JOHN PHILIP GUEVARRA, petitioner, vs.

HONORABLE IGNACIO
ALMODOVAR, respondent
G.R. No. 75256
January 26, 1989
PARAS,  J.:

Facts:

On October 29, 1984 Petitioner John Philip Guevarra, then 11 years

old, was playing with his best friend Teodoro Almine, Jr. and three other
children in their backyard. They were target-shooting a bottle cap with an
air rifle borrowed from a neighbor. During the game, Teodoro was hit by a
pellet on his left collar bone which caused his unfortunate death. Thus this
petition for a special civil action for certiorari.

Issue:

Whether an 11 year old boy could be charged with the crime of

homicide thru reckless imprudence.

Ruling:

Yes. The terms "intent" and "discernment" convey two distinct

thoughts. While both are products of the mental processes within a person,
the former refers to the desired of one's act while the latter relates to the
moral significance that person ascribes to the said act. Hence 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 in negligently
handling an air rifle.

Minors 9 to 15 yrs old are presumed to be without criminal capacity;

but it could be proven otherwise if they were capable of appreciating the
nature and criminality of the act, that is, that they acted with discernment.

One of the elements of culpable felony is intelligence which embraces

the concept of discernment, thus it is important that a minor 9 to 15 yrs old
have acted with discernment to prove that he acted with intelligence thus
being liable for the offense under Art 365 of the Revised Penal Code.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ISABELO PUNO y

GUEVARRA, alias  "Beloy," and ENRIQUE AMURAO y PUNO, alias
"Enry," accused-appellants.
G.R. No. 97471
February 17, 1993
REGALADO, J.:

Facts:

Mrs. Sarmiento owns a bakeshop in Araneta Avenue, Quezon City

called Nika Cakes and Pastries. On January 13, 1988, the accused Isabelo
Puno, who is the personal driver of Mrs. Sarmiento's husband arrived at
the bakeshop. He told Mrs. Sarmiento that her own driver Fred had to go
to Pampanga on an emergency, so he will temporary take his place.

Mrs. Sarmiento got into the Benz with Puno as the driver. Puno
stopped the car when they turned right in a corner of Araneta Ave. A
young man, Enrique Amurao, boarded in the car beside Puno. The latter
poked a gun to Mrs. Sarmiento and announced that he want to get money
from her. She gave them her bag which contains Php 7,000, but the two
wanted Php100,000 more. Puno asked her to issue a check. She drafted 3
checks.

As they were approaching towards Pampanga, Mrs. Sarmiento

jumped out the car, crossed on the other side, and flagged down a fish
vendor’s car.

The two were arrested the next day. Enrique was arrested trying to
encash Mrs. Sarmiento’s check at PCI Bank, Makati.

Issue:
 Whether accused-appellants committed simple robbery punished by
Paragraph 5, Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code.

Ruling:

Yes. There is no showing whatsoever that the appellants had any

motive, nurtured prior to or at the time they committed the wrongful acts
against complainant, other than the extortion of money from her under the
compulsion of threats or intimidation. Thus making this crime a simple
robbery defined in Article 293 and punished in Paragraph 5 of Article 294,
in relation to Article 295, of the Revised Penal Code and imposing on each
of them an indeterminate sentence of 4 years and 2 months of  prision
correccional, as minimum, to 10 years of prision mayor, as maximum, and
jointly and severally pay the offended party, Mrs. Sarmiento, the amounts
of P7,000.00 as actual damages and P20,000.00 as moral damages, with
costs.

With respect to the specific intent that they had kidnapped the
victim, for this crime to exist, there must be indubitable proof that the
actual intent of the malefactors was to deprive the offended party of her
liberty, and not merely an incident in the commission of another offense
primarily intended by the offenders. The appellants in this case had no
intention whatsoever to kidnap or deprive the complainant of her personal
liberty but only to extort money from her.