G.R. No. 238798 , March 14, 2023
CICL XXX, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

The case involves CICL XXX, who was 17 years old at the time the alleged homicide was committed in 2003. The majority of the Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision finding him guilty of homicide, holding that he acted with discernment, and sentenced him accordingly. The dissenting opinion argues for his acquittal. The prosecution did not focus on proving discernment during the trial, which lasted from 2005 to 2013. The Regional Trial Court was silent on the issue of discernment. The Court of Appeals inferred discernment from the circumstances that CICL XXX and a companion went to the victim’s house, waited for him, mauled him upon arrival, and left him bleeding. CICL XXX testified he was in a drinking spree before the incident, quit school, and worked as a tour guide after the case was filed. There was no evidence he was armed or aware he delivered a fatal blow, and he did not attempt to flee.

ISSUE

Whether CICL XXX is entitled to exemption from criminal liability under Republic Act No. 9344 (the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006) on the ground that he acted without discernment.

RULING

The dissenting opinion votes to GRANT the petition and acquit CICL XXX. It holds that he is entitled to the retroactive application of R.A. No. 9344 , as he was a minor at the time of the offense and is not a habitual criminal. The prosecution failed to prove that he acted with discernment. Discernment, defined as the mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong, is presumed absent in children in conflict with the law, and the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. The circumstances cited by the Court of Appeals only show intent or criminal design, not discernment. His presence at the crime scene and participation in the mauling are insufficient to establish he fully appreciated the consequences of his actions. His drinking before the incident and life changes after the filing of the case are open to interpretation and not conclusive of moral understanding. The prosecution was “completely oblivious” to the issue of discernment during the lengthy trial. Therefore, the presumption that he acted without discernment stands, exempting him from criminal liability. However, exemption from criminal liability does not preclude civil liability. The civil liability shall be enforced in accordance with existing laws, specifically Article 101 of the Revised Penal Code, which may devolve upon his parents or guardians unless they prove lack of fault or negligence, or otherwise upon his own property. The dissenting opinion suggests the civil aspect can be properly addressed through execution proceedings where these matters can be ventilated.