this case, AAA’s testimony was consistent with the medical findings of healed lacerations on her hymen, further supporting her credibility.

The case also delves into the application of Republic Act No. 9344, also known as the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006. This law establishes the minimum age of criminal responsibility and provides intervention programs for children in conflict with the law. Remiendo argued that the prosecution failed to prove he acted with discernment at the time of the offenses and should, therefore, be exempt from criminal liability under this law. Under R.A. 9344, a child above 15 but below 18 years of age is exempt from criminal liability unless he/she acted with discernment.

The Supreme Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that discernment, the mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong, was evident in Remiendo’s actions. The prosecution is burdened to prove that the accused acted with discernment. Evidence includes physical appearance, attitude, and deportment before, during, and after the commission of the act, as well as during the trial. Remiendo’s actions, such as threatening AAA during the rape and warning her not to disclose the incidents, demonstrated his awareness of the wrongfulness of his conduct. Since Remiendo was above 15 but under 18 at the time of the rape, and acted with discernment, he was subject to criminal liability.

However, because Remiendo had already reached 21 years of age by the time the trial court imposed his sentence, the benefits of R.A. No. 9344 no longer applied to him. The law specifies that if a child in conflict with the law has reached 18 years of age while under suspended sentence, the court determines whether to discharge the child, order execution of sentence, or extend the suspended sentence until the child reaches the maximum age of 21 years. Remiendo was born on January 21, 1982, and the Joint Judgment was promulgated on October 27, 2004. As he was 22 years old at the time of sentencing, he was no longer considered a child under the provisions of R.A. No. 9344.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld Remiendo’s conviction, underscoring the importance of adhering to established legal standards in proving the age of the victim in statutory rape cases and clarified the applicability of juvenile justice laws concerning discernment and age limitations.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution sufficiently proved that the victim was below 12 years old at the time of the alleged statutory rape and whether the accused should benefit from the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act.
What is the best evidence to prove the age of a rape victim?	The best evidence is an original or certified true copy of the victim’s Certificate of Live Birth. In its absence, other authentic documents like baptismal certificates or school records can be considered.
What is a judicial admission, and how does it apply in this case?	A judicial admission is a statement made by a party during court proceedings that dispenses with the need for proof regarding the admitted matter. In this case, the prosecution’s admission of a date in the school record was not considered an admission of the victim’s actual birthdate.
What is discernment, and why is it important under the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act?	Discernment is the mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong. Under the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act, a minor above 15 but below 18 is exempt from criminal liability unless they acted with discernment.
How did the Court determine whether Remiendo acted with discernment?	The Court considered Remiendo’s actions during the commission of the crime, such as threatening the victim, which demonstrated an understanding of the wrongfulness of his conduct. The totality of the circumstances was considered, not just a single act.
Why was R.A. 9344 not applied to Remiendo’s case?	R.A. 9344 was not applied because Remiendo had already reached 21 years of age at the time of sentencing. The law has specific provisions regarding the age limitations for its application.
What is the significance of the victim’s testimony in this case?	The victim’s testimony was considered credible due to her young age and the consistency of her account with the medical evidence. The Supreme Court gives weight to the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility.
What was the impact of medical evidence?	Medical evidence corroborating the victim’s testimony, specifically the healed lacerations on her hymen, significantly bolstered the prosecution’s case. This evidence supported the claim of sexual assault.

This case serves as a crucial reminder of the stringent requirements for proving statutory rape and the importance of accurately determining the age of the victim. It also clarifies the scope and limitations of the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act, emphasizing that its benefits are not automatically available to offenders who have aged beyond the specified thresholds.

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: ROBERT REMIENDO Y SIBLAWAN, VS. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 184874, October 09, 2009