In People v. ZZZ, the Court emphasized that discernment refers to the mental capacity of a minor to fully appreciate the consequences of his or her unlawful act. Discernment is determined by considering all the facts of each case.

On the basis of the foregoing, the Court has consistently held for more than a hundred years that, in determining discernment, courts shall consider the totality of facts and circumstances in each case.

Further, discernment may be established by either direct or circumstantial evidence. These circumstances include, but are not limited to: (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) his overt acts before, during, and after the commission of the crime; (vi) the nature of the weapon used; (vii) his attempt to silence a witness; and (viii) his disposal of evidence or his hiding of the corpus delicti.

The totality of the facts and circumstances of this case lead to the conclusion that CICL (children in conflict with the law) XXX acted with discernment in the commission of the crime. CICL XXX was aware that his actions were wrong and would likely result in the death of AAA.

First, the gruesome nature of the attack committed against the victim indicates discernment on the part of CICL XXX.

To recall, on 28 October 2003, at around 3 a.m., AAA’s mother heard someone shouting, “Mama! Mama!” She and her husband immediately went outside their house and saw the victim lying in front of their gate, with his face and eyes bloodied. AAA related to his parents that CICL XXX, together with a companion, was at their house. It was CICL XXX who struck him in the eyes. After narrating the incident, AAA fell asleep.

The next day, AAA complained of dizziness, and one of his eyes was popping out. At the hospital, his CT scan showed severe brain damage. The victim also became blind in one eye, with several abrasions on the head, face and shoulders. Based on the CT scan, AAA had massive cerebral contusions and bleeding in spaces in the brain, which may have been caused by a force or object hard enough to cause damage to the brain. A few days later, he could no longer speak. On 26 January 2004, he was discharged from the hospital in a vegetative state. After being bedridden for five years, the victim died on 26 November 2008.

As observed by Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo, CICL XXX acted with discernment when he mauled the victim with a blunt object that was hard enough to break a skull or shake the brain. Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh likewise stated that the brain injuries suffered by AAA palpably showed the gruesome nature of the crime. Thus, the act totally spoke of discernment.

Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting added that the location of the wounds and the deliberateness of their infliction upon AAA demonstrated CICL XXX’s discernment. It has been held that the head of a person is a vital part of the body, and the infliction of a heavy blow thereon may even establish intent to kill.

The testimonies of Dr. Romeo Concepcion and Dr. Manuel Kelly Jr. also proved the severity of the wounds inflicted upon AAA, which were sufficient to cause his death.

The totality of the facts and circumstances of this case lead to the conclusion that CICL (children in conflict with the law) XXX acted with discernment.

Second, the circumstances showed CICL XXX’s cunning and shrewdness. He perpetrated the attack early in the morning at around 3 a.m. while accompanied by a companion. They waited for the victim to get home, and after striking the victim, they escaped before any witnesses could see them.

Third, CICL XXX’s attack against the victim could be considered an attempt to silence the latter or an act of retaliation for testifying against him in a separate mauling incident during the barangay proceedings. According to the prosecution, on 27 October 2003, or a day before the attack, the victim testified against CICL XXX during a hearing on the complaint for physical injuries filed by DDD. The victim allegedly saw him hit DDD with a bucket inside a bar in Baguio City.

Fourth, CICL XXX testified that he quit school when the instant case was filed. He then fled to his home in Sagada, where he worked. CICL XXX’s overt acts of quitting school and returning home to Sagada were indicative of his awareness that what he did was wrong. CICL XXX’s own testimony revealed his awareness that his actions were wrong. He dropped out of school because he was scared after he received a warning that he should watch his back.

To suddenly quit school and flee to his home showed that CICL XXX had full knowledge of the gravity and consequences of his act.

(To be continued)