ASG Law

Tag: Child in Conflict with the Law

  • Youthful Offenders and the Law: Proving Discernment in Criminal Cases

    In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court acquitted CICL XXX, a minor charged with Frustrated Homicide, emphasizing the prosecution’s burden to prove that a minor acted with discernment—understanding the difference between right and wrong—when committing a crime. This decision reinforces the principle that minors between fifteen and eighteen years old are not presumed to act with discernment; this must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution. This case highlights the judiciary’s commitment to protecting the rights of children in conflict with the law (CICL) and ensures that they are not unduly penalized without a clear demonstration of their understanding of their actions.

    When Does Youthful Impulsivity Meet Criminal Intent? The Case of CICL XXX

    This case revolves around an incident that occurred on January 1, 2010, in Quezon City, involving CICL XXX, who was then seventeen years old. CICL XXX, along with Christopher Puyo and Jayjay Narag, was accused of attacking Glenn Redoquerio, resulting in serious injuries. The prosecution argued that CICL XXX acted with intent to kill, pointing to the mauling and the use of a stone to hit Redoquerio on the head. However, the defense countered that CICL XXX was celebrating New Year’s at home and only witnessed the aftermath of a fight between Redoquerio and Narag. The central legal question is whether the prosecution successfully proved that CICL XXX acted with discernment at the time of the alleged crime, considering his age and the legal presumptions surrounding minors in criminal cases.

    The Supreme Court’s analysis hinged on the principle that minors between fifteen and eighteen years old are presumed not to have acted with discernment. Building on this principle, the Court referenced Dorado v. People, stating, “when a minor above fifteen (15) but below eighteen (18) years old is charged with a crime, it cannot be presumed that he or she acted with discernment.” This places a significant burden on the prosecution to demonstrate, through concrete evidence, that the minor understood the moral implications of their actions. The Court emphasized that discernment refers to the mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong.

    The Court further clarified that discernment is distinct from intent. As highlighted in Guevarra v. Almodovar, “[i]ntent refers to the desire of one’s act while the latter relate[s] to the moral significance that person ascribes to the said act.” This distinction is crucial because, even if the prosecution proves intent to commit a harmful act, it must separately establish that the minor understood the wrongfulness of that act. Furthermore, the Court noted that there was no effort to prove that CICL XXX acted with discernment at the time of the commission of the crime. Neither the Regional Trial Court (RTC) nor the Court of Appeals (CA) provided any discussion on this crucial element, leading to a flawed conviction.

    In addition to the failure to prove discernment, the Supreme Court also addressed the lower courts’ conclusion that the crime committed was Frustrated Homicide. To prove Frustrated Homicide, it must be established that the offender performed all acts of execution that would have resulted in the victim’s death, but the death was prevented by causes independent of the perpetrator’s will. The Court noted that the extent of Redoquerio’s injuries was not adequately established. While medical records were presented, there was no expert testimony explaining the medical findings or establishing the severity of the injuries. Consequently, the Court found that it was erroneous to conclude that the injuries were fatal and that Redoquerio would have died without timely medical intervention.

    The Court also clarified that while CICL XXX was acquitted of the criminal charge due to the failure to prove discernment, he remains civilly liable for the injuries sustained by Redoquerio. The Court cited Article 101 of the Revised Penal Code, which stipulates that exemption from criminal liability does not always include exemption from civil liability. In such cases, the civil liability devolves upon those having the minor under their legal authority or control, unless they can prove that there was no fault or negligence on their part. As a result, the Court remanded the civil aspect of the case to the trial court to determine the fault or negligence of CICL XXX’s parents, who are primarily liable for their child’s actions.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that CICL XXX, a minor, acted with discernment when he allegedly committed the crime of Frustrated Homicide. Discernment refers to the minor’s mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong.
    What does it mean to act with discernment? Acting with discernment means that a person understands the moral significance of their actions and can distinguish between right and wrong. For minors, this is a critical factor in determining criminal liability.
    Why is discernment important in cases involving minors? Discernment is important because it addresses the moral culpability of a minor. Minors are not presumed to have the same level of understanding as adults, so their capacity to discern right from wrong must be proven, not assumed.
    What is the difference between intent and discernment? Intent refers to the desire to perform a particular act, while discernment relates to the moral significance one ascribes to that act. A minor may have the intent to commit an act, but still lack the discernment to understand its wrongfulness.
    What was the outcome of the case? The Supreme Court acquitted CICL XXX of the crime of Frustrated Homicide, holding that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted with discernment. However, the civil aspect of the case was remanded to determine the liability of his parents.
    What is the civil liability in this case? Even though CICL XXX was acquitted of the criminal charge, he remains civilly liable for the injuries sustained by the victim. This liability typically falls on the parents or guardians of the minor, unless they can prove they were not negligent.
    What kind of evidence is needed to prove discernment? Evidence of discernment can include utterances of the minor, their overt acts before, during, and after the commission of the crime, the nature of the weapon used, attempts to silence witnesses, or disposal of evidence. The prosecution must demonstrate that the minor knew what they were doing and that it was wrong.
    What is the role of the parents in cases involving minors? The parents are primarily liable for the civil liability arising from the criminal offenses committed by their minor children under their legal authority or control. They can avoid liability only if they prove that they acted with the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent such damages.

