Discernment of a Child in Conflict with the Law

In the case of CICL XXX vs. People (G.R. No. 23878, March 14, 2023), the Supreme Court introduced the Guidelines on Determining Discernment of a Child in Conflict with the Law (the “Guidelines”). This case involves a seventeen (17) year old minor who violently attacked another teenager, placing his victim in a vegetative state for five (5) years before ultimately leading to his death.

The case discusses the significance of a child’s discernment at the time of the commission of a crime and how its presence or absence impacts the child’s criminal liability. Verily, discernment plays a determining factor in distinguishing between a child exempt from criminal liability and one subject to criminal prosecution.

Under our laws concerning children in conflict with the law, minority is recognized as an exempting circumstance from criminal prosecution, but with specific qualifications. The second paragraph of Section 6 of Republic Act No. 9344 (or the “Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006”) specifies that the exemption from criminal liability applies to a child if they acted without discernment at the time of the commission of the crime.

“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.”

On this score, understanding the concept of discernment is imperative when dealing with a child in conflict with the law. To illustrate discernment of a child: imagine a situation where a 16-year old is accused of shoplifting. In the legal process, the police officer or social worker would assess whether the minor acted with discernment, meaning did the teenager fully understand the consequences and moral implications of his or her actions.

If, during the proceeding, it is determined that the minor was influenced by peer pressure, lacked a clear understanding of the wrongdoing, or had other mitigating factors, the court might opt to commit the child for rehabilitation and intervention, rather than strict criminal punishment.

Discernment is therefore crucial in such cases to distinguish between impulsive actions of youth and intentional, or full awareness of, criminal actions. At any rate, the goal of the law, as well as the courts, is to ensure that minors are given the appropriate support and guidance to help them learn from their mistakes and reintegrate them into society on a positive and redeeming note.

With this in mind, a deeper exploration of the facts of the case and an examination of the Guidelines are essential to understanding how they shape future cases involving children in conflict with the law.

THE FACTS OF CICL XXX VS. PEOPLE

AAA, the victim in this case, previously testified against CICL XXX in a Barangay proceeding, detailing an alleged mailing incident inside a bar in Baguio City. According to AAA, he witnessed CICL XXX assaulting DDD with a bucket during the altercation.

The subsequent night took a tragic turn for AAA and his family. At 3 o’clock in the morning, AAA’s mother and father were jolted awake by desperate cries of “Mama! Mama!” outside their residence. Rushing outside, they discovered AAA lying in front of their gate, his face and eyes drenched in blood. When asked what happened, AAA recounted that CICL XXX and an unidentified companion had entered their home and waited for him. Upon AAA’s arrival, they jumped and attacked him in the eyes with a blunt object. AAA was brought to a hospital and the medical tests revealed that he suffered serious brain damage.

A few days later, AAA’s condition deteriorated; he could no longer speak and has fallen into a vegetative state. After being bed-ridden for five (5) years, AAA succumbed to his injuries and died. Subsequently, CICL XXX faced a homicide charge brought forth by the prosecution.

In his defense, CICL XXX denied the accusations against him and presented an alibi, asserting that he was in a bar in Baguio City with his friends at the time of the incident. However, the Regional Trial Court found CICL XXX guilty for crime of homicide, and this conviction was later affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

THE GUIDELINES ON DETERMINING DISCERNMENT

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of CICL XXX, agreeing with the lower court’s evaluation of the evidence, that points CICL XXX as the author of the deadly attack against AAA. In determining criminal liability, the Supreme Court was faced with the question of whether CICL XXX acted with discernment at the time when he attacked AAA. In response to this question, the Court sought the opportunity to lay down the Guidelines, thus:

“Guideline on Determining Discernment:

1. Discernment is the capacity of the child at the time of the commission of the offense to understand the difference between right and wrong and the consequences of the wrongful act.

2. The task of ascertaining discernment is undertaken preliminarily by a social worker, and finally 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. The assessment of a social worker is merely evidentiary and is not binding upon the court. Ultimately, the court finally determines discernment, based on its own appreciation of all the facts and circumstances in each case.

3. In our jurisdiction, there is no presumption that a minor acts with discernment. The prosecution must specifically prove as a separate circumstance that the alleged crime was committed with discernment. 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.

4. In determining discernment, courts shall consider the totality of facts and circumstances in each case. Such circumstances include, but are not limited to: (i) the very appearance, the very attitude, the very comportment and behavior of said minor, not only before and during the commission of the act, but also after and even during the trial (ii) the gruesome nature of the crime, (iii) his overt acts before, during and after the commission of the crime, (vi) the nature of the weapon used, (vii) his attempt to silence a witness, and (viii) his disposal of evidence or his hiding of the corpus delicti.”

