INTRODUCTION

This case study explains the case G.R. No. 216671 (Jerwin Dorado vs. People of the
Philippines), it is a decision by the Philippine Supreme Court issued on October 3, 2016. The
case centered on Jerwin Dorado, a minor at the time of the offense, who faced charges of
frustrated murder and violating the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation
and Trafficking Act (RA 7610).

The case started from a violent incident where Dorado and his companions allegedly attacked
Ronald Bonion, resulting in Bonion losing an eye. While the prosecution sought to convict
Dorado of the aforementioned crimes, he maintained his innocence and claimed he wasn't
present during the altercation.

This case study runs through the concept of discernment, a critical aspect of juvenile justice in
the Philippines as outlined by Republic Act No. 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act). The
core legal question of this matter revolves around whether or not the prosecution successfully
established that Dorado, at the time of the crime, possessed the mental capacity and awareness
that he knew what he was doing (discernment) to understand the nature and consequences of his
actions.

The significance of this case lies in its emphasis on discernment. RA 9344 stipulates that only
minors aged 15 to 18 who certainly acted with discernment can be held fully accountable and
liable for criminal acts. The Supreme Court's decision in G.R. No. 216671 sets a precedent for
future cases involving the prosecution of minors, ensuring a more balanced and age-appropriate
approach to juvenile justice.

By examining this case, we gain valuable insights into the delicate balance between upholding
public safety and safeguarding the rights and well-being of young people within the Philippine
legal system. The case underscores the importance of RA 9344 in protecting children from
excessive punishment and prioritizing rehabilitation over incarceration whenever possible. This
study will explore the arguments presented by both sides, analyze the court's reasoning, and
discuss the broader implications for the legal treatment of minors in the Philippines.

ANALYSIS
 In the case of Jerwin Dorado vs. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 216671) presents a
significant issue in the field of criminology, particularly regarding juvenile delinquency and the
concept of discernment.

Jerwin Dorado, along with his companions, was accused of frustrated murder and violation of
Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and
Discrimination Act). On April 15, 2004, a confrontation erupted between two groups on A.
Reyes Street in Taguig. Jerwin Dorado and his companions allegedly threw stones and bottles at
the group of Ronald Bonion which is the and his friends. , who then sought shelter in a nearby
market stall. When Ronald's group believed the area was clear of , they met Dorado's group with
aggression. During this second altercation, Dorado allegedly fired a "sumpak" (a homemade
slingshot) at Ronald, hitting him between the eyes and causing him to lose consciousness.
Bonion underwent surgery and due to timely medical assistance Bonion survived the incident
and spent a month recovering at the hospital, losing sight in his left eye.

The trial court decided that is Dorado of frustrated murder, with his intent to kill based on the
location of where he fired the shot and the fact that Ronald wouldn't have died if not for medical
intervention. The court also noted that Dorado's act of waiting for Ronald's group to emerge from
hiding in the market shelter is a sign of premeditation. However, the court acknowledged
Dorado's status as a minor at the time of the incident (16 years old) and applied the privileged
mitigating circumstance of minority in his favor. This reduced the penalty.

Dorado appealed the decision, arguing that the Court of Appeals was mistaken in upholding his
conviction. The point in his appeal was the lack of proof regarding his discernment. Philippine
law recognizes that minors aged 15-18 might not fully grasp the consequences of their actions.
Only those who shows discernment can be held fully criminally liable. The case file reveals that
the prosecution did not present any evidence to establish whether Dorado acted with discernment
at the time of the commission of the crime. The trial acknowledges his minority without looking
into his mental capacity. This mistake became a crucial aspect of Dorado's appeal.

The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the case, eventually agreed with Dorado. They asserted the
prosecution's failure to prove discernment, which is a critical element for holding a minor
criminally liable. The Court highlighted that the trial court's decision lacked in providing
Dorado's capacity for discernment at the time of the crime

Problems in the case:

 ● Lack of Proof of Discernment: The issue in this case is whether the prosecution has
failed to establish that Jerwin Dorado, a 16-year-old minor at the time of the crime acted
with discernment. The court decision acknowledges his minority but fails to determine if
he understood the consequences of his actions during the incident.

● Challenges in Determining Discernment: In assessing discernment of a minor is really

difficult. It requires a thorough evaluation of the minor's cognitive abilities, maturity
level, and understanding of the situation. But even with psychological evaluations,
background check, and witness testimonies is still not enough to identify if the minor has
the ability to fully understand and has the capacity to know what he/she has done. This
remains as an obstacle in the investigation and trial.

● Discernment in RA 9344: The law does not clearly define discernment. This lack of
clear definition creates a potential problem because it leaves room for interpretation in
court.

● RA 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act): This law protects minors by exempting
them from criminal liability under certain conditions. This law protects minor from
criminal liability but without proper determination of discernment this favors the child to
abuse this law.

G.R. No. 216671 (Jerwin Dorado vs. People of the Philippines) showcases the importance of
discernment in achieving a fair and effective juvenile justice system. By applying the knowledge
and skills gained through a BSCrim program, criminologists can play a crucial role in addressing
this problem. Through investigation, policy advocacy, education, and research, criminologists
can contribute to a system that balances accountability with the rehabilitation of young offenders.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Jerwin Dorado for frustrated murder because
the prosecution failed to prove that he acted with discernment at the time of the crime. Dorado
was a minor, 16 years old at the time of the incident, and under Philippine law, minors below 18
can only be held criminally liable if they acted with discernment. [JJWC Resolution No. 03-
2006] The Court found that the trial court did not discuss whether Dorado acted with
discernment, and simply applied the mitigating circumstance of minority without making this
determination.

RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the case study of G.R. No. 216671 involving Jerwin Dorado, we can make the
following recommendations:

1. Enhanced Legal Protection for Minors: The case underscores that there should be enhanced
legal protection for minors in conflict with the law. For equitable outcomes, justice must
recognize their age and discernment while fixing criminal liability.

2. Youth Rehabilitation Programs: Recommending the implementation of effective youth

rehabilitation programs focusing on reintegration and support for minors that engage in criminal
activities. These programs should aim at establishing the fundamental causes of juvenile
delinquency as well as interventions suitable to its treatment goals.

3. Training for Law Enforcement and Legal Professionals: Providing training and education for
police officers, attorneys, judges, other court personnel, and other professionals involved in legal
processes concerning cases involving minors. This learning should pay great attention to
checking discernment and capacity of juveniles who commit crimes against the law.

4. Community Engagement and Support: Encouraging community engagement and support for
at-risk youth to prevent their involvement in criminal activities. Community-based initiatives,
mentorship programs, and support services can play a vital role in guiding young individuals
towards positive pathways.

5. Policy Review and Reform: Advocating for policy review and reform to ensure that laws and
regulations concerning minors in conflict with the law are in line with international standards and
best practices. This includes revisiting the legal framework for juvenile justice and incorporating
principles of restorative justice.

By implementing these recommendations, stakeholders can contribute to a more holistic and

effective approach to addressing juvenile delinquency, promoting the rights of minors, and
fostering their rehabilitation and reintegration into society.