republicofthephilippines sandiganbayan...

REPUBLICOF THE PHILIPPINESSANDIGANBAYAN

QUEZONCITY

PEOPLE OF THEPHILIPPINES,

Criminal Case No. SB-17-CRM-1386For: Violation of Section 3 (e), of

.Republic Act No. 3019

EXEQUIEL B. JAVIER, et al.,Accused.

CABOTAJE-TANG, P.J.,Chairperson,FERNANDEZ, S.J., J. andFERNANDEZ, B., J.

For resolution is accused Erika C. Orcasitas'. ((Motion toQuash Information for the Accused Minor" dated July 26, 2017.1

Accused-movant Orcasitas invokes the defense of minorityin her bid to dismiss the present case against her.

She claims that she was only sixteen (16) years old at the~me of the approval of the Sangguniang Sayan ReS01UtiO~

pp. 445-456, Record

ResolutionCriminal Case No. SB-17-CRM-1386People vs. Javier, et al.

007-2008 on January 22, 2008.2 Allegedly, she acted withoutdiscernment or knowledge of the legal technicalities and a fullapprehension of the possible legal consequences when shevoted in favor of the above-mentioned resolution. 3

According to the accused-movant, a child/minor enjoys thepresumption of lack of discernment; hence, it is theprosecution's duty to prove that she acted with discernment, afact which it failed to establish.4

Lastly, accused-movant Orcasitas avers that this Courtdoes not have jurisdiction to hear and decide the case againsther.S She argues that Section 5 of Republic Act (R.A.)No. 8369,otherwise known as the ((Family Courts Act of 1997," providesthat the Family Courts shall have exclusive original jurisdictionto hear and decide criminal cases where one or more of theaccused is below eighteen (18) years of age but not less thannine (9) years of age.6

In its Comment dated August 8, 2017,7 the prosecutioncontends that (1) the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over thecase against accused-movant Orcasitas, and (2) the regularrules of criminal procedure apply to the said accused-movant.In support of the aforesaid arguments, the prosecution invokesSection 4 (k) of R.A No. 9344 and Section 1 of A.M. No. 02-01-18-SC, thus:

(k) "Initial Contact With the Child" refers to theapprehension or taking into custody of a child inconflict with the law by law enforcement officers or

, private citizens. It includes the time when the7lchild

p. 446, Record3 p. 449, Record4 P. 450, Record5 p. 450, Record6 p. 450, Record7 pp. 458-466, Record


alleged to be in conflict with the law receives asubpoena under Section 3(b) of Rule 112 of theRevised Rules of Criminal Procedure or summonsunder Section 6(a) or Section 9(b)of the same Rule incases that do not require preliminary investigationor where there is no necessity to place the childalleged to be in conflict with the law underimmediate custody.8

Section 1. Applicability afthe Rule.- This Rule shall applyto all criminal cases involving children in conflict withthe law.

A child in conflict with the law is a person who atthe time of the commission of the offense is beloweighteen (18) years old but not less than fifteen (15)years and one (1)day old.

This Rule shall not apply to a person who atthe time of the initial contact as defined in Sec. 4(q)9 of this Rule shall have reached the age ofeighteen (18) in which case, the regular rules oncriminal procedure shall apply without prejudice tothe rights granted under Sees. 53, 54, 55 and 56 ofthis Rule.lO

The prosecution avers that there was ('initial contact" withaccused-movant Orcasitas when she received a copy of theOrder of the Office of the Ombudsman on December 23, 2013,directing her to file her counter-affidavit. Thus, the regular rulesof criminal procedure shall apply to her because she wasalready twenty-one (21) years old when she received a copy ofthe said order and twenty-five (25) years old at the time theInformation in the present case was filed~

8 p. 459-460, Record; Emphasis supplied by the prosecution

9 Footnote omitted ~10 p. 460, Record; Emphasis supplied by the prosecution11 p. 461, Record


Moreover, the prosecution argues that pursuant toPresidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1606, R.A. No. 8249 and R.A. No.10660, the Sandiganbayan has exclusive original jurisdiction incases involving violations of R.A. No. 3019, where one or moreof the accused are. officials occupying positions in thegovernment, whether in a permanent, acting or interimcapacity, at the time of the commission of the offense;12accused-movant Orcasitas' invocation of ((minority" as one of theexempting circumstance under Article 12 of the Revised PenalCode (RPC), is a matter of defense and the same must be provedby the accused-movant during trial; and, it is not bound toallege that the same accused-movant acted with discernment inthe Information because the fact of "minority" and "having actedwith discernment" are not part of the elements of the crimecharged. 13

1. The Information mustallege accused-movantOrcasitas' minorityand that she actedwith discernment atthe time material tothis case.

The Court rejects the prosecution's theory that it is notbound to allege in the Information that accused-movantOrcasitas acted with discernment because the fact of «min~

12 p. 461, Record13 p. 440-441, Record

ResolutionCriminal Case No. 8B-17 -CRM-1386People vs. Javier, et ai.

and "having acted with discernment" are not part of theelements of the crime charged.

In Malta v. People,14 the Supreme Court clarified that achild above fifteen (15) but below eighteen (18) years of age ispresumed not to have acted with discernment and will becriminally liable only upon rebuttal of that presumption byproof that he or she acted with discernment. IS

Notably, the prosecution does not appear to contest theage of accused-movant Orcasitas at the time material to thecase; hence, the Court is of the view that the prosecution isbound to sufficiently allege in the subject Information thataccused-movant Orcasitas was a minor, above fifteen (15) butbelow eighteen (18) years of age, and acted with discernmentwhen the alleged offense was purportedly perpetrated by thesaid accused-movant and her co-accused.

