FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 213153. May 14, 2021.]
GEE-ARH VINCENT BOLA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
[G.R. No. 213460. May 14, 2021.]
REYSON O. ABAGAT, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated May 14, 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 213153 (Gee-Arh Vincent Bola v. People of the Philippines); and G.R. No. 213460 (Reyson O. Abagat v. People of the Philippines). — Before this Court are the consolidated Petitions for Review on Certiorari1 respectively filed by petitioner Gee-Arh Vincent Bola (Bola) in G.R. No. 213153 and petitioner Reyson O. Abagat (Abagat; collectively, petitioners) in G.R. No. 213460. Both petitions assail the Decision 2 dated May 22, 2013 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 33768 which affirmed with modification the Judgment 3 dated June 15, 2010 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iriga City, Branch 34 in Criminal Case No. IR-6815.
Bola and Abagat were charged with murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) together with a certain "John Doe" in an Information dated September 23, 2004. The Information states:
That at or about 7:00 o'clock in the evening of July 19, 2004 at San Juan, Iriga City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another with intent to kill and with treachery, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, maul, and strike with hard wood one LEONARD EXALTACION, thereby inflicting upon him mortal wound which is the direct and immediate cause of his death, to the damage and prejudice of the family of said victim in such amount as may be proven in court.
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
Petitioners pleaded not guilty when they were arraigned on June 20, 2005. Subsequently, respondent filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Information on July 21, 2005. Respondent sought to identify John Doe as Jayson Capistrano (Capistrano) and correct the name of the victim to Leonardo Exaltacion (Exaltacion). 5 The RTC granted the motion on July 26, 2005 and the amended Information was admitted. A warrant of arrest was issued against Capistrano but he remained at large. 6
Respondent presented the following persons as its witnesses: (1) Leo Gorgonia (Gorgonia); (2) Roy Maglaya (Maglaya); (3) Dr. Loreto Leonido (Dr. Leonido); and (4) Jimmy Espallardo (Espallardo). The testimony of Espallardo was stricken off the records due to his failure to re-appear and continue his testimony on cross-examination. 7
Respondent averred that on July 19, 2004, at 7:00 p.m., Gorgonia, Malaya, Espallardo, Exaltacion, and Richard Obiles were whiling away their time at Nida Belmonte's Store in San Juan, Iriga City when petitioners approached them. Bola confronted Exaltacion regarding a previous incident wherein the latter pelted stones at the former. Exaltacion denied pelting stones at Bola or having knowledge of the incident. Bola left first but Abagat subsequently left as well. 8
When Exaltacion and his friends were about to leave the store, petitioners returned with a certain RB. Abagat suddenly punched Gorgonia's back. Espallardo pacified petitioners. 9 Exaltacion ran away but someone struck him down with a piece of wood. When he fell down, petitioners hit him with stones. Espallardo once again interceded and pacified petitioners. After petitioners left the scene, Exaltacion was brought to the Lourdes Hospital where he was unfortunately pronounced dead upon arrival. 10
Dr. Leonida conducted a post-mortem examination on the body of Exaltacion on July 20, 2004 and made the following findings: (1) presence of rigor mortis; (2) lacerated wound, 0.6 inch long, vertical, superficial, medial portion, above eyebrow, left; (3) lacerated wound, 0.4 inch long, slightly oblique, superior extremity towards occiput, inferior extremity towards right ear, parietal region, right, with concomitant fracture of the parietal bone; (4) avulsion, skin, 1 inch diameter, posterior portion, shoulder, right; and (5) abrasion, multilinear, 3 inches by 2 inches, vertical, posterior portion from shoulder to proximal thirds, arm, right. Dr. Leonida testified that the cause of death of Exaltacion was the lacerated wound located on the "superior extremity towards occiput, inferior extremity towards right ear, parietal region, right, with concomitant fracture of the parietal bone." It may have been caused by a blunt instrument such as a piece of wood or stone. Exaltacion suffered cerebral hemorrhage as a result of the injury that led to his death. 11
Respondent dispensed with the testimony of Cyril Magistrado Exaltacion, mother of Exaltacion, after petitioners admitted the amount she claimed by way of expenses resulting from Exaltacion's death. However, petitioners denied that they had any civil liability. 12
Petitioners testified for their defense. They also presented Luz S. Ilos (Ilos) as their witness. Abagat claimed that he was with Espallardo and Deylord at the Capistrano Store in San Jose, Iriga City on July 19, 2004. Espallardo told them that Exaltacion stoned Bola at the school. Suddenly, three unidentified persons arrived and looked for Espallardo. Abagat's companion said that one of these persons pelted Bola with stones and suggested that they retaliate. Abagat's group then left the Capistrano store and went to Belmonte's store. Bola was at Belmonte's store to buy Pop C. Bola asked Exaltacion if he pelted him with a stone. Exaltacion denied doing so or knowing about it. Bola left while Abagat stayed behind. 13
