Criminal liability of a minor (1)

Under our laws, a minor is exempt from criminal liability. This, however, is not a hard-and-fast rule. A minor, despite his age, cannot escape criminal liability if he acted with discernment. All it takes is for the prosecution to prove that the minor indeed acted with an understanding of what he committed.

This discernment vis-à-vis minority is best discussed in CICL XXX v. People of the Philippines (G.R. 238798, 14 March 2023). The Supreme Court’s thorough discussion on the matter is most enlightening.

“However, as noted by the CA, the minority of CICL XXX warrants the retroactive application of RA 9344, as amended, insofar as it is beneficial to him. Section 6 thereof states:

SECTION 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. — A child above 15 years but below 18 years of age shall likewise be exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to an intervention program, unless he/she has acted with discernment; in which case, such child shall be subjected to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act.

Since CICL XXX was 17 years old at the time of the commission of the crime, it is imperative to determine whether he is exempt from any criminal liability. The answer, in turn, hinges on whether CICL XXX acted with discernment in the commission of the acts complained of.

How is discernment determined?

Discernment is defined as 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. To further our understanding of discernment as a legal concept, a review of its jurisprudence and history provides an enlightening discourse.

Among the earliest discussions on discernment is the 1917 case of US v. Maralit. The Court stated that in establishing discernment, it must appear from the evidence that the accused acted with knowledge of the nature of his acts and of the results that would naturally follow.

To establish the fact that a person acted with discernment, it is not necessary for some witness to declare directly and in words that he acted with discernment. It is sufficient that, from the evidence as a whole, it is a necessary inference that he so acted. The trial court may take into consideration all the facts and circumstances presented by the record, together with the appearance of the accused as he stood and testified during trial.

In the 1939 case of People v. Doqueña, the Court restated that discernment was the mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong. Discernment should be determined by taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances accorded by the records in each case, including the appearance, attitude, comportment, and behavior of the minor, not only before and during the commission of the act but also after and even during the trial.

In Guevarra v. Hon. Almodovar, the Court had the opportunity to distinguish discernment from criminal intent. A crime, whether committed by dolo or culpa, requires the distinct element of intelligence. This intelligence necessarily includes the concept of discernment:

[T]he terms “intent” and “discernment” convey two distinct thoughts. While both are products of the mental processes within a person, the former refers to the desire behind one’s act, while the latter relates to the moral significance that the person ascribes to the act.

Hence, a person may not intend to shoot another but may be aware of the consequences of his negligent act that may cause injury to the same person in negligently handling an air rifle.

It is not correct, therefore, to argue, as the petitioner does, that since a minor above nine years of age but below fifteen acted with discernment, then he intended such an act to be done. He may negligently shoot his friend, thus not intending to shoot him, while at the same time recognizing the undesirable result of his negligence.

(To be continued)