IL The Sandiganbayanhas jurisdiction overthe present caseagainst accused-movant Orcasitas.

On the issue of jurisdiction, accused-movant Orcasitasinvokes Section 5 of R.A. No. 8369, otherwise known as "TheFamily Courts Act of 1997." This provision declares that FamilyCourts shall have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear anddecide criminal cases where one or more of the accused is beloweighteen (18)years of age but not less than nine (9)years of ageor where one or more of the victims is a minor at the time of thecommission of the offense.16 She argues that because she wasonly sixteen (16) years old at the time of the approval of

/l14533 SCRA643 (2007)15 p. 662, Malta v. People, 533 SCRA643 (2007)16 p. 450, Record

ResolutionCriminal Case No. SB-17-CRM-1386People vs. Javier, et ai.

Resolution No. 007-2008, exclusive original jurisdiction over thepresent case against her is vested on the Family Courts and notthe Sandiganbayan.17

Section 1 of A.M. No. 02-1-18) promulgated by theSupreme Court on November24,2009, provides:

Section 1. Applicability of the Rule. - This Ruleshall apply to all criminal cases involving children inconflict with law.

A child in conflict with the law is a person who atthe time of the commission of the offense is beloweighteen (18) years old but not less than fifteen (15)years and one (1) day old.

This Rule shall not apply to a person who atthe time of the initial contact as defined in Sec. 4(q) of this Rule shall have reached the age ofeighteen (18) in which case, the regular rules oncriminal procedure shall apply without prejudice tothe rights granted under Secs. 53, 54, 55 and 56 ofthis Rule.18

The term ((initial contact" is defined under Section 4 (q) ofthe same rule, to wit:

(q) Initial contact refers to apprehension or takinginto custody of a child in conflict with the law by lawenforcement officers or private citizens. It includes thetime the child alleged to be in conflict with the lawreceives a subpoena under Section 3 (b) of Rule 112

17 p. 450, Record18 Emphasis supplied


summons under Section 6 (a) or Section 9(b) of thesame Rule in cases that do not require preliminaryinvestigation, or where there is no necessity to place thechild alleged to be in conflict with the law underimmediate custody. 19

Areview of the factual antecedents of this case reveals thataccused-movant Orcasitas received a copy of the order of theOffice of the Ombudsman requiring her to file her counter-affidavit on December 23, 2013.20 Thereafter, she executed hercounter-affidavit on January 13, 2014.21 Applying the afore-cited rules) the Court holds that the ((initial contact" withaccused-movant Orcasitas occurred on December 23, 2013, orupon her receipt of the copy of the order of the Office of theOmbudsman; hence, the provisions of the Juvenile Justice andWelfare Act of 2006 are inapplicable to her because at that time,she was already twenty-one (21) years old. Therefore, theregular rules of criminal procedure should be applied.

Moreover, Section 2 of R.A. No. 10660 provides that theSandiganbayan has exclusive original jurisdiction overviolations of R.A. No. 3019, where one or more of the accusedare those officials enumerated therein, whether acting in apermanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of thecommission of the offense.

A plain reading of the Information in this case shows thataccused-movant Orcasitas is charged to have acted inconspiracy with certain government officials falling under theexclusive original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan to commit aviolation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019. Thus, theseallegations are enough to vest jurisdiction on this Court overthe case against accused-movant orcasita~

19 Emphasis supplied20 p. 466, Record21 pp. 184-189, Record


111. Accused-movantOrcasitas' claim ofexemption fromcriminal liability isnot proper forconsideration at thistime.

Lastly, accused-movant Orcasitas submits that she isexempted from criminal liability on the ground that she wasonly sixteen (16) years old when she affixed her signature onResolution No. 007-2008.22 According to her, under the JuvenileJustice and Welfare Act of 2006, a child/minor enjoys thepresumption of lack of discernment, a presumption which theprosecution miserably failed to overcome.23

In Llave v. People,24 the Supreme Court, citing the case ofPeople v. Doquena,25 ruled that the determination on thepresence or absence of discernment of an accused-minor shouldbe made by considering the records of the case, the appearanceof the accused-minor, his/her attitude, behavior and conduct,not only before and during the commission of the offense, butalso during and even after the trial, thus:

Hence, in judging whether a minor accused actedwith discernment, his mental capacity to understandthe difference between right and wrong, which may beknown and should be determined by considering all thecircumstances disclosed by the record of the case, hisappearance, his attitude and his behavior and conduct,not only before and during the commission of the/?22 p. 446, Record

23 p. 447, Record24488 SeRA 376 (2006)2568 Phil. 580 (1939)

ResolutionCriminal Case No. SB-l7-CRM-1386People vs. Javier, et ai.

act, but also after and even during the trial shouldbe taken into consideration.26

Plainly, the determination of whether or not accused-movant Orcasitas, who was a minor at the time material to thecase, acted with or without discernment is premature at thistime. Such determination can only be made after trial.

WHEREFORE, accused Erika C. Orcasitas's ((Motion toQuash Information for the Accused Minor" dated July 26, 2017,is DENIED for lack of merit.

Moreover, the prosecution is hereby ordered to amend theInformation in this case pursuant to the disquisition herein.

~TO R. FElRNANDEZ

s ociate JusticeJANE T. F NANDEZ

Associate Justice

republicofthephilippines sandiganbayan...

Documents