Bola later returned to Belmonte's store. One of Exaltacion's companions said that they should leave because nothing was happening. Irked by the remark, Abagat kicked the person who uttered it. Exaltacion and his companions then ran away towards the crossing. Abagat saw Capistrano hit Exaltacion with a piece of wood. He approached Exaltacion to help him. As for Bola, he merely heard that someone was struck. Thus, he ran towards the victim who turned out to be Exaltacion. Petitioners saw Exaltacion lying on the ground. He was later taken to the hospital. Ilos testified that she did not see petitioners when she approached Exaltacion. Petitioners arrived after her. According to Ilos, Abagat even said that Exaltacion should be brought to the hospital. 14
On June 15, 2010, the RTC promulgated its Judgment 15 and ruled as follows:
WHEREFORE, for all of the foregoing premises, this Court finds accused Reyson C. Abagat and Gee-Arh Vincent Bola y Oronan, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide, there being no sufficient evidence establishing the aggravating circumstances of treachery. The herein accused being entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstanceof minority and by applying the indeterminate sentence law, accused Reyson C. Abagat and Gee-Arh Vincent Bola y Oronan are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of 6 months and 1 day of prision correccional as minimum term to 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor as maximum term.
The accused are further ordered to compensate jointly and severally the heirs of the victim Leonardo Exaltacion the amount of P50,000.00 as actual damages, P50,000.00 as exemplary damages and another P50,000.00 as moral damages, and to pay the cost.
SO ORDERED.16 (Emphasis in the original)
The RTC held that the testimonies of respondent's witnesses established that petitioners took turns in hitting Exaltacion's head using a piece of stone. Though it was not clear when or where Exaltacion was struck down, it can be assumed that it occurred while petitioners were following him. Exaltacion was proclaimed dead on arrival at the hospital. 17
The RTC ruled that the positive identification of petitioners by respondents' witnesses must prevail over petitioners' claim that though they were within the vicinity of the incident, they did not attack Exaltacion. Petitioners did not provide sufficient facts and circumstances to cast doubt on the testimonies of respondent's witnesses and identify who was the real perpetrator of the crime against Exaltacion. Even if it is assumed that it was Capistrano who struck Exaltacion with a piece of wood, the injury resulting from this was not the immediate and proximate cause of his death. As for Ilos, the RTC doubted that she was truly present when the incident occurred. The RTC surmised that she was a rehearsed witness. 18
The RTC held that conspiracy between petitioners was shown through their direct and active participation in assaulting Exaltacion who sustained multiple injuries on different parts of his body. The number of injuries was not made by a single assailant. Further, Capistrano and Abagat pre-positioned themselves while Bola returned to the store so as to prevent Exaltacion from escaping. Petitioners attacked Exaltacion after Capistrano struck him down. Their actions reveal the unity in their purpose and execution. As such, petitioners are equally guilty of the offense. 19
Nonetheless, the RTC ruled that respondent failed to prove the presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on his unsuspecting victim, thereby depriving him of any chance to defend himself and thus, ensuring its commission without risk upon himself. In this case, Exaltacion was aware of an impending attack from petitioners. He and his companions left the store because they felt that there was looming trouble. In addition, the wound sustained by Exaltacion on his left eyebrow indicates that his assailant was facing him when he was attacked. Accordingly, the crime committed by petitioners is not murder but homicide. 20
In light of petitioners' admission that Exaltacion's parents spent ₱50,000.00, though only the amount of ₱18,000.00 was covered by a receipt, the RTC ordered petitioners to compensate the heirs of Exaltacion ₱50,000.00 as actual damages. The RTC also ordered petitioners to pay ₱50,000.00 as exemplary damages pursuant to Article 2230 of the Civil Code. 21 Exaltacion's heirs are likewise entitled to moral damages for undoubtedly suffering emotionally and psychologically due to the tragic and sudden death of Exaltacion. 22
Petitioners appealed to the CA.
The CA rendered its Decision 23 dated May 22, 2013 with the following ruling:
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The appealed Judgment dated June 15, 2010 of the Regional Trial Court of Iriga City, Branch 34, convicting accused-appellants Reyson C. Abagat and Gee-Arh Vincent O. Bola of the crime of HOMICIDE as defined and penalized under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, is hereby is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that, accused-appellants are also ordered to pay the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity in addition to the damages ordered by the trial court to be paid.
