MANILA, Philippines — Children are not always assumed to have the ability to make sound judgments in criminal offenses, the Supreme Court (SC) said.
In a decision by the high court released on Wednesday, it said that children with their “malleable and developing minds” do not always discern the acts that they commit.
“We are cognizant, however, that children, with their malleable and developing minds, may not yet have the same level of awareness on the concept of right and wrong,” the 26-page decision read.
In determining the criminal liability of a minor, the SC set the following guidelines:
- Discernment is the capacity of the child at the time of the commission of the offense to understand the difference between right and wrong and the consequences of the wrongful act.
- The task of ascertaining discernment is done preliminarily by a social worker, and finally by the court. The determination shall take into account the ability of a child to understand the moral and psychological components of criminal responsibility and the consequences of the wrongful act; and whether a child can be held responsible for essentially antisocial behavior. The social worker’s assessment is merely evidentiary and is not binding upon the court. Ultimately, the court finally determines discernment, based on its own appreciation of all the facts and circumstances in each case.
- There is no presumption that a minor acts with discernment. The prosecution must specifically prove as a separate circumstance that the alleged crime was committed with discernment. For a minor at such an age to be criminally liable, the prosecution is burdened to prove beyond reasonable doubt, by direct or circumstantial evidence, that he or she acted with discernment.
- In determining discernment, courts shall consider the totality of facts and circumstances in each case, such as: (i) the very appearance, the very attitude, the very comportment and behavior of said minor, not only before and during the commission of the act, but also after and even during trial, (ii) the gruesome nature of the crime, (iii) the minor's cunning and shrewdness, (iv) the utterances of the minor, (v) the minor’s overt acts before, during and after the commission of the crime, (vi) the nature of the weapon used, (vii) the minor’s attempt to silence a witness, and (viii) the disposal of evidence or hiding of the corpus delicti.
The high court stated that the guidelines summarized the carefully constructed rules and principles for handling children in conflict with the law, “taking into account their rights and special circumstances.”
The SC released the guidelines following a 17-year-old nursing student who was convicted of homicide by the regional trial court (RTC) for the death of an individual.
The victim, whom the high court named AAA, was found lying in front of their gate with a bloodied face and eyes.
AAA accused the nursing student, whom the court named CICL XXX, to have struck his eyes. After the incident, the hospital found that AAA had massive cerebral contusions and bleeding in spaces in the brain “which may have been caused by any force or object hard enough to cause damage to the brain.”
AAA was discharged from the hospital in a vegetative state and later passed away on Nov. 26, 2008, after five years of being bedridden.
Due to the victim’s death, the RTC found CICL XXX guilty of homicide on Feb. 28, 2014.
The decision was also affirmed by the Court of Appeals which prompted the nursing student to file a petition before the high court.
The Supreme Court (SC) affirmed the findings of both the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA), asserting that the juvenile in conflict with the law (CICL XXX) exhibited all the essential elements of homicide. This determination considered the "facts and circumstances," including the brutal nature of the assault, the specific time and location chosen, the attempt to silence the victim who had previously served as a witness, and the individual's conduct and educational background.
Consistent with the guidelines, the high court noted that the totality of the facts and circumstances led to the conclusion that CICL XXX acted with discernment.
Affirming the lower court’s decision, CICL XXX is sentenced to six to eight years of imprisonment and was also ordered to pay the heirs of AAA with P504,145.01 for actual damages, P50,000 for civil indemnity and P50,000 as moral damages.