“The Supreme Court in Dorado v. People (Dorado) explained when a minor above 15 but below 18 years old is charged with a crime, it cannot be presumed he or she acted with discernment”
“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.”
“[I]n establishing discernment, it must appear from the evidence that the accused acted with knowledge of the nature of his acts and of the results which would naturally follow therefrom.” (CICL XXX v. People of the Philippines, G.R. 238798, March 14, 2023 citing US v. Maralit [1917])
“In the 1939 case of People v. Doqueña (Doqueña), the Court restated that… [d]iscernment should be determined by taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances accorded by the records in each case, the very appearance, the very attitude, the very comportment and behavior of [the] said minor, not only before and during the commission of the act, but also after and even during the trial.” (op cit., Doquena)
“In Guevarra v. Hon. Almodovar (Guevarra), the [Supreme Court] had the opportunity to distinguish discernment from criminal intent.”
“While both are products of the mental processes within a person, the former refers to the desire of one’s act while the latter relate[s] to the moral significance that person ascribes to the said act.” (op cit., Guevarra)
“[For example], a person may not intend to shoot another but may be aware of the consequences of his negligent act which may cause injury to the same person…”
“It could not therefore be argued that discernment is equivalent [to] or connotes ‘intent’ for they refer to two different concepts — [i]ntelligence, which includes discernment, is distinct [from] dolo as a means of committing an offense”(op cit.)
The Supreme Court in Dorado v. People (Dorado) explained that when a minor above 15 but below 18 years old is charged with a crime, it cannot be presumed he or she acted with discernment.
During the trial, the prosecution must specifically prove as a separate circumstance that the child in conflict with the law committed the alleged crime with discernment.” (op cit., Dorado)
“The basic reason behind the exempting circumstance is complete absence of intelligence, freedom of action of the offender which is an essential element of a felony either by dolus or by culpa. Intelligence is the power necessary to determine the morality of human acts to distinguish a licit from an illicit act.” (op cit.)
“On the other hand, discernment is the mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong.”
“The surrounding circumstances must demonstrate that the minor knew what he was doing and that it was wrong. Such circumstance includes the gruesome nature of the crime and the minor’s cunning and shrewdness.” (op cit.)
The circumstantial evidence may include “the utterances of the minor; his overt acts before, during and after the commission of the crime…; the nature of the weapon used in the commission of the crime; his attempt to silence a witness; his disposal of evidence or his hiding [of] the corpus delicti.” (op cit.)
“The prosecution must specifically prove as a separate circumstance that the alleged crime was committed with discernment, and 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 the minor acted with discernment.”
Hence, “[d]iscernment is determined by considering all the facts of each case.” (op cit.)
In the case of CICL XXX v. People of the Philippines, CICL XXX, then 17 years old and a second-year nursing student, was charged with homicide.
The gruesome attack of AAA by CICL XXX showed discernment due to the “massive cerebral contusions and bleeding… in the brain which may have been caused by any force or object hard enough to cause damage to the brain.”
The Supreme Court observed that “CICL XXX acted with discernment when he mauled the victim with a blunt object which is hard enough to break a skull or shake a brain.”
The location [and severity] of the wounds and deliberateness of their infliction…”, according to the testimonies of the doctors, were sufficient to cause his death.
CICL XXX’s cunning and shrewdness was demonstrated when “[h]e perpetrated the attack early in the morning at around 3:00 A.M. while accompanied by a companion[;] [t]hey [also] waited for the victim to get home and after striking the victim, …escaped before any witnesses could see them.”
“Further, CICL XXX’s attack against the victim can be considered as an attempt to silence the latter or [as] an act of retaliation for testifying against him in a separate mauling incident…”
He also fled to his home in Sagada after dropping out of school because he was afraid. (op. cit.)