SO ORDERED.24 (Emphasis in the original)
The CA held that the testimonies of Gorgonia and Malaya positively identifying petitioners as the ones who attacked Exaltacion with a stone were complete and detailed. These testimonies were sufficient to convict petitioners. 25 Petitioners did not present strong and credible evidence to overcome the testimonies of respondent's witnesses. Petitioners' denial cannot prevail over their positive declarations. 26
The CA found no reason to depart from the finding of the RTC that the testimonies of respondent's witnesses are credible and trustworthy. The RTC was able to hear the witnesses as well as observe their deportment while testifying. The CA thus concluded that respondent was able to prove petitioners' guilt with moral certainty. 27
Pursuant to the Court's ruling in People v. Lucero,28 the CA awarded P75,000.00 as civil indemnity. Apart from this, the CA found no reason to disturb the ruling of the RTC. 29
Petitioners filed their respective motions for reconsideration which were both denied by the CA. 30 Thereafter, they filed petitions for review on certiorari before this Court. Respondent filed its Comment 31 to the petitions to which petitioners filed their replies. 32 On August 20, 2014, the Court resolved to consolidate the petitions. 33 The Court gave due course to the petitions on January 15, 2020 and ordered the parties to file their memoranda. 34 All the parties complied and filed their respective memoranda. 35
Bola argued that the CA overlooked crucial details in the testimonies of respondent's witnesses. 36First, Gorgonia admitted that the place where the incident occurred was dark and without illumination. He and Malaya were also running away at that time with their backs facing Exaltacion. As such, there is a reasonable possibility that they were mistaken in identifying petitioners as the assailants of Exaltacion. Their identification cannot be accorded evidentiary force. 37Second, Gorgonia and Malaya were inconsistent as to how Exaltacion sustained his injuries. Gorgonia claimed that petitioners took turns in hitting the victim while Malaya claimed that it was Bola who struck him on the head twice. Since the testimonies of these key witnesses cannot stand together, it must be concluded that one or both of them are telling a lie. Third, the testimony of Ilos should have been given weight because she is a disinterested and impartial witness. Ilos testified that it was Capistrano who killed Exaltacion. Petitioners were not present when the incident occurred. 38 Considering the foregoing reasons, Bola prayed for his acquittal. 39
Abagat averred that there is a serious misapprehension of facts in this case, thus warranting a reversal of the factual findings of the RTC and the CA. First, respondent's witnesses have conflicting accounts as to Abagat's participation. 40 Gorgonia testified that petitioners took turns in attacking Exaltacion. However, Malaya testified that he did not see Abagat hit Exaltacion with a stone. 41 Malaya's testimony should be given credence over that of Gorgonia's. He was only three meters away from Exaltacion while Gorgonia was four meters away. Given how dark the area was, Malaya had a better view of the incident. Gorgonia may have erroneously perceived that Abagat attacked Exaltacion when he just tried to help him. Gorgonia sought to incriminate Abagat because the latter punched him. 42Second, under the equipoise rule, when the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction. The equipoise rule should be applied in this case because of the conflicting testimonies of Gorgonia and Malaya. 43Third, there was no evidence of conspiracy between petitioners. According to Dr. Leonido, the fatal blow to Exaltacion was when he was struck with a piece of wood or stone. It was Capistrano who struck Exaltacion. Abagat's actions had no relation whatsoever to the act that caused Exaltacion's death. Respondent did not establish community of design or act among petitioners and Capistrano. 44Fourth, Abagat has no civil liability because he is not the cause of Exaltacion's death. Accordingly, Abagat argued that he should be acquitted. 45
First, respondent averred that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The matters being raised by petitioners are questions of fact. 46 They assail the findings on the credibility of respondent's witnesses. However, it is a fundamental rule that the factual findings of the RTC, specifically on the credibility of witnesses, are given respect when no glaring errors, misapprehension of facts, and speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from the findings. The alleged minor inconsistencies in the testimonies of respondent's witnesses do not affect their credibility but even erases doubts that it was rehearsed. 47Second, petitioners did not present supporting evidence for their denial. Their denial cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of respondent's witnesses. 48Third, petitioners are liable for damages because their guilt has been duly established. For these reasons, respondent prayed for the affirmation of the conviction of petitioners and the dismissal of their petitions for lack of merit. 49
The sole issue before this Court is whether the CA erred in upholding the conviction of petitioners for the crime of homicide.
We deny the petitions.
Petitioners were convicted of homicide which is penalized under Article 249 of the RPC. Article 249 provides:
Article 249. Homicide. — Any person who, not falling within the provisions of article 246 shall kill another without the attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated in the next preceding article, shall be deemed guilty of homicide and be punished by reclusion temporal.
