SC issues guidelines to determine discernment of children in committing criminal offenses

Children, “with their malleable and developing minds,” are not always presumed they act with discernment in committing criminal offenses, the Supreme Court (SC) said.

Discernment “is the capacity of the child at the time of the commission of the offense to understand the difference between right and wrong and the consequences of the wrongful act,” the SC said.

To determine discernment in criminal offenses involving children in conflict with the law (CICL), the SC issued guidelines:  

“The task of ascertaining discernment is done preliminarily by a social worker, and finally by the court. The determination shall take into account the ability of a child to understand the moral and psychological components of criminal responsibility and the consequences of the wrongful act; and whether a child can be held responsible for essentially antisocial behavior.

“The social worker’s assessment is merely evidentiary and is not binding upon the court. Ultimately, the court finally determines discernment, based on its own appreciation of all the facts and circumstances in each case.

“There is no presumption that a minor acts with discernment. The prosecution must specifically prove as a separate circumstance that the alleged crime was committed with discernment. For a minor at such an age to be criminally liable, the prosecution is burdened to prove beyond reasonable doubt, by direct or circumstantial evidence, that he or she acted with discernment.

“In determining discernment, courts shall consider the totality of facts and circumstances in each case, such as: (i) the very appearance, the very attitude, the very comportment and behavior of said minor, not only before and during the commission of the act, but also after and even during trial, (ii) the gruesome nature of the crime, (iii) the minor's cunning and shrewdness, (iv) the utterances of the minor, (v) the minor’s overt acts before, during and after the commission of the crime, (vi) the nature of the weapon used, (vii) the minor’s attempt to silence a witness, and (viii) the disposal of evidence or hiding of the corpus delicti” (body of the crime or facts constituting or proving the commission of an offense).

The SC said “these guidelines encapsulate the carefully crafted rules and principles in dealing with children in conflict with law, taking into account their rights and special circumstances.”

The guidelines were issued in a full court decision that denied the appeal of the then 17-year-old nursing student who was convicted of homicide by the regional trial court (RTC).  The trial court’s decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA).  The SC decision was written by Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda.

The decision did not identify the real names of the parties.  The convicted minor was named as CICL XXX; the victim, AAA, and AAA’s friend, DDD.

A summary of the decision released by the SC’s Public Information Office (PIO) stated:

“The prosecution established that AAA testified against CICL XXX in 2003 during the hearing of the complaint for physical injuries filed by DDD, AAA’s friend, against CICL XXX before the Punong Barangay. AAA testified that he saw CICL XXX hit DDD with a bucket inside a bar in Baguio City.”

“The next day, AAA’s parents found him lying in front of their gate, his face and eyes bloodied. AAA told them that CICL XXX struck his eyes.

“At the hospital, it was revealed that AAA had massive cerebral contusions and bleeding on spaces in the brain which may have been caused by any force or object hard enough to cause damage to the brain.

“AAA was later discharged from the hospital in a vegetative state. After being bedridden for five years, AAA died on Nov. 26, 2008.

“On Feb. 28, 2014, the RTC found CICL XXX guilty of homicide. His conviction was upheld by the CA, prompting the present petition.

“The SC affirmed the findings of the lower courts that CICL XXX authored the deadly attack against AAA, and that the proximate cause for the latter’s death was the injury caused by CICL XXX. Thus, the elements of homicide were present.

“However, due to the minority of CICL XXX at the time of the commission of the crime, the SC must apply Section 6 of Republic Act No. (RA) 9344, the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, which provides the minimum age of criminal responsibility.

“Under the said provision, a child above 15 years old but below 18 years of age shall be exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to an intervention program, unless he or she acted with discernment, in which case the child shall be subjected to the appropriate proceedings. 
“The SC must thus resolve whether CICL XXX acted with discernment in the commission of the crime. Consistent with the guidelines, the SC held that the totality of the facts and circumstances lead to the conclusion that CICL XXX acted with discernment.

“The SC found that CICL XXX mauled AAA with a blunt object which is hard enough to break a skull or shake a brain. This was supported by the brain injuries suffered by AAA. The location of the wounds and deliberateness of their infliction further demonstrate CICL XXX’s discernment.

“The circumstances also show CICL XXX’s cunning and shrewdness. He perpetrated the attack early in the morning, at around 3:00 a.m., while accompanied by a companion. They waited for AAA to get home and after striking him, they escaped before any witnesses could see them. Further, CICL XXX's attack against the victim can be considered as an attempt to silence the latter or an act of retaliation for testifying against him in a separate mauling incident during the barangay proceedings.

“CICL XXX's own testimony also reveals his awareness that his actions were wrong. He dropped out of school because he was scared after he received a warning that he should watch his back.

“Finally, at or near the time of the incident, CICL XXX was a second-year Nursing student. Thus, his level of education shows that he had the capacity to discern that inflicting bodily harm upon AAA was wrong, and it would likely result in his death.
“Ultimately, a careful consideration of all facts and circumstances, particularly the gruesome nature of the attack, the chosen time and place, the attempt to silence the victim who previously acted as a witness, and his very behavior and level of education, indicates that he acted with discernment. As gleaned from these facts, he committed the crime with an understanding of its depravity and consequences. Thus, CICL XXX is criminally liable for his act.

“On the penalty, the Court cited Section 38 of RA 9344 which allows for the suspension of the sentence of minors notwithstanding said child reaching the age of majority at the time the judgment of conviction was pronounced.

“The SC, however, reiterated its ruling in the 2014 case of Hubilla v. People that the sentence of the offender may only be suspended until he or she is 21 years old in accordance with Section 40 of the law.

“Therefore, this is no longer applicable in CICL XXX’s case. The SC remanded the case to the court of origin for its appropriate action in accordance with Section 51 of RA 9344 and People vs Jacinto providing that a child in conflict with the law may, after conviction and upon order of the court, regardless of the age at the time of the promulgation of the judgment of conviction, be made to serve his or 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 Bureau of Corrections, in coordination with the Department of Social Welfare and Development.”

The dispositive portion of the SC’s decision:

“Accordingly, the Petition is denied. The Court of Appeals’ 29 November 2017 Decision and 19 March 20I8 Resolution in CA-G.R. CR No. 39196 are affirmed. CICL XXX is guilty of the crime of Homicide and is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty 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.

“He is also ordered to pay the heirs of AAA the following: (a) P504,145.01 as actual damages; (b) P50,000 as civil indemnity; and (c) P50,000 moral damages. All damages awarded shall earn a six percent interest per annum from the finality of this Decision until full payment. The case is also remanded to the trial court for its appropriate action in accordance with Section 51 of Republic Act No. 9344. So ordered.”