    This case underscores the importance of due process and the protection of minors’ rights within the legal system. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the need for prosecutors to diligently prove discernment in cases involving youthful offenders, ensuring that minors are not unjustly penalized without clear evidence of their understanding of the wrongfulness of their actions. The ruling also highlights the ongoing debate on how best to balance accountability and rehabilitation for young people who come into conflict with the law.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: CICL XXX v. People, G.R. No. 237334, August 14, 2019

  • Juvenile Justice: Establishing Discernment in Crimes Committed by Minors

    In Jerwin Dorado v. People, the Supreme Court addressed the criminal liability of minors, emphasizing the necessity of proving discernment—the mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong—in minors aged above fifteen but below eighteen years old at the time of committing a crime. The Court reversed Dorado’s conviction for frustrated murder, highlighting that the prosecution failed to prove he acted with discernment. This ruling reinforces the principles of the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, ensuring that minors are treated in a manner consistent with their age and promoting their reintegration into society, rather than immediate incarceration.

    From ‘Sumpak’ to Social Welfare: Does Age Shield Criminal Intent?

    In 2004, Jerwin Dorado, a 16-year-old, along with his companions, was involved in an altercation that led to Ronald Bonion being shot with a sumpak, resulting in severe injuries. Initially charged with frustrated murder, Dorado was found guilty by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), a decision later affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). Both courts, however, did not fully consider Dorado’s status as a minor and the implications of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9344, also known as the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006. This Act provides special protections and considerations for children in conflict with the law (CICL). The central legal question revolved around whether Dorado’s age at the time of the commission of the crime warranted a different approach under the law, particularly concerning the determination of discernment.

    The Supreme Court, in its review, emphasized that R.A. No. 9344 should be applied retroactively to benefit Dorado, underscoring the principle of favorabilia sunt amplianda adiosa restrigenda, which means that penal laws favorable to the accused should be given retroactive effect. One of the key provisions of R.A. No. 9344 is the increase in the minimum age of criminal responsibility. The law specifies that a child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. Children above fifteen (15) but below eighteen (18) years of age are also exempt unless they acted with discernment.

    SEC. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. — A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. However, the child shall be subjected to an intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of this Act.

    The Court highlighted that neither the RTC nor the CA adequately addressed Dorado’s minority and its effect on his criminal responsibility. This oversight necessitated a closer examination of the requirements for prosecuting a CICL under R.A. No. 9344. The law not only raises the minimum age of criminal responsibility but also provides alternative measures for handling minors who commit offenses, prioritizing rehabilitation and reintegration over punitive measures. For minors above fifteen but below eighteen, discernment becomes a critical factor in determining criminal liability. Specifically, the prosecution must prove that the minor acted with discernment, which means understanding the difference between right and wrong at the time the offense was committed.

    The importance of discernment was further clarified through discussions during Senate deliberations on the bill that became R.A. No. 9344. Senator Pangilinan emphasized that there is no presumption that a minor committing a crime between the ages of fifteen and eighteen acted with discernment. Instead, the prosecution bears the obligation to establish, through competent evidence, that the accused acted with discernment as a separate circumstance. This requirement places a significant burden on the prosecution to demonstrate that the minor not only committed the act but also understood its moral and legal implications.

    Senator Pangilinan: xxx there is no criminal responsibility below 18 and above 15, provided that it can be shown that the individual did not act with discernment.

    The President: So that there is no presumption that if he committed a crime when he is 15 and above, that he has acted with discernment.

    Senator Pangilinan: There is no presumption, Mr. President. It has to be shown that discernment was in fact]..

