Case Digest (G.R. No. 75256)
Facts:
John Philip Guevarra v. Honorable Ignacio Almodovar, G.R. No. 75256, January 26, 1989, the Supreme Court Second Division, Paras, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner John Philip Guevarra, then eleven years old, was playing with friends on 29 October 1984 and, while target-shooting a bottle cap with a borrowed air rifle, his friend Teodoro Almine, Jr. was struck by a pellet and died. After a preliminary investigation the examining fiscal exculpated petitioner because of his age and because the incident appeared accidental. The victim’s parents appealed to the Ministry of Justice, which ordered the fiscal to file charges.
An information for “Homicide through Reckless Imprudence” was filed on 9 October 1985 charging petitioner as “over 9 years but below 15 years of age and acting with discernment” and alleging that he willfully, unlawfully and feloniously operated and caused to be fired an air rifle in a reckless and imprudent manner, causing the death of the victim. On 25 October 1985 petitioner moved to quash the information on three grounds: (I) the facts do not constitute an offense, (II) the information contains averments that would constitute a legal excuse or justification, and (III) lack of jurisdiction over the offense and the person.
By an order dated 4 April 1986 the trial court denied the motion to quash as to the first and third grounds but deferred resolution of the second ground until trial. Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari (Rule 65) on 26 July 1986 seeking to quash the information; the Court impleaded the People of the Philippines by resolution dated 17 September 1986. A Temporary Restraining Order was issued on 17 September 1986 and was later challenged before the Court. The petition raised two principal issues: (1) whether an eleven‑year‑old may be charged with homicide through reckless imprudence and whether “discernment” in Article 12(3) of the Revised Penal Code is equivalent to inten...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Whether an eleven‑year‑old may be charged with a quasi‑offense (homicide through reckless imprudence) and whether the word “discernment” in Article 12(3) of the Revised Penal Code is equivalent to intent.
- Whether the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the case did not first pass through the Lupong Tagapayapa un...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)