Laws

A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC

RULE ON JUVENILES IN CONFLICT WITH THE LAW
November 24, 2009
Section 4. Definitions. - As used in this Rule
(a) Age of criminal responsibility is the age when a child, fifteen (15) years and one (1)
day old or above but below eighteen (18) years of age, commits an offense with
discernment.
(j) 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.
Section 9. Procedure for Children Not Exempted from Criminal Liability. - A child fifteen
(15) years and one (1) day old or above but below eighteen (18) years of age at the
time of the commission of the offense shall, at the sound discretion of the court and
subject to its supervision, be released on recognizance to the care of the willing and
responsible mother or father, or appropriate guardian or custodian, or, in their absence,
the nearest relative. However, if the prosecution determines that the child acted
with discernment, the child shall be proceeded against in accordance with Secs.
25 to 29 or, in case of diversion, Secs. 31 to 38 of this Rule.
Section 10. Determination of Discernment. - Discernment is preliminarily determined by
a social worker and finally by the court in the case of a child charged with a non-serious
offense. In all other cases, discernment is determined by the court.
The determination of discernment shall take into account the ability of a child to
understand the moral and psychological components of criminal responsibility and the
consequences of the wrongful act; and whether a child can be held responsible for
essentially antisocial behavior.
Rules of Court
Section 1, Rule 131
Section 1. Burden of proof- Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on
the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence
required by law.
Jurisprudence
G.R. No. 182941
July 3, 2009
ROBERT SIERRA y CANEDA, vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Burden of proof, under Section 1, Rule 131 of the Rules on Evidence, refers to the duty
of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue in order to establish his or her claim
or defense. In a criminal case, the burden of proof to establish the guilt of the
accused falls upon the prosecution which has the duty to prove all the essential
ingredients of the crime. The prosecution completes its case as soon as it has
presented the evidence it believes is sufficient to prove the required elements. At this
point, the burden of evidence shifts to the defense to disprove what the prosecution has
shown by evidence, or to prove by evidence the circumstances showing that the
accused did not commit the crime charged or cannot otherwise be held liable therefor.

G.R. No. 162052

January 13, 2005
ALVIN JOSE, vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
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 the capacity to know what is
wrong as distinguished from what is right or to determine the morality of human acts;
wrong in the sense in which the term is used in moral wrong. However, such
presumption is rebuttable. 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 he acted with discernment, meaning that he knew
what he was doing and that it was wrong. Such circumstantial evidence may include
the utterances of the minor; his overt acts before, during and after the commission of
the crime relative thereto; 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 the corpus
delicti.
Since the prosecution failed to prove that the petitioner acted with discernment, it
cannot thereby be concluded that he conspired with his co-accused.
The petitioner is ACQUITTED of the crime charged for insufficiency of evidence.
G.R. No. 166040
April 26, 2006
NIEL F. LLAVE,vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Article 12, paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code provides that a person over nine
years of age and under fifteen is exempt from criminal liability, unless he acted with
discernment. 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. On the other hand,
discernment is the mental capacity to understand the difference between right and
wrong. 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.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 minors cunning and shrewdness. Hence, in judging
whether a minor accused acted with discernment, his mental capacity to
understand the difference between right and wrong, which may be known and
should be determined by considering all the circumstances disclosed by the
record of the case, his appearance, his attitude and his behavior and conduct, not
only before and during the commission of the act, but also after and even during
the trial should be taken into consideration (People v. Doquena, supra).
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 after being discovered by the
prosecutions witness, Teofisto Bucud, petitioner immediately stood up and ran away.
Shortly thereafter, when his parents became aware of the charges against him and that
private complainants father was looking for him, petitioner went into hiding. It was not
until the Barangay Tanod came to arrest him in his grandmothers house that petitioner
came out in the open to face the charges against him. His flight as well as his act of
going into hiding clearly conveys the idea that he was fully aware of the moral
depravity of his act and that he knew he committed something wrong. Otherwise,
if he was indeed innocent or if he was not least aware of the moral consequences
of his acts, he would have immediately confronted private complainant and her
parents and denied having sexually abused their daughter.
During the trial, petitioner submitted documentary evidence to show that he was a
consistent honor student and has, in fact, garnered several academic awards. This
allegation further bolstered that he acted with discernment, with full knowledge and
intelligence. The fact that petitioner was a recipient of several academic awards and
was an honor student further reinforces the finding that he was possessed of
intelligence well beyond his years and thus was able to distinguish, better than other
minors of his age could, which conduct is right and which is morally reprehensible.
Hence, although appellant was still a minor of twelve years of age, he possessed
intelligence far beyond his age. It cannot then be denied that he had the mental capacity

to understand the difference between right and wrong. This is important in cases where
the accused is minor. It is worthy to note that the basic reason behind the enactment of
the exempting circumstances under Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code is the
complete absence of intelligence, freedom of action, or intent on the part of the
accused. In expounding on intelligence as the second element of dolus, the Supreme
Court has stated: The second element of dolus is intelligence; without this power,
necessary to determine the morality of human acts to distinguish a licit from an
illicit act, no crime can exist, and because the infant has no intelligence, the law
exempts (him) from criminal liability (Guevarra v. Aldomovar, 169 SCRA 476
[1989], at page 482).
G.R. No. 126283. May 28, 1999
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs.
RUBEN ESTEPANO, RODNEY ESTEPANO and RENE ESTEPANO
With respect to accused-appellant Rene Estepano, the records show that he was only
thirteen (13) years of age at the time of the commission of the offense. Under Art. 12,
par. (3), of The Revised Penal Code, a person over nine (9) years of age and under
fifteen (15) is exempt from criminal liability unless it is shown that he acted with
discernment. The minor referred to here is presumed to have acted without
discernment. Thus, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that such
minor acted otherwise.
G.R. No. 164733
September 21, 2007
MICHAEL JOHN Z. MALTO,vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
*see footnote 31
It should also be noted that under our present criminal laws, the age of exemption from
criminal liability was raised from 9 years old to 15 years old. (RA 9344) Thus, a child 15
years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense is exempt from
criminal liability. A child above 15 but below 18 years of age is presumed not to
have acted with discernment and will be criminally liable only upon rebuttal of
that presumption by proof that he acted with discernment. Thus, there is a
presumption of lack of discernment on the part of a child (which presumption is
conclusive if she is 15 years of age and below and disputable if she is over 15 but
below 18 years of age).