    Senator Pimentel: Which means, Mr. President, in actual law practice, that the prosecutor is under obligation to establish by competent evidence that this accused who is above 15 but below 18 acted with discernment as a separate circumstance.

    In Dorado’s case, the Supreme Court found that the prosecution had failed to prove discernment. The RTC’s decision merely acknowledged Dorado’s minority as a mitigating circumstance without delving into whether he understood the difference between right and wrong when he shot Ronald Bonion. As the Court stated, the prosecution is burdened to prove that the accused acted with discernment by evidence of physical appearance, attitude, or deportment not only before and during the commission of the act, but also after and during the trial. The surrounding circumstances must demonstrate that the minor knew what he was doing and that it was wrong. Such circumstance includes the gruesome nature of the crime and the minor’s cunning and shrewdness.

    The distinction between intent and discernment is crucial in these cases. Intent refers to the design or determination to do a certain act, while discernment relates to the moral significance a person ascribes to that act. A minor may intend to commit an act but lack the discernment to understand its moral implications. The Court referenced Guevarra v. Almodovar to highlight this distinction, emphasizing that discernment relates to the moral significance a person ascribes to the said act. Hence, a person may not intend to shoot another but may be aware of the consequences of his negligent act which may cause injury to the same person in negligently handling an air rifle.

    Given the lack of evidence proving Dorado acted with discernment, the Supreme Court presumed he acted without it, in accordance with Section 3 of R.A. No. 9344, which mandates liberal construction of the law in favor of the child in conflict with the law. However, this did not absolve Dorado of civil liability arising from his actions. The Court proceeded to determine the appropriate charges and resulting civil liabilities based on the facts presented.

    The Court analyzed the crime committed, considering whether evident premeditation was adequately proven. Evident premeditation requires showing (1) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the accused clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between such determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon the circumstances of his act. The absence of evidence regarding Dorado’s planning and reflection led the Court to conclude that evident premeditation was not established. As such, the crime was reduced from frustrated murder to frustrated homicide, which does not require the element of premeditation but still acknowledges the intent to cause serious harm.

    Consequently, the judgment of conviction for Jerwin Dorado was reversed due to the exempting circumstance of minority. He was referred to the local social welfare and development officer for an appropriate intervention program. The Court also ordered him to pay Ronald Bonion civil indemnity in the amount of P30,000.00 and moral damages in the amount of P30,000.00, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of the judgment until fully paid.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether Jerwin Dorado, a minor at the time of the crime, should be held criminally liable without the prosecution proving he acted with discernment, as required by the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act.
    What is discernment in the context of juvenile justice? Discernment refers to a minor’s mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong at the time of committing an offense. It is a critical factor in determining criminal liability for minors above fifteen but below eighteen years old.
    Why did the Supreme Court reverse Dorado’s conviction? The Court reversed the conviction because the prosecution failed to prove that Dorado acted with discernment when he committed the crime. Without this proof, the law presumes he acted without discernment, exempting him from criminal liability.
    What is the significance of R.A. No. 9344? R.A. No. 9344, the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act, aims to protect children in conflict with the law by raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility and prioritizing rehabilitation and reintegration over punishment.
    What is the difference between intent and discernment? Intent refers to the desire to perform a certain act, while discernment relates to the moral understanding of that act. A minor may intend to commit an act but lack the discernment to understand its moral implications.
    What happens to a minor who is exempt from criminal liability under R.A. No. 9344? A minor exempt from criminal liability is referred to the local social welfare and development officer for an appropriate intervention program, focusing on rehabilitation and reintegration into society.
    What was the original charge against Dorado, and what did it change to? Dorado was originally charged with frustrated murder, but the Supreme Court reduced the charge to frustrated homicide after determining that evident premeditation was not proven.
    Is Dorado completely free of responsibility? No, while Dorado was exempted from criminal liability, he was still held civilly liable and ordered to pay civil indemnity and moral damages to the victim.

    The Jerwin Dorado v. People case underscores the Philippine legal system’s commitment to protecting the rights of children in conflict with the law. By requiring proof of discernment, the Supreme Court ensures that minors are not unduly penalized for actions they may not fully understand. This decision serves as a reminder of the importance of considering age and maturity in criminal proceedings involving juveniles, aligning with international standards on juvenile justice.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Jerwin Dorado v. People, G.R. No. 216671, October 03, 2016