G.R. No. 184874 ; October 9, 2009
ROBERT REMIENDO y SIBLAWAN, Petitioner, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Robert Remiendo was charged with two counts of statutory rape for allegedly having carnal knowledge of AAA, a girl below twelve years of age, in March and May 1997. The prosecution established that AAA was born on February 16, 1986, making her eleven years old at the time of the incidents. AAA testified to the sexual assaults, detailing how Remiendo threatened her. Her testimony was corroborated by the medico-legal findings of Dr. Ronald Bandonill, who confirmed old hymenal lacerations consistent with penetration. A psychiatric evaluation also revealed AAA suffered from psychosis and organicity due to a prior accident but affirmed she was conscious and capable of recalling the events.
The defense interposed denial and alibi. The Regional Trial Court convicted Remiendo of two counts of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua for each count. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Remiendo then filed this petition, arguing the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and contesting AAA’s credibility due to her mental condition. He also invoked Republic Act No. 9344 , the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, seeking its beneficial application.

ISSUE

The core issues were: (1) whether the prosecution proved Remiendo’s guilt for statutory rape beyond reasonable doubt; and (2) whether R.A. No. 9344 applies to suspend his sentence.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. On the first issue, the Court upheld the findings of the lower courts. The crime of statutory rape is consummated by proof of carnal knowledge with a girl below twelve years of age, irrespective of her consent. AAA’s categorical testimony, corroborated by the medico-legal certificate confirming healed hymenal lacerations, constituted sufficient proof. The Court found no reason to deviate from the trial court’s assessment of AAA’s credibility, noting that her mental condition did not impair her ability to narrate the traumatic events coherently. Her psychosis, per the psychiatrist’s testimony, did not affect her consciousness during the incidents, as she could recall specific details.
On the second issue, the Court ruled R.A. No. 9344 inapplicable. The law provides for a suspended sentence and rehabilitation for a “child in conflict with the law,” defined as a person below eighteen years of age at the time of the offense. However, the law also explicitly states that its benefits extend only to those who are under eighteen years of age at the time of the appreciation of the suspended sentence. Records showed Remiendo was born on January 21, 1982. The trial court promulgated its judgment convicting him on October 27, 2004, at which time he was already twenty-two years old. Consequently, he was no longer a “child” entitled to a suspended sentence under the law at the time of its application. The denial of the petition was therefore final.