The elements of homicide are: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him or her without any justifying circumstance; (3) the accused had the intention to kill, which is presumed; and (4) the killing was not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of murder, or by that of parricide or infanticide. 50
The Court accords great respect to the factual findings of the trial court and its observation on the witnesses, especially when it is affirmed by the CA. Unless there is palpable error or grave abuse of discretion, the Court shall not disturb these findings. 51 The Court sees no reason to depart from the findings of the courts a quo in this case.
The finding of the RTC and the CA that respondent was able to prove all the elements of homicide is well-founded. First, Exaltacion died because of a lacerated wound inflicted on his "superior extremity towards occiput, inferior extremity towards right ear, parietal region, right, with concomitant fracture of the parietal bone." 52Second, Exaltacion's injuries which led to his death were inflicted by petitioners using stones. Petitioners were duly identified by Gorgonia and Malaya as Exaltacion's assailant. Malaya knows Bola because they were classmates during their first year in Rinconada National Technical Vocational School. 53 Gorgonia saw petitioners approach Exaltacion prior to the incident. 54 He was able to identify them when he appeared in court. 55 During the incident, Malaya was only three meters away from Exaltacion while he was being attacked by petitioners 56 while Gorgonia was four meters away. Gorgonia was certain that petitioners were Exaltacion's assailants. 57
Petitioners did not deny that they were present when the incident took place. They claimed that they did not attack Exaltacion. However, it is suspect that petitioners returned to where Exaltacion was after Bola confronted the latter about being allegedly pelted by stones. Abagat's admission that while he was with Exaltacion, he kicked someone simply because that person said that nothing was happening, is likewise noteworthy. 58 These acts of petitioners do not support their claim of innocence. On the contrary, it shows that they had every intention to inflict harm upon Exaltacion.
Third, petitioners' intent to kill is presumed due to Exaltacion's death. 59Fourth, none of the qualifying circumstances of murder are present in this case, namely: (1) with treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity; (2) in consideration of a price, reward or promise; (3) by means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a street car or locomotive, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin; (4) on occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic, or any other public calamity; (5) with evident premeditation; and (6) with cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse. Petitioners were rightfully found guilty of the crime of homicide under Article 249 of the RPC.
The penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal. According to the RTC, petitioners were able to establish their minority as a mitigating circumstance. 60 Respondent did not assail this finding. Pursuant to Article 68 61 of the RPC, the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be imposed, which in this case is prision mayor. Under Act No. 4103, or the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum period that must be imposed is prision correccional or six (6) months and one (1) day. As for the maximum term, it shall be prision mayor or eight (8) years and one (1) day because there are no other circumstances apart from petitioners' minority. Accordingly, the CA correctly affirmed the penalty of 6 months and 1 day of prision correccional as minimum to 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor as maximum imposed by the RTC.
Section 38 of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9344 or the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 provides:
Section 38. Automatic Suspension of Sentence. — Once the child who is under eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the commission of the offense is found guilty of the offense charged, the court shall determine and ascertain any civil liability which may have resulted from the offense committed. However, instead of pronouncing the judgment of conviction, the court shall place the child in conflict with the law under suspended sentence, without need of application: Provided, however, That suspension of sentence shall still be applied even if the juvenile is already eighteen years (18) of age or more at the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt.
The Court clarified in Hubilla v. People of the Philippines62 that the sentence of the offender may only be suspended until he or she is 21 years old in accordance with Section 40 of RA 9344, which states:
Section 40. Return of the Child in Conflict with the Law to Court. — If the court finds that the objective of the disposition measures imposed upon the child in conflict with the law have not been fulfilled, or if the child in conflict with the law has willfully failed to comply with the conditions of his/her disposition or rehabilitation program, the child in conflict with the law shall be brought before the court for execution of judgment.
If said child in conflict with the law has reached eighteen (18) years of age while under suspended sentence, the court shall determine whether to discharge the child in accordance with this Act, to order execution of sentence, or to extend the suspended sentence for a certain specified period or until the child reaches the maximum age of twenty-one (21) years.
