Scribd
Upload
29 views2 pages

Article 12 Par 2-3 - People V Jacinto

The document discusses a court case where a man named Hermie Jacinto was accused of raping a young girl. Key facts are that Jacinto took the girl to an isolated rice field and sexually assaulted her. The court found Jacinto guilty of rape. While Jacinto claimed to be a minor at the time, the court still found him criminally liable because his actions showed discernment and intent to avoid detection.

Uploaded by

Kate Derice Tancinco
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
29 views2 pages

Article 12 Par 2-3 - People V Jacinto

The document discusses a court case where a man named Hermie Jacinto was accused of raping a young girl. Key facts are that Jacinto took the girl to an isolated rice field and sexually assaulted her. The court found Jacinto guilty of rape. While Jacinto claimed to be a minor at the time, the court still found him criminally liable because his actions showed discernment and intent to avoid detection.

Uploaded by

Kate Derice Tancinco
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

G.R. No.

182239               March 16, 2011


PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
HERMIE M. JACINTO, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS: FFF and appellant have been neighbors since they were born. FFF’s
house is along the road. That of appellant lies at the back approximately 80
meters from FFF. To access the road, appellant has to pass by FFF’s house,
the frequency of which the latter describes to be "every minute [and] every
hour." Also, appellant often visits FFF because they were close friends. He
bore no grudge against appellant prior to the incident.
At about past 6 o’clock in the evening of 28 January 2003, FFF sent his
eight-year-old daughter CCC to the store of Rudy Hatague to buy cigarettes.
AAA followed CCC. When CCC returned without AAA, FFF was not alarmed.
He thought she was watching television at the house of her aunt Rita
Lingcay [Rita]. Julito went to the same store at around 6:20 in the evening
to buy a bottle of Tanduay Rum. At the store, he saw appellant place AAA on
his lap. He was wearing sleeveless shirt and a pair of short pants. All of them
left the store at the same time. Julito proceeded to the house of Rita to
watch television, while appellant, who held the hand of AAA, went towards
the direction of the "lower area or place." AAA recalled that appellant was
wearing a chaleko (sando) and a pair of short pants when he held her hand
while on the road near the store. They walked towards the rice field near the
house of spouses Alejandro and Gloria Perocho [the Perochos]. There he
made her lie down on harrowed ground, removed her panty and boxed her
on the chest. Already half-naked from waist down, he mounted her, and,
while her legs were pushed apart, pushed his penis into her vagina and
made a push and pull movement. She felt pain and cried. Afterwards,
appellant left and proceeded to the Perochos. She, in turn, went straight
home crying.

ISSUE: WON accused is guilty of the crime of rape

RULING: YES. Above all, for alibi to prosper, it is necessary that the
corroboration is credible, the same having been offered preferably by
disinterested witnesses. The defense failed thuswise. The defense moved to
reopen trial for reception of newly discovered evidence stating that appellant
was apparently born on 1 March 1985 and that he was only seventeen (17)
years old when the crime was committed on 28 January 2003.
In the determination of the imposable penalty, the Court of Appeals correctly
considered Republic Act No. 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of
2006) despite the commission of the crime three (3) years before it was
enacted on 28 April 2006.

Sec. 6 of Republic Act No. 9344 exempts a child above fifteen (15) years but
below eighteen (18) years of age from criminal liability, unless the child is
found to have acted with discernment, in which case, "the appropriate
proceedings" in accordance with the Act shall be observed.

In the present case, we agree with the Court of Appeals that: "(1) choosing
an isolated and dark place to perpetrate the crime, to prevent detection[;]
and (2) boxing the victim xxx, to weaken her defense" are indicative of then
seventeen (17) year-old appellant’s mental capacity to fully understand the
consequences of his unlawful action.

The case Decision was Affirmed with Modifications with as to penalty


considering RA 9344.

You might also like