G.R. No. 238798 - Concurring Opinion

G.R. No. 238798, March 14, 2023,
♦ Decision, Zalameda, [J]
♦ Concurring Opinion, Gesmundo, [CJ]
♦ Concurring Opinion, Inting, [J]
♦ Concurring Opinion, J. Lopez, [J]
♦ Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, Leonen, [J]
♦ Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, Hernando, [J]
♦ Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, Kho, [J]
♦ Dissenting Opinion, Caguioa, [J]
♦ Dissenting Opinion, M. Lopez, [J]
♦ Dissenting Opinion, Gaerlan, [J]
♦ Dissenting Opinion, Lazaro-Javier, [J]

Before the Court is an appeal from the rulings of the Regional Trial Court of La Trinidad, Benguet (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) that found accused CICL XXX guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide.

The prosecution asserted that CICL XXX caused fatal injuries upon the victim, AAA, by hitting the latter's left eye, ear, and head, with a blunt instrument, resulting in AAA's death.2 The incident occurred on October 28, 2003.3 At that time, CICL XXX, who was born on December 15, 1985,4 was only 17 years and 10 months old. Thus, CICL XXX was a minor at the time of the alleged commission of the offense.

The records reveal that the Information5 against CICL XXX was filed on March 2, 2004 and docketed as Criminal Case No. 04-CR-5253. Trial was held from 2005 to 2013, and the RTC promulgated its judgment of conviction against CICL XXX on February 28, 2014.

While CICL XXX's trial was pending Republic Act No. 9344 (RA 9344) or the "Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006" passed into law and took effect on May 20, 2006.6 Section 6 of RA 9344 states that a "child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age shall likewise be exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to an intervention program, unless he/she has acted with discernment, in which case, such child shall be subjected to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act."

It is settled that RA 9344 retroactively applies to crimes committed prior to its effectivity,7 including the offense charged against CICL XXX. The retroactive application of RA 9344 to CICL XXX, who has not been shown to be a habitual criminal, is based on Article 228 of the Revised Penal Code and the well-entrenched principle in criminal law — favorabilia sunt amplianda adiosa restrigenda (penal laws which are favorable to the accused are given retroactive effect).9

Discernment is not presumed.10 Thus, the Prosecution in Criminal Case No. 04-CR-5253 bore the burden to prove beyond reasonable doubt, by direct or circumstantial evidence, that at the time of the alleged commission of the offense, CICL XXX, a minor at the age of 17 years and 10 months old, acted with discernment.11 The Prosecution must specifically prove as a separate circumstance that CICL XXX committed the alleged crime with discernment.12

The records bear that the Prosecution presented its evidence in Criminal Case No. 04-CR-5253 from November 15, 200513 to May 25, 2011.14 It is therefore evident that the Prosecution was given ample opportunity to prove discernment on the part of CICL XXX luden as a separate circumstance beyond reasonable doubt.

The issue before the Court is whether the Prosecution was able to discharge its burden to prove beyond reasonable doubt that at the time of the commission of the alleged homicide, CICL XXX was acting with discernment.

The ponencia rules that the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case leads to the conclusion that CICL XXX acted with discernment in the commission of the crime.15

I agree. The records establish beyond reasonable doubt that at the time of the commission of the offense, CICL XXX acted with discernment in inflicting injuries upon the victim, AAA, which resulted in the latter's death.

The Prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that CICL XXX committed acts constituting homicide.

To begin, I concur with the ponencia16 that the Prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of homicide against CICL XXX, i.e., (1) that AAA was killed; (2) that CICL XXX killed AAA without any justifying circumstance; (3) that CICL XXX had the intention to kill, which is presumed by the death of AAA; and (4) that the killing was not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of murder, or by that of parricide or infanticide.17

Here, it is a matter of record18 and even admitted19 by CICL XXX that AAA died on November 26, 2008. That CICL XXX was the one who killed AAA was also testified on by the mother of AAA, BBB. Particularly, BBB testified20 that on the day of the incident, at around 3 a.m., she was roused by the cries of AAA She found her son lying on the ground and severely injured right outside their house gate. She helped her son get up and while cleaning his wounds, AAA stated that CICL XXX mauled him in revenge because he testified against CICL XXX in a barangay case filed by DDD regarding a bar brawl incident a week prior to the mauling of AAA.

