The two minors planned the gun attack in Tacloban City school more than a month before the opening of the classes, a police official revealed amid the ongoing investigation to determine the motive behind the rare school shooting in the country.

And what surprised the police investigators was that the two shooters, aged 14 and 15, appeared to have discussed the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act in one of their reported  conversations during the planning stage.

Three people died as a result of the gun attack at the San Jose National High School in Tacloban City while 20 others were injured, 15 of them were wounded during the shooting rampage, according to Police Brig. Gen. Jason Capoy, director of the Police Regional Office 8.

“Based on the information, as early as May 1,” Capoy told reporters when asked if the two students planned the gun attack.

“What’s disturbing in their exchange of messages was that they appeared to have read it, they studied it,” the police official said, referring to the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, or the Republic Act No. 9344.

The law focuses on the handling of minors who violated the law, which focuses on restorative justice and rehabilitation.

And the way police investigators understand it based on the exchanges of messages, the two shooters appeared to have been convinced that they would not go to jail if they carry out the gun attack because they are minors.

What the law says

Under Chapter 2 Section 6 of RA 9344, “A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability.”

This was reinforced by the Section 64 of Transitory Provision of the same law which reads, “Upon effectivity of this Act, cases of children fifteen (15) years old and below at the time of the commission of the crime shall immediately be dismissed and the child shall be referred to the appropriate local social welfare and development officer.”

But according to Capoy, the local government unit has already issued a message that justice will be pursued based on the law.

Capoy may have been referring to a legal strategy that focuses on the minors acting with discernment, or if the minors are aware that what they would do is wrong and are aware of the consequences of violating the law.

The SC guideline

In 2024, the Supreme Court issued a guideline in determining the discernment in crimes involving Children in Conflict With the Law,--which stemmed from the High Court’s decision to affirm the conviction of a minor, aged, 17, in a homicide case.

In a statement published on February 14, 2024, the Supreme Court laid down the following guidelines:

1. 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;

2. 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;

3. 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;

4. 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.

In short, prosecution lawyers will be in charge of the task of convincing the court that the two shooters acted with discernment when they engaged in a shooting rampage.

Random shooting?

Capoy said the initial investigation revealed that the 15-year old shooter appeared to have been looking for the bully.

“They were not able to locate the alleged target so what they did was that they made a tactical movement at the stretch of the whole corridor and engaged in shooting,” said Capoy.

Based on the initial investigation, the 40 bullet casings recovered from the crime scene all came from the 9mm pistol which turned out to be owned by a female police staff sergeant who was established to be the aunt of one of the shooters.

While the .38 revolver was used, Capoy said it was only used once and police recovered five bullets inside.

The revolver, while registered to a security agency in Cebu City, has been in possession of the grandfather of the other shooter who used to work as a security guard.