CONTRIBUTOR AMBITA, Frances Rexanne U.

MODULE Exempting Circumstances

TOPIC
CASE TITLE People vs. Florencio G.R. NO. G.R. No. 177751
Agacer
PONENTE Del Castillo, J. DATE: 7 January 2013
DOCTRINE The rule will not affect the rights of the state, the victim, or his heirs,
despite the fact that the accused's minority was not proven during trial
and his birth certificate was brought late for the court's consideration.
The law's rationale for granting such tolerance and sympathy is that the
accused is assumed to have acted with less judgment due to his age.
FACTS Florencio, Eddie, Elynor, Franklin and Eric, all surnamed Agacer, are
found guilty of the killing of a common relative, Cesario Agacer. The
appellants surrounded the victim and one of them set a fire to keep
Cesario from retreating. Franklin and Eric hit the deceased with stones,
Florencio induces the victim to come closer, was hit with a gunshot from
Eddie and was shot with a bow and arrow by Elynor. They left the crime
scene together, onboard a tractor and a tricycle.

This case concerns a Motion for Reconsideration of the Supreme Court's

December 14, 2011, decision affirming the convictions of Florencio,
Franklin, Elynor, Eddie, and Eric Agacer (appellants) for murder.

Appellants argue in their Motion that the protected mitigating factor of

youth should have been considered in favor of appellant Franklin Agacer
(Franklin), who was only 16 years old at the time of the crime.

Meanwhile, the Officer-in-Charge of the New Bilibid Prison told the

Court in a letter dated June 8, 2012, that appellant Florencio Agacer
(Florencio) died on February 17, 2007, due to cardiopulmonary arrest.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) did not object to, and even
agreed with, appellants' contention that Franklin's minority should have
been considered a protected mitigating circumstance in his favor, as
shown by a copy of Franklin's Certificate of Live Birth.
ISSUE/S 1. Whether or not the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority
should be appreciated in favor of appellant Franklin.
2. Whether or not the death of appellant Florencio extinguished his
criminal and civil liabilities.
RULING/S 1. YES, Franklin has the privileged mitigating situation of being a
minor. Franklin's Certificate of Live Birth indicates that he was
born on December 20, 1981, and thus was only 16 years old when
the crime was committed on April 2, 1998. As a result, he is
entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of youth, as
embodied in Article 68(2) of the Revised Penal Code, which
states that when the offender is a minor between the ages of 15
 and 18, the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be
imposed on the accused, but always within the proper period.
2. YES, Florencio's criminal and civil liabilities were discharged
when he died. Under Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code
provides that criminal liability is totally extinguished by the death
of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to pecuniary
penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of
the offender occurs before final judgment. While Florencio died
on February 7, 2007, the information was not timely transmitted
to the Court, and the court was unaware of the same when it
issued its decision on December 14, 2011. Florencio's death was
only discovered later, according to a letter from the Officer-in-
Charge of the New Bilibid Prison dated June 8, 2012. As a result
of this circumstance, the court must declare that Florencio's
criminal liability as well as his civil liability ex delicto have been
extinguished by his death before to final judgment. In the case of
Florencio, the judgment or conviction is thus reversed.

It was decided that Franklin is entitled to the Privileged

Mitigating Circumstance of Minority on the question of his
minority. Despite this, the court agreed with the appellants that
Franklin is entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of
being a minor. Franklin's Certificate of Live Birth indicates that
he was born on December 20, 1981, and thus was only 16 years
old when the crime was committed on April 2, 1998. As a result,
under Article 68(2) of the Revised Penal Code, he is entitled to
the privileged mitigating condition of minority. It states that if the
criminal is a minor between the ages of 15 and 18, the accused
shall be sentenced to the next lower penalty than that allowed by
law, but only for the right term. The law's rationale for granting
such leniency and compassion is that the accused is assumed to
have acted with less judgment due to his age. This is despite the
fact that his minority was not established during the trial and his
birth certificate was only recently given for our consideration,
because ruling in this manner will not threaten the state's, the
victim's, or his heirs' rights.