To fully appreciate the Guidelines set forth by the Supreme Court, it is best to breakdown their items point by point and discuss important features.

ITEM NO. 1: THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF DISCERNMENT AND ITS DISTINCTION COMPARED TO INTENT

According to the Guidelines, “Discernment” is legally defined as “the capacity of the child at the time of the commission of the offense to understand the difference between right and wrong and the consequences of the wrongful act.”

The legal recognition of the importance of discernment traces back to the 1917 case of US vs. Maralit (G.R. No. 11979, January 25, 1917), where the Supreme Court emphasized that conviction of a minor for a criminal offense requires establishing discernment. In that case, the Court held that it must appear from the evidence that the accused acted with knowledge of the nature of his acts and the foreseeable results.

It is crucial to acknowledge that discernment and intent are utterly distinct concepts; not to be interchanged within the purview of the law. In Guevarra vs. Hon. Almodovar (G.R. No. 75256, January 26, 1989), discernment was distinguished from intent, ruling, that “while both are products of the mental processes within a person, intent refers to the desire of one’s act while discernment relate to the moral significance that a person ascribes to the said act.”

In a practical sense, a person’s intention behind his or her actions is very different from his discernment or understanding. To illustrate: Consider a scenario where a 16 year old boy, let’s call him Juan, finds himself in an altercation with another teenager of the same age, Pedro. In the heat of the argument, Juan impulsively grabs a nearby object and throws it at Pedro, causing injury.

Juan’s intent in this situation could be to express anger or frustration, to retaliate against Pedro, or simply to win the argument. Intent, in this context, reflects the purpose or desire behind Juan’s action. It pertains to what Juan wanted to achieve by throwing the object at Pedro.

Discernment, on the other hand, focuses on Juan’s ability to understand the moral significance of his actions. It involves assessing whether Juan, at the moment of throwing the object, comprehended that this act was morally wrong and understood the potential consequences of causing harm to another person. It delves into the capacity to differentiate between right and wrong and grasp the gravity of the chosen action.

By distinguishing between intent and discernment, the Supreme Court seek to evaluate not only the immediate motivations behind a minor’s actions but also their understanding of the moral consequences. In the above illustration, Juan’s intent might be rooted in emotions, such as anger or frustration, reflecting his personal desires or motivations. Discernment, however, goes beyond these faculties; it questions whether Juan recognized the moral implications of his actions and understood the potential harm he could cause to Pedro.

ITEM NO. 2: DETERMINATION OF DISCERNMENT AND WHETHER AN INITIAL ASSESSMENT CONSTITUTES A CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION

The second item in the Guidelines outlines a two-level process for determining whether a child in conflict with the law acted with discernment during the commission of a crime. It begins with a social worker’s preliminary assessment, but such evaluation is merely evidentiary and does not control the independent findings of the court. Ultimately, the court holds the final decision on whether the child acted with discernment.

While the Guidelines make it clear that the court is the ultimate authority in declaring a child’s discernment, there is no explicit classification regarding the nature of the initial assessment conducted by a social worker – whether it constitutes a custodial investigation or not. Neither is there any clarification on whether a child should be assisted by counsel during the process of an initial assessment. 

If I were to express an opinion on this matter, I would lean toward an affirmative answer. Applying existing principles of the Constitution and related laws, the setting of an initial assessment for a child’s discernment is akin to a custodial investigation of a person suspected of committing a crime.

Custodial investigation, as defined under R.A. No. 7438 (the “Rights of Persons Under Custodial Investigation”), is the practice of issuing an "invitation" to a person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed.

In People vs. Pepino (G.R. No. 174471, January 12, 2016), it was established that custodial investigation commences when a person is taken into custody and singled out as a suspect in the commission of the crime under investigation. According to the Guidelines, a child under initial assessment by a social worker is a child already targeted as a suspect in the commission of a crime under investigation.

While there is a slight distinction between a child undergoing assessment and a typical custodial investigation, the commonality lies in both being evidentiary processes that can be used against the accused. Interestingly enough, the common goal in these two (2) processes is the identification, collection and utilization of evidence that could potentially incriminate the accused. Should the social worker determine discernment, such determination is considered evidence against the child. In other words, the practical effect of finding discernment by the social worker is a determination of a component of guilt on the part of the child which is necessary for their conviction.

