Case Summary (G.R. No. 156284)
Procedural History
CICL XXX was charged with Frustrated Murder (March 2004), later amended to Homicide after AAA’s death (June 2009). The 17-year-old pleaded not guilty, went to trial, and was convicted by the RTC in February 2014. The CA affirmed with reduced penalty and ordered application of RA 9344 in November 2017. Supreme Court review followed.
Res Gestae Exception Applied
AAA’s mother testified that AAA, immediately after the attack, identified CICL XXX as his assailant. Under Rule 130, Sec. 44, that spontaneous statement made under stress of the startling occurrence was admissible as part of the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule.
Elements of Homicide Established
• Killing of AAA – death certifies causal link to brain injuries.
• No justifying circumstance.
• Intent presumed from fatal head wounds.
• No qualifying murder circumstances.
Juvenile Exemption and Discernment Rule
RA 9344 exempts children 15–18 from criminal liability unless they “acted with discernment.” That law applies retroactively under Art. 22, RPC, because it benefits CICL XXX.
Discernment Defined and Burden of Proof
Discernment is a minor’s capacity to know right from wrong and foresee consequences. It must be specifically alleged in the Information and proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt as a separate circumstance.
Trial and Appellate Findings on Discernment
Neither the Information nor the RTC decision mentioned discernment. On appeal the CA, reviewing the record de novo, found CICL XXX acted with discernment, citing:
• His nursing-student education.
• Advisements from his guardian not to repeat mauling.
• Planning the mauling at 3 a.m. and escaping.
• Severity and deliberateness of head blows.
• His flight upon case filing.
Supreme Court Analysis and Ruling
The Court recognized:
• Proper admission of res gestae testi
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 156284)
Summary of Facts
- On October 27, 2003, AAA testified against 17-year-old CICL XXX in a barangay hearing on a complaint for physical injuries.
- Around 3:00 a.m. on October 28, 2003, AAA was found bleeding outside his gate with severe head and eye wounds.
- AAA told his parents that CICL XXX and a companion struck him inside his house.
- A CT scan showed massive cerebral contusions and intracranial hemorrhages due to blunt-force head trauma.
- AAA remained in a vegetative state for five years and died on November 26, 2008.
- CICL XXX admitted presence at the barangay hearing but denied involvement in the mauling, claiming an alibi of drinking and then working as a tourist guide in Sagada.
Procedural History
- March 1, 2004: Original Information filed for frustrated murder, later amended to frustrated homicide.
- After AAA’s death, June 8, 2009: Information amended to homicide (Article 249, RPC).
- February 28, 2014: RTC convicted CICL XXX of homicide and imposed prison term and damages.
- November 29, 2017: CA affirmed conviction, reduced penalty for minority, adjusted damages, and remanded for RA 9344 disposition.
- March 14, 2023: Supreme Court En Banc promulgated Decision in G.R. No. 238798.
Issue
- Whether CICL XXX acted with discernment in committing the homicide, thus precluding his statutory exemption from criminal liability under RA 9344.
Exception to Hearsay—Res Gestae
- AAA’s immediate statement to his mother was offered to identify CICL XXX as assailant.
- Rule 130, Sec. 44 (RR Evidence): Spontaneous statements under stress of a startling occurrence are admissible.
- Requirements met:
- A startling occurrence (mauling) was underway.
- Statement made before opportunity to concoct a story.
- Statement concerned the circumstances of the incident.
Elements of Homicide (Art. 249, RPC)
- Killing of a person without qualifying circumstances of murder.
- Intent to kill presumed from fatal head injuries.
- No justifying circumstances.
- Prosecution established:
- CICL XXX struck AAA’s head with a blunt instrument.
- The assault was unlawful, felonious, and