CICL XXX attempts to discredit the testimony of BBB by arguing that it is inadmissible hearsay for being merely based on what AAA narrated to his mother on the day of the incident.21 This has no merit. As correctly pointed out by the ponencia,22 the RTC and CA properly considered BBB's testimony as admissible in evidence for being part of the res gestae,23 in accordance with Rule 130, Section 4424 of the Rules of Court.

I agree with the ponencia that the statements made by AAA to his parents immediately after the mauling incident were made under circumstances where contriving a falsehood was impossible. AAA's statement that he was mauled by CICL XXX was made immediately after his parents found him lying on the ground, when AAA had just been injured and was even bleeding from his eye.25 His statements to his parents, having been made under a state of nervous excitement or shock from his injuries, are trustworthy and worthy of credence. The admission of BBB's testimony to establish the identity of CICL XXX as the perpetrator of the crime is consistent with prevailing jurisprudence,26 where the Court considered as part of the res gestae the victim's identification of his assailant while lying wounded, bleeding from his/her injuries, or being brought to the hospital.

It bears pointing out that CICL XXX himself corroborated BBB's statement that CICL XXX mauled AAA in revenge.27 Verily, the barangay case filed by DDD against CICL XXX was stipulated during Pre-Trial.28 CICL XXX also narrated the antecedents leading to the mauling of AAA in revenge. Particularly, CICL XXX stated on direct examination that on October 20, 2003,29 about a week before the incident subject of this case occurred, CICL XXX was in a pub with his friends in Baguio City and was involved in a bar brawl with another group in the said pub.30 In the course of the bar brawl, CICL XXX hit DDD, whose left cheek became swollen.31 Following the altercation, CICL XXX was brought to the police station32 and DDD filed a complaint against CICL XXX with Barangay ███████, Baguio City.33 CICL XXX narrated that in the course of the barangay conciliation proceedings, AAA appeared and identified him as the one who inflicted injuries upon DDD.34

The foregoing corroboration of BBB's testimony supports the conclusion that it is admissible in evidence.35

Intent to kill was also proven by the Prosecution because AAA was hit in the head, a vital part of the body.36 That the injury sustained by AAA would result in his death was likewise established by the testimony of Dr. Romeo Concepcion (Dr. Concepcion), a physician at Baguio General Hospital to whom AAA was referred to for treatment on October 31, 2003.37

CICL XXX has not offered any justifying circumstance in killing AAA. The killing was also not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of murder, or by that of parricide or infanticide. Hence, all the elements of homicide concur, with CICL XXX as the perpetrator thereof.

CICL XXX raised denial and alibi as his defenses. Supposedly, he was out drinking with his friends in several establishments located in Baguio City from 7:00 p.m. of October 27, 2003 to 4:00 a.m. of October 28, 2003.38 However, the defenses of alibi and denial are inherently weak as they constitute self-serving negative evidence and may be easily fabricated, and thus, cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.39 For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove with clear and convincing evidence that (1) he was in another place than the situs criminis at the time when the crime was committed, and (2) it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime when it was committed.40

CICL XXX's supposed alibi cannot prevail over the testimony of BBB, who positively identified him as the assailant.41 CICL XXX supposedly drank from October 27, 2003 to 4:00 a.m. of October 28, 2003 with his friends named CN, IG, and CT, none of whom were presented in court to corroborate his testimony.42 Further, it was not physically impossible for CICL XXX to be at the situs criminis, considering that the municipality of La Trinidad, Benguet, where the homicide happened, is only about 10 to 15 kilometers away from Baguio City.43

Thus, the Prosecution was able to prove all the elements of homicide beyond reasonable doubt against CICL XXX.