Given that discernment is treated as a separate element and its determination is critical to the conviction of the child, any assessment by a social worker could be seen as a crucial part of the case against the child. Quite reasonably, the parameters set under Constitution for custodial investigations, including the right to be informed of one’s rights and the right to legal counsel, should apply during the process of an initial assessment for a child’s discernment.

It must be emphasized that the child must be assisted by a competent and independent counsel during the entire course of the initial assessment to ensure that their rights are protected. Considering the constitutional significance of discernment as a separate element and the potential impact on a child’s legal position during trial, treating the initial assessment by a social worker as a custodial investigation seems reasonable and constitutionally sound.

ITEM NO. 3: PRESUMPTION IN FAVOR OF THE CHILD

Another essential feature to take note of is that a minor is presumed to have acted without discernment. To qualify, for those below 15 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime is absolutely exempted from criminal liability. Meanwhile, teenagers 15 years old and above but below 18 years of age are not absolutely exempt; however, they are entitled to the presumption that they acted without discernment. In effect, the prosecution bears the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt, that the minor acted with discernment to overcome this presumption in favor of the child.

Notably, the presumption bestowed by Item No. 3 is one of the rare evidentiary rules that can only be controverted by proof beyond reasonable doubt. The other presumption that share this kind of standard is the Constitutional presumption of innocence. Similarly, the presumption of innocence can only be breached by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Evidently, the presumption in favor of the child in the Guidelines sets it apart from most of the presumptions under the 2019 Amendments to the Rules on Evidence, which are generally disputable by a lesser standard - clear and convincing evidence.

ITEM NO. 4: THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN DETERMINING DISCERNMENT

The last item outlines the holistic approach courts should take when assessing discernment of minors. In essence, the enumeration below emphasizes that discernment determination is not isolated to the moment of the crime but extends to the overall behavior and actions of the minor throughout the legal process.

(i) Appearance, Attitude, and Behavior:

(ii) Gruesome Nature of the Crime:

(iii) Overt Acts Throughout the Process:

(iv) Nature of the Weapon Used:

(v) Attempts to Silence a Witness:

(vi) Disposal of Evidence or Hiding Corpus Delicti

In the case of CICL XXX, the Supreme Court employed these criteria to determine his discernment, highlighting the careful evaluation of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case:

First, the gruesome nature of the attack committed against the victim indicates discernment on the part of CICL XXX. To recall, it was established during trial that CICL XXX mauled AAA with a blunt object which was hard enough to break his skull or shake a brain. The force behind the blow was so impactful that it sent AAA into a vegetative state for five (5) years and eventually killed him. Verily, the severity and brutality of the attack done by CICL XXX reveals his higher awareness of the heinousness of his actions.

Second, the cunning and shrewdness of CICL XXX in perpetrating the attack illustrates that he acted with discernment. CICL XXX clearly planned to inflict harm on AAA as he waited for the victim to get home at 3 in the morning. After ambushing AAA with an unnamed companion, he escaped before any witnesses could see them.

Third, CICL XXX’s attack against AAA can be considered as an attempt to silence him or an act of retaliation for testifying against him in a separate mauling incident during the Barangay proceeding. It must be stressed that an attempt to silence witnesses strongly suggests an awareness of the legal consequences, indicating discernment in understanding the need to escape or avoid accountability.

Fourth, CICL XXX’s overt acts of quitting school and returning home to Sagada are indicative of his awareness that his action were wrong.

Lastly, it was noted that the records bear that at the time of the incident, CICL XXX was a second year Nursing student. His level education shows that he had the capacity to discern that inflicting bodily harm upon AAA was wrong, and it would likely result in his death.

By meticulously analyzing these factors, the Supreme Court affirmed that CICL XXX acted with discernment, emphasizing the importance of a holistic approach in evaluating a minor’s culpability.

In conclusion, the Guidelines provide a systematic approach to assess a child’s discernment, recognizing the inherent complexities involved in ascertaining the moral and psychological components of a minor’s criminal responsibility. It becomes apparent that determining discernment is not a singular momentary assessment but a comprehensive evaluation of a minor’s behavior, attitudes, and actions, before, during and after the commission of a crime.

Hopefully, the Guidelines would serve not only as a legal framework but as a clarion call to ensure that the legal system is equipped to handle cases involving children in conflict with the law with sensitivity, diligence, and a commitment to safeguarding their rights. No matter what is at stake, it should be kept in mind that they are still children.

“Children are the world’s most valuable resource and it's best hope for the future.”

- John F. Kennedy