G.R. No. 238798, March 14, 2023.
CICL XXX, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner XXX, a 17-year-old minor, was charged with homicide for an attack occurring on October 28, 2003, which resulted in the death of Augustine Okko, Jr. y Tafaleng. During the pendency of the case, Republic Act No. 9344 (the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act) was enacted, raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility and exempting from criminal liability offenders under 18 years old who acted without discernment. The Regional Trial Court convicted XXX in 2014, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty in 2017, considering his minority. On appeal, the ponencia reversed the lower courts and acquitted XXX, finding the prosecution failed to prove he acted with discernment. The ponencia also ordered the remand of the case to the trial court to determine the civil liability, if any, of XXX’s guardian.

ISSUE

1. Whether the petitioner, a minor at the time of the crime, acted with discernment, thereby incurring criminal liability.
2. Whether the case should be remanded to the trial court for the determination of the civil liability of the petitioner’s guardian.

RULING

Justice Hernando, in his Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, dissented from the ponencia’s acquittal of XXX but concurred with the remand for determination of civil liability.
1. On the criminal aspect, he dissented, submitting that XXX acted with discernment. He argued that discernment, while not presumed, can be inferred from the factual circumstances, including the vicious nature of the 3:00 a.m. attack, the massive and fatal injuries inflicted on the victim, and XXX’s age of 17. He emphasized that the trial and appellate courts’ factual findings and credibility assessments, which concluded XXX was guilty, deserve the highest respect.
2. On the civil aspect, he concurred with the remand but offered a broader view. He agreed that under Article 101 of the Revised Penal Code and Article 2180 of the Civil Code, persons with legal authority over minors who act without discernment may be held civilly liable. However, he highlighted an inconsistency: Republic Act No. 6809 lowered the age of majority to 18, fully emancipating individuals at that age, yet Article 236 of the Family Code (as amended by the same law) and the ruling in Libi v. Intermediate Appellate Court still ascribe vicarious liability to parents and guardians for damages caused by those over 18 but below 21. He submitted that, for harmony, these provisions should be interpreted to cover only children below 18 years, aligning with Article 2180’s reference to “minor children,” and recommended revisiting the Libi doctrine.