ASG Law

Tag: R.A. 9344

  • 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

  • Age of Criminal Responsibility: Testimonial Evidence and Protecting Juvenile Offenders

    In a case involving Robert Sierra y Caneda, the Supreme Court clarified the importance of age in determining criminal responsibility, especially for minors. The Court held that testimonial evidence can be sufficient to prove a minor’s age in the absence of official documents like birth certificates, and that any doubt about a minor’s age at the time of an offense should be resolved in their favor. This means that if there is no clear evidence to prove that a person was over 15 when a crime was committed, they should be treated as a minor and thus exempt from criminal liability under Republic Act No. 9344, also known as the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006. This ruling emphasizes the law’s commitment to prioritizing the welfare and rehabilitation of juvenile offenders.

    When a Brother’s Age Determines Justice: Navigating R.A. 9344 in a Rape Case

    In 2000, Robert Sierra was accused of raping his sister, AAA. At trial, the key issue was whether Robert was a minor at the time of the alleged crime. Robert and his mother testified that he was 15 years old, a claim the prosecution did not refute with contradictory evidence. The lower courts convicted Robert of qualified rape, but the Court of Appeals affirmed this conviction but modified the penalty, focusing on the lack of a birth certificate to prove his age. The Court of Appeals decision overlooked that the testimony about Robert’s age was not challenged and therefore should have been considered. This case brings into sharp focus how testimonial evidence and the benefit of doubt should be applied when determining the age of an accused under the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act.

    At the heart of this case is the application of Republic Act No. 9344, which aims to protect the rights of children in conflict with the law. Section 6 of R.A. 9344 states that a child 15 years old or younger at the time of the offense is exempt from criminal liability, emphasizing rehabilitation over punishment. The legal framework considers that children under 15 may lack the maturity to fully understand the consequences of their actions. Therefore, the law focuses on intervention programs rather than imprisonment. This approach contrasts sharply with treating juveniles as adults in the criminal justice system.

    The Supreme Court carefully examined the evidence presented in the case, the Court found that the CA overlooked crucial testimonial evidence and misapplied legal principles. Specifically, the Court noted that the Court of Appeals erred in requiring a birth certificate to prove Robert’s age when both he and his mother testified he was 15. The Court also emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was not entitled to the benefits of R.A. 9344.

    “The age of a child may be determined from the child’s birth certificate, baptismal certificate or any other pertinent documents. In the absence of these documents, age may be based on information from the child himself/herself, testimonies of other persons, the physical appearance of the child and other relevant evidence. In case of doubt as to the age of the child, it shall be resolved in his/her favor.” This provision clarifies that testimonial evidence is acceptable in determining age, especially when official documents are unavailable.

    Building on this principle, the Supreme Court pointed out that testimonial evidence is indeed a competent form of evidence to establish minority, as provided by Section 7 of R.A. No. 9344. The Court has held in several cases that if there’s no documentary evidence like a birth certificate, the court can rely on the testimony of the child or other people, and consider their physical appearance. It stressed the importance of resolving any doubt about the child’s age in their favor, in line with the law’s protective stance towards children. Given that Robert and his mother testified to his age, and this was not challenged, the Court ruled that it should have been considered sufficient evidence. As the last paragraph of Section 7 of R.A. No. 9344 provides that any doubt on the age of the child must be resolved in his favor the testimony that the petitioner as 15 years old when the crime took place should be read to mean that he was not more than 15 years old as this is the more favorable reading that R.A. No. 9344 directs.

    The Supreme Court also emphasized the retroactive application of R.A. No. 9344. Even though Robert committed the offense before the law took effect, he could still benefit from its provisions. The Court cited Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code, which states that penal laws should be applied retroactively if they favor the accused, unless they are a habitual criminal. Given that the facts did not characterize the offender as habitual criminal this reinforced the need to apply R.A. 9344 in Robert’s case.

    Regarding civil liability, the Supreme Court ruled that while Robert was exempt from criminal liability due to his age, he remained civilly liable to the victim. After reviewing the evidence, the Court found that the prosecution failed to sufficiently prove the victim’s age at the time of the crime. As such, the Court modified the conviction from qualified rape to simple rape, which consequently affected the amount of damages awarded to the victim, and awarded P50,000 as civil indemnity, P50,000 as moral damages, and P30,000 as exemplary damages.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether Robert Sierra should be exempt from criminal liability under R.A. 9344, which exempts children 15 years old or younger at the time of the offense. This hinged on determining his age when the crime was committed.
    What is Republic Act No. 9344? Republic Act No. 9344, also known as the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, establishes a juvenile justice system that prioritizes rehabilitation over punishment for children in conflict with the law. It also raised the age of criminal responsibility to 15.
    What kind of evidence is admissible to prove the age of a minor under R.A. 9344? According to R.A. 9344, the age of a child can be determined through birth certificates, baptismal certificates, or any other relevant documents. In the absence of these, the child’s testimony, testimonies of others, physical appearance, and other relevant evidence can be considered.
    Who has the burden of proving the age of the accused in cases involving R.A. 9344? While the law presumes minority, the burden of proof is on the defense to show that the offender was 15 years or younger at the time of the crime, especially when claiming exemption from criminal liability. If the defense can establish reasonable doubt of accused age, the law casts burden on the prosecution to provide that the defendant was older than 15 at time of offense.
    Does R.A. 9344 apply retroactively? Yes, R.A. 9344 applies retroactively, benefiting individuals who were below 18 years old at the time of the offense and are serving sentences when the law took effect. The case highlights the law’s mandate to dismiss cases where it’s determined offenders where under 15 at the time offense was committed.
    What is the significance of testimonial evidence in determining the age of a minor? Testimonial evidence is significant because it can serve as valid proof of a minor’s age, especially when documentary evidence is unavailable. In cases where credible testimonies about the age of defendant are unrebutted it may stand to the facts.
    Does exemption from criminal liability under R.A. 9344 also mean exemption from civil liability? No, the Supreme Court clarified that while R.A. 9344 exempts minors from criminal liability, they are still civilly liable for their actions. The extent of civil liability is determined based on the crime they would have been liable for if not exempt.
    What was the final ruling in the Robert Sierra case? The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and dismissed the rape case against Robert Sierra, recognizing his exemption from criminal liability under R.A. 9344. He was referred to local social welfare for appropriate intervention.

    This case highlights the importance of upholding the principles of R.A. 9344, ensuring that the welfare of children in conflict with the law is prioritized. By emphasizing rehabilitation over punishment and giving due weight to all available evidence, the legal system can better serve the best interests of juvenile offenders.

    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: Robert Sierra y Caneda v. People, G.R. No. 182941, July 03, 2009