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

FACTS

The case involves an appeal from the rulings of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of La Trinidad, Benguet, and the Court of Appeals (CA) which found accused CICL XXX guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Homicide. The prosecution asserted that on October 28, 2003, CICL XXX, then 17 years and 10 months old, caused fatal injuries to the victim, AAA, by hitting his left eye, ear, and head with a blunt instrument, resulting in AAA’s death on November 26, 2008. The Information was filed on March 2, 2004, and trial was held from 2005 to 2013, with the RTC promulgating its judgment of conviction on February 28, 2014. During the pendency of the trial, Republic Act No. 9344 (the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006) took effect on May 20, 2006. Under Section 6 of RA 9344, a child above fifteen but below eighteen years of age is exempt from criminal liability unless found to have acted with discernment. It is settled that RA 9344 applies retroactively to crimes committed prior to its effectivity, including the offense charged against CICL XXX.

ISSUE

Whether the Prosecution was able to discharge its burden to prove beyond reasonable doubt that at the time of the commission of the alleged homicide, CICL XXX was acting with discernment.

RULING

Yes. The Prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that CICL XXX acted with discernment. The records establish that CICL XXX committed acts constituting all elements of homicide: (1) AAA was killed; (2) CICL XXX killed AAA without any justifying circumstance; (3) CICL XXX had the intention to kill, presumed from AAA’s death; and (4) the killing was not attended by any qualifying circumstances of murder, parricide, or infanticide. The testimony of AAA’s mother, BBB, identifying CICL XXX as the assailant, was admissible as part of the res gestae, as AAA made the statement immediately after the incident while injured and under nervous excitement. CICL XXX’s own testimony corroborated BBB’s account, revealing a motive of revenge related to a prior barangay case where AAA testified against him. The intent to kill was proven by the attack on AAA’s head, a vital part of the body, and medical testimony established the fatal nature of the injuries. CICL XXX’s defenses of denial and alibi were weak and could not prevail over positive identification. Regarding discernment, defined as the mental capacity to understand the wrongfulness of an act and appreciate its consequences, the totality of circumstances demonstrated CICL XXX acted with discernment. This includes his age (17 years and 10 months), the calculated motive of revenge, the use of a blunt instrument to attack vital areas, his attempt to conceal the crime by fleeing and not surrendering, and his behavior during trial. The Prosecution thus proved both the elements of homicide and the separate circumstance of discernment beyond reasonable doubt.