The Supreme Court has established rules on determining whether to convict minors who commit crimes, as it upheld a decision that found a 17-year-old boy guilty of homicide.

The SC en banc upheld the verdict on XXX, a child in conflict with the law or CCWL, while rejecting the latter’s petition for a review.

In a 26-page ruling published in March 2023 but released only yesterday, the convicted CCWL was sentenced to six months and one year to eight years and one day.

He was also ordered to pay the heirs of the victim, AAA, P504,145, in actual damages, P50,000 as civil indemnity, and P50,000 in moral damages with six-percent interest per annum, computed from the finality of the decision.

“Ultimately, a careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances, particularly the gruesome nature of the attack, the chosen time and place, the attempt to silence the victim who had previously acted as a witness, and his very behavior and level of education, indicate that he acted with discernment,” the SC said.

“As gleaned from these facts, he committed the crime with an understanding of its depravity and consequences. Thus, CICL XXX is criminally liable for his action,” it added.

In 2003, during a hearing on a physical injury complaint brought by AAA’s friend DDD against XXX, AAA testified against XXX, according to the SC.

AAA’s parents discovered him bloodied in his face and eyes, lying in front of their gate the next day. The attack was attributed by AAA to XXX.

At the hospital, AAA was discovered to have severe cerebral contusions and bleeding in several areas of the brain. He was later discharged in a vegetative state.

After being bedridden for five years, AAA passed away in November 2008. XXX was found guilty of homicide by a Regional Trial Court in 2014.

The SC said discernment is the capacity of the child at the time of the crime’s commission to understand the difference between right and wrong and the consequences arising from a wrongful act.

It explained that the task of ascertaining discernment should be done initially by a social worker, and finally by the court. To be taken into consideration is the ability of the child to understand the moral and psychological components of criminal responsibility and the consequences of a wrongful act.

Likewise, whether a child can be held responsible for essentially antisocial behavior should be considered, the SC said. However, it is not binding on the court to consider the social worker’s assessment as it is merely evidentiary.

The SC added that, ultimately, discernment is decided by the court, which bases its decision on its assessment of all the relevant facts and circumstances in each instance.

It is not assumed that a minor behaves sensibly. 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.

Further, the SC added that the courts shall consider the totality of the 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.