Scribd
Upload
507 views2 pages

G.R. No. 173876, Valcesar Estioca y Macamay vs. People of The Philippines, January 27,2008

1) Four individuals, including petitioner Valcesar Estioca y Macamay, were charged with robbery for stealing items from a classroom in 2001. 2) The trial court convicted all four and imposed prison sentences, except the sentence for Kevin Boniao (age 14 at the time) was suspended due to his age. 3) Petitioner appealed, while the others did not. The appellate court affirmed the conviction but applied the Juvenille Justice law passed in 2006 to exempt Boniao from criminal liability, though he remained jointly liable for the stolen items' value. 4) The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the appellate court's application of the 2006 law retroactively in Boniao

Uploaded by

Amicus Curiae
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
507 views2 pages

G.R. No. 173876, Valcesar Estioca y Macamay vs. People of The Philippines, January 27,2008

1) Four individuals, including petitioner Valcesar Estioca y Macamay, were charged with robbery for stealing items from a classroom in 2001. 2) The trial court convicted all four and imposed prison sentences, except the sentence for Kevin Boniao (age 14 at the time) was suspended due to his age. 3) Petitioner appealed, while the others did not. The appellate court affirmed the conviction but applied the Juvenille Justice law passed in 2006 to exempt Boniao from criminal liability, though he remained jointly liable for the stolen items' value. 4) The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the appellate court's application of the 2006 law retroactively in Boniao

Uploaded by

Amicus Curiae
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.

173876 June 27, 2008

VALCESAR ESTIOCA y MACAMAY

VS.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

FACTS:

On 31 July 2001, an information was filed before the RTC charging petitioner, Marksale Bacus,
Kevin Boniao, and Emilliano Handoc with robbery, thus:

That on July 28, 2001, at about 8:00 AM, in Ozamiz City, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent of gain, did then and
there helping one another, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously break, destroy and destroyed
the padlock of the main door of the classroom of MS. SELINA M. PANAL and once inside, the
accused took, stole and carried away the following:

A. One (1) Panasonic Colored TV 14 worth P 6,000.00;


B. One (1) Sharp Karaoke Tower Single Player Color Black worth P 6,000.00; and
C. One (1) 3D Rota Aire Stand Fan color brown worth p 3,000.00;

Belonging to the Ozamiz City Central School represented herein by MS. SELINA M.
PANAL, all valued at P 15,000.00, to the damage and prejudice of the said school.

After the trial the RTC rendered a decision on April 5, 2004 convicting petitioner, Bacus, Boniao
and Handoc of robbery under Article 299, subdivision (a), number (2), paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal
Code. The trial court imposed petitioner, Bacus and Handoc an intermediate penalty ranging from 6
years and one day of prision mayor as minimum, and reclusion temporal as maximum. Since boniao is a
minor (14 yrs old) when he participated in the crime he sentenced to a lower prison term of arresto
mayor as minimum and prision correccional as maximum. They were also ordered to pay P15, 000.00 as
civil liability. Nonetheless, the sentence meted out to Boniao was suspended and his commitment to the
Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) was ordered pursuant to Presidential Decree
No. 603.

Unsatisfied, petitioner appealed the RTC Decision and Order before the Court of Appeals.21
Bacus, Boniao and Handoc did not appeal their conviction anymore. On 30 June 2006, the Court of
Appeals promulgated its Decision affirming with modification the RTC Decision and Order. The appellate
court held that Boniao is exempt from criminal liability but his civil liability remains pursuant to Republic
Act No. 9344 otherwise known as The Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006.

ISSUE:

Whether or not RA No. 9344 (The Juvenille Justice and Welfare Act of 2006) should have retroactive
application to Boniao?
RULING:

Although the crime was committed on 28 July 2001 and Republic Act No. 9344 took effect only
on 20 May 2006, the said law should be given retroactive effect in favor of Boniao who was not shown
to be a habitual criminal. This is based on Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code which provides:

(Retroactive effect of penal laws. – Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they
favor the person guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule
5 of Article 62 of this Code, although at the time of the publication of such laws a final sentence
has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same.)

However, as Boniao’s civil liability is not extinguished pursuant to the second paragraph of Section 6,
Republic Act No. 9344, Boniao should be held jointly liable with petitioner, Bacus, and Handoc for the
payment of civil liability in the amount of P15,000.00 representing the stolen items.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision of the Court of
Appeals dated 30 June 2006 in CA-G.R. CR No. 00036 is AFFIRMED in toto.

You might also like