Petitioners are not entitled to the suspension of their sentence because they have exceeded the maximum age of 21 years old. Nonetheless, they may serve their sentence in an agricultural camp or other training facilities to be established, maintained, supervised and controlled by the Bureau of Corrections, in coordination with the Department of Social Welfare and Development, in a manner consistent with their best interest pursuant to Section 51 of R.A. 9344. 63 This will be in lieu of service in the regular penal institution. 64 The Court explained in People v. Jacinto65 that in order to give meaning to the legislative intent of R.A. 9344, Section 51 applies regardless of the age of the offender at the time of promulgation of judgment of conviction. 66
With respect to the amounts awarded to the heirs of the victims, these must be modified following the Court's ruling in People v. Jugueta.67 In said case, the Court held that the following are the damages that may be awarded when the crime of homicide is consummated: (1) civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00; and (2) moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00. Temperate damages in the amount of P50,000.00 may likewise be awarded. 68 Therefore, petitioners are liable for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages in the amount of P50,000.00 each.
WHEREFORE, the petitions are DENIED. The Decision dated May 22, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 33768 finding petitioners Gee-Arh Vincent Bola and Reyson O. Abagat GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code and sentencing each of them to a penalty of imprisonment of six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that they are each ORDERED to pay to the heirs of the victims: (1) P50,000.00 as civil indemnity; (2) P50,000.00 as moral damages; and (3) P50,000.00 as temperate damages. The amounts awarded shall be subject to a legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
On account of the minority of petitioners when they came in conflict with the law, they may serve their sentences in an agricultural camp or training facility in accordance with Section 51 of Republic Act No. 9344. This case is REMANDED to the court of origin to effect the imposition of the full service of their sentence in an agricultural camp or other training facility.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
by:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo (G.R. No. 213153), pp. 11-21; rollo (G.R. No. 213460), pp. 13-22.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Normandie B. Pizarro and Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez; id. at 79-89.
3. Penned by Presiding Judge Manuel M. Rosales; id. at 41-55.
4.Id. at 80.
5.Id.
6.Id. at 42.
7.Id.
8.Id. at 81.
9.Id.
10.Id. at 82.
11.Id. at 42-43.
12.Id. at 83.
13.Id. at 83-85.
14.Id.
15.Id. at 41-55.
16.Id. at 54-55.
17.Id. at 47.
18.Id. at 49-51.
19.Id. at 53.
20.Id. at 52.
21. Article 2230. In criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. Such damages are separate and distinct from fines and shall be paid to the offended party.
22.Rollo (G.R. No. 213153), pp. 54-55.
23.Id. at 79-89.
24.Id. at 88-89.
25.Id. at 86.
26.Id. at 87.
27.Id. at 87-88.
28. 651 Phil. 251, 260-261 (2010).
29.Rollo (G.R. No. 213153), p. 88.
30.Id. at 99-100.
31.Id. at 113-120; rollo (G.R. No. 213460), pp. 138-148.
32.Rollo (G.R. No. 213153), pp. 141-145; rollo (G.R. No. 213460), pp. 161-164.
33.Rollo (G.R. No. 213460), p. 10.
34.Rollo (G.R. No. 213153), p. 153.
35.Id. at 165-178, 182-198, 202-212.
36.Id. at 208.
37.Id. at 209.
38.Id. at 210.
39.Id. at 211.
40.Id. at 187.
41.Id. at 189.
42.Id. at 190-191.
43.Id. at 193-194.
44.Id. at 195.
45.Id. at 195-197.
46.Id. at 172.
47.Id. at 172-173.
48.Id. at 174.
49.Id. at 175-176.
50.Yadao v. People, G.R. No. 150917, 534 Phil. 619, 632 (2006)
51.People v. Umapas, 807 Phil. 975, (2017).
52.Rollo, p. 42.
53. TSN dated July 17, 2007, p. 6.
54. TSN dated August 29, 2006, p. 5.
55.Id. at 3.
56. TSN dated July 17, 2007, p. 6.
57. TSN dated April 3, 2007, p. 8.
58. TSN dated June 24, 2008, p. 9.
59. See Barbosa v. People, 814 Phil. 16 (2017).
60.Rollo, p. 55.
61. Article 68. Penalty to be Imposed Upon a Person under Eighteen Years of Age. — When the offender is a minor under eighteen years and his case is one coming under the provisions of the paragraph next to the last of Article 80 of this Code, the following rules shall be observed:
xxx xxx xxx
2. Upon a person over fifteen and under eighteen years of age the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be imposed, but always in the proper period.
62. 748 Phil. 441 (2014).
63. Section 51. Confinement of Convicted Children in Agricultural Camps and other Training Facilities. — A child in conflict with the law may, after conviction and upon order of the court, be made to serve his/her sentence, in lieu of confinement in a regular penal institution, in an agricultural camp and other training facilities that may be established, maintained, supervised and controlled by the BUCOR, in coordination with the DSWD.
64.Supra note 62.
65.People v. Jacinto, 661 Phil. 224 (2011).
66.Id.
67.People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016).
68.Id.