G.R. No. 238798 , March 14, 2023
CICL XXX, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

This case stemmed from an Information charging CICL XXX, then 17 years old, with Homicide. The prosecution alleged that on October 28, 2003, the victim, AAA, was found by his parents with a bloodied face. AAA narrated to his mother that CICL XXX struck his eyes. AAA later died in 2008 due to severe brain damage caused by blunt trauma to the head. CICL XXX denied the charges, claiming he was drinking with friends at the time. The Regional Trial Court convicted CICL XXX of Homicide, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The CA found CICL XXX entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority. CICL XXX appealed to the Supreme Court. The ponencia affirmed the conviction, finding the elements of Homicide present and admitting the victim’s statement to his mother as part of the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule. The ponencia further found that the exempting circumstance of minority was not applicable because CICL XXX acted with discernment, despite the prosecution’s failure to allege discernment in the Information and the trial court’s failure to discuss it.

ISSUE

The primary issue in this Concurring and Dissenting Opinion is whether CICL XXX should be acquitted due to the prosecution’s failure to allege and prove discernment, and the trial court’s failure to actively determine its existence.

RULING

Justice Kho, Jr., in his Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, concurred with the admissibility of the victim’s statement as part of res gestae but dissented from the conviction. He voted to ACQUIT CICL XXX of Homicide. The opinion held that for a child above fifteen but below eighteen years old to be criminally liable under Republic Act No. 9344 (The Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006), the prosecution must allege and prove that the child acted with discernment. The failure to allege discernment in the Information is a fatal defect that cannot be cured by the defense’s failure to object, as it violates the constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. Furthermore, the trial court has a positive duty to determine the presence or absence of discernment, which cannot be satisfied by an appellate court’s review on appeal. Since the prosecution failed to allege discernment in the Information and the trial court failed to make a determination, CICL XXX should be acquitted. The civil liability may be pursued in a separate action.