Lastly, as noted by Associate Justice Inting, the records bear that at or near the time of the incident, CICL XXX was a second-year Nursing student. His level of education showed that he had the capacity to discern that inflicting bodily harm upon AAA was wrong, and it would likely result in his death.

Also, there was testimony on record that CICL XXX was advised by his guardian, YYY, during the settlement conference for the incident involving DDD not to do the act complained of (i.e., mauling) again, and that CICL XXX should concentrate on his studies. This showed that CICL XXX was made aware that it is wrong to physically harm another person.

Considering the foregoing reasons, we quote with approval the ruling of the CA that CICL XXX, who was then already 17 years old, or only several months before reaching the age of majority, acted with clear discernment:

In the present case, it was clearly established that the accused-appellant acted with discernment when he and his unidentified companion went to the house of the victim and waited for him to arrive home. When the victim arrived, he and his unidentified companion mauled the victim after the accused-appellant could not give a good explanation for intruding in the victim's house. Accused-appellant further knew what he was doing and that what he did was wrong when after mauling the victim, he and his companion left the latter bleeding and lying in front of the gate.

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 previously acted as a witness, and his very behavior and level of education, indicates that he acted with discernment. 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 act.

***

We likewise affirm the penalty imposed by the CA. The penalty for the crime of homicide under Article 249 of the RPC is reclusion temporal with the duration of 12 years, one day to 20 years. Considering the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority, the penalty is reduced by one degree pursuant to Article 68 of the RPC. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the proper imposable penalty shall be the indeterminate penalty of six months and one day of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight years and one day of prision mayor, as maximum.

Section 38 of RA 9344 allows for the suspension of the sentence of minors notwithstanding said child reaching the age of majority at the time the judgment of conviction was pronounced. However, Hubilla v. People has clarified that the sentence of the offender may only be suspended until he or she is 21 years old in accordance with Section 40 of the law. Thus, this is no longer applicable in this case.

At any rate, CICL XXX shall be entitled to the appropriate disposition under Section 51 of the same law which provides:

SECTION 51. Confinement of Convicted Children in Agricultural Camps and other Training Facilities. — A child in conflict with the law may, after conviction and upon order of the court, be made to serve his/her sentence, in lieu of confinement in a regular penal institution, in an agricultural camp and other training facilities that may be established, maintained, supervised and controlled by the Bucor, in coordination with the DSWD.

In People v. Jacinto, the Court declared that Section 51 applies regardless of the age of the offender at the time of the promulgation of the judgment of conviction.

As ruled by the CA, in lieu of service in the regular penal institution, CICL XXX may serve his sentence in an agricultural camp or other training facilities. In view thereof, the case shall be remanded to the court of origin for its appropriate action in accordance with Section 51 of RA 9344."

The quoted salient portion of the decision is from the case cited above.