Discernment, defined as the mental capacity of a minor to understand right from wrong and to fully appreciate the consequences of his unlawful act, should be determined by considering all the circumstances disclosed by the records of the case, not only before and during the commission of the act, but also after and even during the trial.

Notwithstanding the Prosecution's evidence establishing the elements of homicide, RA 9344 requires it to also prove as a separate circumstance and beyond reasonable doubt that at the time of the commission of the unlawful act, CICL XXX acted with discernment.

Discernment, in the context of criminal laws involving minors, is more than the mere understanding between right and wrong.44 Rather, it refers to the mental capacity of a minor to fully understand the nature of his act and to fully appreciate the consequences of his unlawful act.45 It relates to the power of the minor to determine the morality of human acts, to distinguish a licit from an illicit act, and to appreciate the nature and criminality of the act.46

Particularly in homicide cases, an accused, who is a minor, acts with discernment when he had sufficient intelligence and was sufficiently endowed with judgment to know that the act which he committed was wrong and that it was likely to produce death.47 Discernment signifies more than merely knowing the difference between right and wrong; it connotes that the minor accused killed with intention to kill and knowing that it is a crime to kill.48

In judging whether a minor accused acted with discernment, which may be known and should be determined by considering all the circumstances disclosed by the record of the case or from the evidence as a whole, the appearance of the accused, 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.49 The surrounding circumstances must demonstrate that the minor knew what he was doing and that it was wrong.50 Such circumstance includes the gruesome nature of the crime and the minor's cunning and shrewdness.51 Circumstantial evidence of discernment may also 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.52

The determination of discernment should include all the means sanctioned by the Rules of Court in ascertaining matters in judicial proceedings such as judicial admissions, matters of judicial notice, stipulations made during the pre-trial and trial, as well as other admissions and presumptions.53 The Court may take cognizance of any matter taken up during the trial or which has become part of the records of the case.54

In several instances, the level of education of the minor accused was considered to determine his capacity to act with discernment. Thus, in People v. Doqueña,55 the Court upheld the trial court's finding that the minor accused therein acted with discernment in stabbing his victim, resulting in the latter's death, considering that the accused was a 7th grade pupil, one of the brightest in his school who always obtained excellent marks, and was even the captain of a company of cadet corps. Similarly, in Llave v. People,56 therein minor accused was convicted of rape after the Court determined that he acted with discernment as established by, among others, the fact that the accused was an outstanding student who even received several awards and joined academic contests.

That the minor accused's level of education may be used as an indicator of discernment was also discussed during the plenary sessions of the Committee on Justice of the House of Representatives in passing RA 9344:

Other indicators of discernment include the perpetration of the crime in a dark and isolated place;58 committing the unlawful act while the accused had a chance to be alone with the victim;59 being enraged when accused of having perpetrated the criminal act against the victim;60 when the minor accused, together with his cohorts, took turns in incapacitating their victims to perpetrate the unlawful act;61 or when one of the minors acted as a lookout while the crime was being committed.62

The records establish beyond reasonable doubt that CICL XXX acted with discernment in committing the unlawful act.

Based on the foregoing guidelines on discernment vis-à-vis a review of the records of the case, I agree with the ponencia that CICL XXX acted with discernment in inflicting harm upon AAA, resulting in the latter's death. In committing the unlawful act, CICL XXX was aware that his actions were wrong and would likely result in AAA's death.

First, the records bear that at or near the time of the incident, CICL XXX was a second year nursing student.63 Being a nursing student, CICL XXX would have the necessary mental capacity to understand how the human body works, the fatality of wounds which may be inflicted upon the part of the human body as vital as the head, and that it is wrong to inflict severe injuries on a person's head, who may likely die from such injury. To my mind, CICL XXX's level of education may be taken as evidence that in mauling AAA, he understood that inflicting bodily harm upon AAA was wrong and would likely result in the latter's death.

Second, there is testimony on record that CICL XXX was advised by his guardian, YYY, that it is wrong to injure someone, that a similar incident of inflicting injury upon another should not be repeated, and that CICL XXX should instead concentrate on his studies.64 This goes to show that CICL XXX was very much aware that it is wrong to physically harm another person.

