SC affirms homicide conviction vs. then minor; sets guidelines on discernment

As the Supreme Court affirmed a ruling that found a then 17-year-old boy guilty of homicide, it set guidelines regarding the discernment determination process for children that commit offenses.

In a 26-page decision promulgated in March 2023, the SC En Banc denied the petition for review filed by CICL XXX and affirmed the ruling finding him guilty of homicide for the death of AAA.

He was sentenced to six months and one year to eight years and one day.

XXX was also ordered to pay the heirs of AAA P504,145 as actual damages, P50,000 as civil indemnity, and P50,000 as moral damages with an 6% interest per annum from the finality of the decision.

“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,” the Court said.

“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,” it added.

According to the Court, AAA testified against XXX in 2003 during a hearing for a physical injuries complaint filed by DDD, AAA’s friend, against XXX.

The following day, AAA’s parents found him lying in front of their gate with his face and eyes bloodied. AAA attributed the attack to XXX.

AAA was found with massive cerebral contusions and bleeding on spaces in the brain at the hospital. He was later discharged in a vegetative state.

He passed away in November 2008, after being bedridden for five years.

In 2014, a regional trial court found XXX guilty of homicide. His conviction was later upheld by the Supreme Court.

Guidelines

In dismissing XXX’s petition, the Supreme Court laid down the following guidelines regarding the discernment determination process for children that committed offenses:

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 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.

The court found that XXX attacked AAA with a blunt object, saying that the location of the wound demonstrated XXX’s discernment.

It said that the circumstances also showed XXX’s cunning and shrewdness as the attack took place at 3 a.m. XXX and his companion then left before witnesses could see them.

Further, the Court said that XXX’s own testimony revealed that he was aware 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. To suddenly quit school and flee to his home shows that CICL XXX had full knowledge of the gravity and consequences of his act,” it said.

Aside from this, the court said that XXX was a second-year nursing student and that his education showed that he had the capacity to discern that attacking AAA was wrong and would likely lead to his death.

Meanwhile, the Court remanded the case to the RTC for appropriate action in accordance with Section 51 of Republic Act 9344, which provides that a child in conflict with the law may be made to serve his sentence in an agricultural camp and other training facilities under the Bureau of Corrections. — RSJ, GMA Integrated News