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

FACTS

This case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals which affirmed the conviction of XXX for homicide. In 2004, XXX was charged with frustrated homicide; after the victim died pending trial, the Information was amended to homicide. The trial court found XXX guilty of homicide despite making no finding as to his discernment and failed to consider that he was only 17 years old at the time of the offense. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty and damages, recognizing the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority and reducing the penalty by one degree. It also ordered the case remanded to the trial court for XXX to serve his sentence in an agricultural camp or training facility under Republic Act No. 9344 . The ponencia upheld XXX’s conviction, concluding he acted with discernment.

ISSUE

Whether the accused, a child in conflict with the law who was 17 years old at the time of the offense, acted with discernment such that he can be held criminally liable for homicide.

RULING

Justice Leonen, in his Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, dissents from the ponencia’s finding of discernment. He agrees that discernment is separate from criminal intent and that a child’s maturity depends on nurture, not just natural progression. He emphasizes that the minimum age of criminal responsibility has a scientific basis due to adolescents’ biological disposition and diminished decision-making capacity. He argues that without proof of discernment, the accused should be rehabilitated and reintegrated as a juvenile delinquent under Republic Act No. 9344 (The Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006), which aligns with international standards like the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. He explains that adolescent brain development, particularly the immature prefrontal cortex and the influence of the amygdala, affects impulse control and risk assessment, supporting the presumption of a child’s lack of discernment. He concludes that imposing an adult penalty reflects a retributive society, whereas focusing on rehabilitation fosters a more humane society. Thus, he dissents from the ruling that XXX acted with discernment.