CICL XXX testified that during the barangay conciliation proceedings in the case filed by DDD which was held on October 22, 2003, CICL XXX, accompanied by his guardian YYY, admitted that he injured DDD.65 As CICL XXX and his family did not want the case to go to court, they agreed to amicably settle with DDD's parents by committing to pay his hospital and medication bills.66 Meanwhile, CICL XXX's guardian, YYY, advised CICL XXX that he should not commit a similar act of physically injuring someone and should instead concentrate on his studies. As testified to by YYY:67

Evidently, CICL XXX has been sufficiently informed by his very own guardian that physically injuring someone was wrong and should not be repeated. CICL XXX, being then 17 years and 10 months old, and who was even a nursing student, was surely sufficiently intelligent and mentally capacitated to understand what his own guardian advised him about. That physically injuring someone is wrong must still be in CICL XXX's mind when just six (6) days later, or on October 28, 2003, he committed a similar act of inflicting bodily harm upon another person, AAA.

Third, the location, deliberateness, and severity of the wounds inflicted upon AAA demonstrate CICL XXX's discernment. It has been held that the head of a person is a vital part of the body and infliction of a heavy blow thereon may even establish intent to kill.68

In this case, Dr. Manuel Kelly, Jr. (Dr. Kelly), a physician at Benguet General Hospital to whom AAA was referred to on October 30, 200369 due to blurring of vision and headache, categorically testified during cross-examination that the wounds suffered by AAA were not caused by a fall to the ground but by a hit, as the force was traverse and going directly to the area that is involved, i.e., right part of the eye of AAA, which then transferred to the brain muscle. The force was strong enough to cause movement inside the brain and break its vessels, viz.:

Dr. Concepcion similarly testified during his direct examination on the gravity of the wounds suffered by AAA, resulting in multiple bruises and fractures at the head area, lacerations of the brain, and severe contusion:

Dr. Concepcion also testified during direct examination that the injuries suffered by AAA were sufficient to cause a person's death:

The testimonies of Dr. Concepcion and Dr. Kelly prove the deliberateness and severity of the wounds inflicted upon AAA. The force used was strong enough to injure the brain, inflict multiple bruises and fractures at the head area of AAA, cause brain lacerations and severe contusion, and eventually lead to his death. Surely, CICL XXX, who was just two months short of being an adult at the time of the commission of the offense and even a second year nursing student at that, would understand that the head is a vital part of the body, that it should not be harmed, that it is wrong to inflict grave wounds on a person's head, and that doing so would result in death.

Fourth, BBB testified that the incident subject of the case happened sometime around 3:00 a.m. of October 28, 2003.73 This indicates that the mauling of AAA was done while it was still dark and with no or few people around to witness the incident. In fact, BBB and her late husband74 were sleeping in their bedroom at that time and were awakened only by the cries of AAA, "Mama! Mama!" to find out that their son was severely injured right outside their house gate. That AAA was mauled during the wee hours of morning, while people were still asleep, indicates CICL XXX's cognizance that his actions were wrong and had to be executed away from the public's eye.

Finally, CICL XXX's own testimony reveals that he is very much aware that his actions were wrong. CICL XXX particularly testified that he dropped out of school because a case was filed against him after the incident subject of this case.75 According to CICL XXX, he dropped out of school because he was scared after he received a warning that he should watch his back:76

That CICL XXX was scared to the point of dropping out of school after a case was filed against him reveals his awareness of the wrongfulness of his actions. Similar to Remiendo v. People,77 CICL XXX's averse or negative reaction to imputations of crime against him is an indicator of discernment.

With the foregoing, I agree with the ponencia78 that CICL XXX's Petition for Review79 before the Court must be DENIED. The Decision80 dated November 29, 2017, and the Resolution81 dated March 19, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 39196, finding CICL XXX guilty of the crime of homicide, must be AFFIRMED.