NATIONAL
Advocates Philippines
SC Establishes Guidelines For Determining Discernment In Crimes Involving Minors
FILE
In a recent En Banc decision, the Supreme Court has set forth comprehensive guidelines for determining discernment in crimes involving children in conflict with the law (CICL).
The ruling, penned by Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda, emphasizes the need for a standardized process to evaluate a minor's culpability in such cases.
The case in question involved a petition for review on certiorari, challenging the conviction of CICL XXX for homicide by both the Court of Appeals (CA) and the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
The Supreme Court, while affirming the lower courts' findings on the commission of the crime, had to address the issue of discernment due to the perpetrator's minority at the time.
Key Guidelines Established by the Supreme Court:
1. Preliminary Discernment Assessment: Discernment, defined as the capacity of the child to understand right from wrong at the time of the offense, is initially assessed by a social worker.
However, the court makes the final determination, considering moral and psychological components of criminal responsibility.
2. No Presumption of Discernment: There is no presumption that a minor acts with discernment; the prosecution must explicitly prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the alleged crime was committed with discernment.
3. Totality of Facts and Circumstances: In discernment determination, courts consider various factors such as the minor's appearance, attitude, behavior, and overt acts, the nature of the crime, the weapon used, and attempts to silence witnesses.
In the specific case of CICL XXX, who was charged with homicide at the age of 17, the Court found compelling evidence supporting discernment:
- CICL XXX's brutal attack on the victim demonstrated an understanding of the consequences, given the severity of the injuries.
- The cunning and shrewdness displayed in choosing the time and place of the crime pointed to discernment.
- The attempt to silence the victim and the act of retaliation for previous testimony indicated an awareness of the wrongful act.
- CICL XXX's dropout from school due to fear further emphasized his consciousness of wrongdoing.
While acknowledging CICL XXX's criminal liability, the Court cited Republic Act No. 9344, the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, to address the penalty. The sentence was not suspended beyond the age of 21, following the Court's precedent in Hubilla v. People.
The case was remanded to the court of origin, urging appropriate action in accordance with the provisions of RA 9344 and People v. Jacinto, allowing for confinement in specialized facilities supervised by the Bureau of Corrections and the Department of Social Welfare and Development.
The ruling, penned by Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda, emphasizes the need for a standardized process to evaluate a minor's culpability in such cases.
The case in question involved a petition for review on certiorari, challenging the conviction of CICL XXX for homicide by both the Court of Appeals (CA) and the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
The Supreme Court, while affirming the lower courts' findings on the commission of the crime, had to address the issue of discernment due to the perpetrator's minority at the time.
Key Guidelines Established by the Supreme Court:
1. Preliminary Discernment Assessment: Discernment, defined as the capacity of the child to understand right from wrong at the time of the offense, is initially assessed by a social worker.
However, the court makes the final determination, considering moral and psychological components of criminal responsibility.
2. No Presumption of Discernment: There is no presumption that a minor acts with discernment; the prosecution must explicitly prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the alleged crime was committed with discernment.
3. Totality of Facts and Circumstances: In discernment determination, courts consider various factors such as the minor's appearance, attitude, behavior, and overt acts, the nature of the crime, the weapon used, and attempts to silence witnesses.
In the specific case of CICL XXX, who was charged with homicide at the age of 17, the Court found compelling evidence supporting discernment:
- CICL XXX's brutal attack on the victim demonstrated an understanding of the consequences, given the severity of the injuries.
- The cunning and shrewdness displayed in choosing the time and place of the crime pointed to discernment.
- The attempt to silence the victim and the act of retaliation for previous testimony indicated an awareness of the wrongful act.
- CICL XXX's dropout from school due to fear further emphasized his consciousness of wrongdoing.
While acknowledging CICL XXX's criminal liability, the Court cited Republic Act No. 9344, the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, to address the penalty. The sentence was not suspended beyond the age of 21, following the Court's precedent in Hubilla v. People.
The case was remanded to the court of origin, urging appropriate action in accordance with the provisions of RA 9344 and People v. Jacinto, allowing for confinement in specialized facilities supervised by the Bureau of Corrections and the Department of Social Welfare and Development.
Feb 16, 2024
