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

FACTS

The petitioner, CICL XXX, was 17 years old at the time of the alleged offense in 2003. The case involves his conviction for homicide by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). The RTC’s Judgment, rendered in 2014, made no mention of the issue of discernment, despite the fact that Republic Act No. 9344, which requires proof of discernment for minors between 15 and 18 years old to be held criminally liable, took effect in 2006 during the pendency of the trial. The CA, on appeal, ruled upon the issue of discernment using evidence already in the record and determined that XXX acted with discernment. The acts constituting the crime included the petitioner attacking the victim, AAA, in the victim’s residence early in the morning, shortly after AAA had testified against him in a barangay hearing. The attack caused severe injuries leading to AAA’s death five years later. After the case was filed, the petitioner quit school and went to Sagada.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction by ruling on the issue of discernment on appeal, despite the trial court’s failure to consider it, and whether there was sufficient proof that the petitioner acted with discernment.

RULING

The Concurring Opinion of Justice Lopez concurs with the ponencia in affirming the conviction. The opinion holds that the acquittal of the petitioner is not warranted simply because the RTC did not mention discernment in its Judgment, as the CA properly ruled on the issue on appeal using evidence on record. The retroactive application of R.A. No. 9344, which is favorable to the accused, is supported by jurisprudence. While the prosecution and trial court may have overlooked the requirement to prove discernment after the law took effect, the CA’s determination based on the record did not violate principles of criminal law and procedure. An appeal in criminal cases opens the entire case for review, allowing the appellate court to examine both questions of law and fact. The due process rights of the accused were not violated, as the defense had the opportunity to adduce and rebut evidence during trial. Based on the totality of facts and circumstances—including the perpetration of the crime in the early morning, the petitioner’s flight to a different province after being tagged as a suspect, the use of force causing severe injury and death, and the sequence of events showing a motive related to prior testimony—there exists sufficient proof on record that the petitioner acted with discernment. Therefore, the petition should be denied, and the conviction for homicide affirmed.