Exempting Circumstances

Minority

Republic Act No. 9344

AN ACT ESTABLISHING A COMPREHENSIVE JUVENILE JUSTICE AND
WELFARE SYSTEM, CREATING THE JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE
COUNCIL UNDER THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, APPROPRIATING FUNDS
THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
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.
A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age shall
likewise be exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to an intervention
program, unless he/she has acted with discernment, in which case, such child
shall be subjected to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act.
The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not include
exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced in accordance with existing
laws.
Chapter 3 YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS
Art. 189. Youthful Offender Defined. - A youthful offender is one who is over
nine years but under twenty-one years of age at the time of the commission of
the offense.
A child nine years of age or under at the time of the offense shall be exempt from
criminal liability and shall be committed to the care of his or her father or mother,
or nearest relative or family friend in the discretion of the court and subject to its
supervision. The same shall be done for a child over nine years and under fifteen
years of age at the time of the commission of the offense, unless he acted with
discernment, in which case he shall be proceeded against in accordance with
Article 192.
The provisions of Article 80 of the Revised Penal Code shall be deemed
modified by the provisions of this Chapter.

People vs. Doquena

Nature: Appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan
(convicting Valentin Doquena, 13 yrs, 9 months, and 5 days old, of homicide;
having acted with discernment in committing the said act.)
Facts: Between 1-2 pm of Nov. 19, 1938, Juan Ragojos and Epifanio Rarang
were playing volleyball in the yard of their school in Sual, Pangasinan. Valentin
Doquena, the accused, intercepted the ball, and threw it a Ragojos, who was hit
in the stomach. Miffed, Ragojos chased Doquena, and upon catching him, slapped
Doquena on the nape, and punched him in the face. After doing this, Ragojos
went back to Rarang to resume playing volleyball. Insulted, Doquena looked for
something to throw at Ragojos, finding none, he got his cousin's (Romualdo
Cocal) knife, and confronted Ragojos. Ragojo's denied Doquena's request for a
fight and resumed playing. Doquena stabbed the unaware Ragojos in the chest,
thereby killing the latter. The court held that in committing the act, the accused
acted with discernment and was conscious of the nature and consequences of his
acts, therefore his defense that he was a minor was untenable (given that the
Doquena was a 7th grade pupil, one of the brightest in his class, and was an
officer in the CAT program), and thus convicted him of the crime of homicide. The
court ordered him to be sent to the Training School for Boys until he reaches the
age of majority. Thus, the appeal by the accused, stating that to determine
whether or not there was discernment on the part of the minor, the following
must be taken into consideration:
a)
The facts and circumstances which gave rise to the
act committed.
b)
The state of mind at the time the crime was
committed
c)
The time he had at his disposal
d)
The degree of reasoning of the minor
Issue: WON the accused acted with discernment
Held: Decision affirmed. Yes, the accused acted with discernment. Accused
mistakes the discernment for premeditation, or at least for lack of intention, as a
mitigating circumstance. However, the DISCERNMENT that constitutes an
exception to the exemption from criminal liability of a minor under 15 years but
over nine, who commits an act prohibited by law, is his MENTAL CAPACITY to
understand the difference between right and wrong, and such capacity may be
known and should be determined by taking into consideration all the facts and
circumstances afforded by the records in each case, 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 the trial.

Exempting Circumstances

Minority

POP vs. BINDOY (CASE BRIEF)

