Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Exempting Circumstances Minority: Chapter 3 Youthful Offenders
Exempting Circumstances Minority: Chapter 3 Youthful Offenders
Minority
Exempting Circumstances
Minority
Whether or not Alvin Jose can be exempt from criminal liability under
the mitigating circumstances of minority.
Ruling:
Yes. Under Article 12(3) of the Revised Penal Code, a minor over nine
years of age and under fifteen is exempt from criminal liability if charged with a
felony. The law applies even if such minor is charged with a crime defined and
penalized by a special penal law. In such case, it is the burden of the minor to
prove his age in order for him to be exempt from criminal liability. The reason for
the exemption is that a minor of such age is presumed lacking the mental
element of a crime.
In the present case, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable
doubt that the petitioner, who was thirteen (13) years of age when the crime
charged was committed, acted with discernment relative to the sale of shabu to
the poseur-buyer.
Aside from bringing out and handing over the plastic bag to accused
Zarraga, the petitioner merely sat inside the car and had no other participation
whatsoever in the transaction between the accused Zarraga and the poseurbuyer. There is no evidence that the petitioner knew what was inside the plastic
and soft white paper before and at the time he handed over the same to his
cousin. Indeed, the poseur-buyer did not bother to ask the petitioner his age
because he knew that pushers used young boys in their transactions for illegal
drugs.
Exempting Circumstances
Minority
Llave vs. People, 488 SCRA 376. [G.R. No. 166040] (April 26, 2006)
FACTS: Accused-appellant, a 12 year old boy, raped a minor, 7 years of age. The
trial court found the accused to have acted with discernment based on
the evidence of the prosecution that accused pushed the victim towards
the vacant house and sexually abused her. It also considered petitioners
declaration that he had been a consistent honor student. He was then
found guilty of rape; hence, this appeal.
ISSUE: Whether or not the accused-appellant acted with discernment.
RULING:
Yes. He acted with discernment. The Court ruled that
discernment means the capacity of the child at the time of the
commission of the offense to understand the differences between right
and wrong and the consequences of the wrongful act. The prosecution is
burdened to prove that the accused acted with discernment by evidence
of physical appearance, attitude or deportment not only before and
during the commission of the act, but also after and during the trial.
In the instant case, petitioners actuations during and after the
rape incident, as well as his behavior during the trial showed that he
acted with discernment. The fact appears undisputed that immediately