G.R. No. 162052
January 13, 2005
ALVIN JOSE vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Facts:
On November 14, 1995, P/Supt Joseph Castro received an information
from an unnamed informant that a big time group of drug pushers from
Greenhills will deliver 100 grams of shabu at Chowking. Acting on such report,
SPO1 Bonifacio Gueverra was assigned to act as a poseur buyer.
They positioned their cars at the parking area where they had a
commanding view of people going in and out. In the afternoon a Toyota Corolla
arrived, Sonny Zarraga was the driver with Alvin Jose. The unnamed informant
approached and talked to Sonny Zarraga. Then, the informant called SPO1
Bonifacio Guevarra and informed the latter that Sonny Zarraga had with him 100
grams of shabu. SPO1 Guevarra offered to buy the shabu. Sonny Zarraga asked
SPO1 Bonifacio Guevarra if he had the money. Guevarra said yes. He showed the
aforecited bundle of "money bills." Sonny Zarraga then asked Alvin Jose to bring
out the shabu and handover to Guevarra. SPO1 Guevarra, in turn, handed the
bundle of "money bills. Then the other police approached and introduced
themselves as Narcom Operatives. They arrested Sonny Zarraga and Alvin Jose.
The RTC finds both the accused Sonny Zarraga and Alvin Jose guilty
beyond reasonable doubt, for violation of R.A. 6425.
On appeal to the CA, the CA rendered judgment affirming the decision
appealed from with modification. The appellate court reduced the penalty
imposed on appellant Alvin Jose, on its finding that he was only thirteen (13)
years old when he committed the crime.
Appellant Jose, now the petitioner, filed his petition for review on
certiorari, alleging that under paragraph 3, Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code,
a minor over nine (9) and under fifteen (15) years of age at the time of the
commission of the crime is exempt from criminal liability.
Issue:

Whether or not Alvin Jose can be exempt from criminal liability under
the mitigating circumstances of minority.
Ruling:

Yes. Under Article 12(3) of the Revised Penal Code, a minor over nine
years of age and under fifteen is exempt from criminal liability if charged with a
felony. The law applies even if such minor is charged with a crime defined and
penalized by a special penal law. In such case, it is the burden of the minor to
prove his age in order for him to be exempt from criminal liability. The reason for

the exemption is that a minor of such age is presumed lacking the mental
element of a crime.
In the present case, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable
doubt that the petitioner, who was thirteen (13) years of age when the crime
charged was committed, acted with discernment relative to the sale of shabu to
the poseur-buyer.
Aside from bringing out and handing over the plastic bag to accused
Zarraga, the petitioner merely sat inside the car and had no other participation
whatsoever in the transaction between the accused Zarraga and the poseurbuyer. There is no evidence that the petitioner knew what was inside the plastic
and soft white paper before and at the time he handed over the same to his
cousin. Indeed, the poseur-buyer did not bother to ask the petitioner his age
because he knew that pushers used young boys in their transactions for illegal
drugs.

Exempting Circumstances

Minority

Llave vs. People, 488 SCRA 376. [G.R. No. 166040] (April 26, 2006)
FACTS: Accused-appellant, a 12 year old boy, raped a minor, 7 years of age. The
trial court found the accused to have acted with discernment based on
the evidence of the prosecution that accused pushed the victim towards
the vacant house and sexually abused her. It also considered petitioners
declaration that he had been a consistent honor student. He was then
found guilty of rape; hence, this appeal.
ISSUE: Whether or not the accused-appellant acted with discernment.
RULING:
Yes. He acted with discernment. The Court ruled that
discernment means the capacity of the child at the time of the
commission of the offense to understand the differences between right
and wrong and the consequences of the wrongful act. 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.
In the instant case, petitioners actuations during and after the
rape incident, as well as his behavior during the trial showed that he
acted with discernment. The fact appears undisputed that immediately

after being discovered by the prosecutions witness, petitioner

immediately stood up and ran away. Thereafter, when his parents
became aware of the charges against him and that private complainants
father was looking for him, petitioner went into hiding. His flight as well
as his act of going into hiding clearly conveys the idea that he was fully
aware of the moral depravity of his act and that he knew he committed
something wrong. Otherwise, if he was indeed innocent or if he was not
least aware of the moral consequences of his acts, he would have
immediately confronted private complainant and her parents and denied
having sexually abused their daughter. The fact that petitioner was a
recipient of several academic awards and was an honor student further
reinforces the finding that he was possessed of intelligence well beyond
his years and thus was able to distinguish, better than other minors of
his age could, which conduct is right and which is morally reprehensible.