Title
CICL XXXvs. People
Case
G.R. No. 237334
Decision Date
Aug 14, 2019
A 17-year-old minor, CICL XXX, was acquitted of Frustrated Homicide due to lack of proof of discernment and insufficient evidence of the victim's fatal injuries. Civil liability remains.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 237334)

Procedural History

An Information charged CICL XXX, then 17 years old, with frustrated homicide (alleged assault with intent to kill resulting in injuries that would have caused death but for timely medical care). CICL XXX pleaded not guilty. After pre-trial and trial, the Regional Trial Court (Quezon City, Branch 94) convicted CICL XXX of frustrated homicide on September 2, 2016 and imposed an indeterminate penalty and awards of damages. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed that conviction on September 5, 2017. CICL XXX filed a motion for reconsideration which the CA denied (Resolution, January 18, 2018). CICL XXX then sought review by the Supreme Court.

Factual Summary

On January 1, 2010, at about 12:30 a.m., Glenn Redoquerio went to a store to buy iced tea powder. He was allegedly confronted by CICL XXX, Puyo and Narag. The prosecution’s account, based on Redoquerio’s testimony and that of eyewitness Michael de los Santos, was that CICL XXX threatened Redoquerio with a gun, attempted to fire it (without discharge), struck Redoquerio with the gun, and that Puyo and Narag restrained/assaulted him; Puyo allegedly struck Redoquerio’s head with a stone, rendering him unconscious. Redoquerio was hospitalized and in a coma for seven days at EAMC; medical records and receipts for medical expenses were introduced. The defense denied CICL XXX’s involvement, claiming he was with family at a New Year celebration and only went to the scene afterward, observing others mauling Narag; he asserted mistaken identity as a possible cause of his implication.

Evidentiary Stipulations Regarding Medical Records

The parties stipulated to the custodial witness status of Reginaldo Luague, Administrative Officer I of EAMC, who produced and identified medical records (medical certificate, patient data sheet, discharge summary, clinical abstract, operating room record) signed by Dr. Zorilla. The stipulation expressly limited Luague’s testimony: he could authenticate and testify to the existence and due execution of the records but could not testify as to the nature, gravity, or fatality of the wounds because he is not a medical doctor and Dr. Zorilla was unavailable.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

The petition raised two principal issues: (1) whether the CA erred in convicting CICL XXX despite the prosecution’s failure to prove that, being 17 years old, he acted with discernment; and (2) whether the CA erred in convicting CICL XXX of frustrated homicide without sufficient proof of the extent or fatality of the injuries sustained by Redoquerio.

Legal Standard on Discernment for Minors

Under Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code and controlling jurisprudence (notably Dorado v. People and related authorities cited in the record), a minor over fifteen and under eighteen is presumed to be subject to a privileged mitigating circumstance (minority), and the prosecution bears the burden of proving, as a distinct element, that such a minor acted with discernment. Discernment is the mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong and is distinct from intent. Proof of discernment may arise from direct or circumstantial evidence: the minor’s utterances, demeanor, overt acts before, during and after the incident, the gruesomeness of the crime, cunning, disposal of evidence, attempts to silence witnesses, and similar indicia.

Court’s Analysis and Holding on Discernment

The Supreme Court found merit in CICL XXX’s contention that the prosecution failed to overcome the presumption of non-discernment. The RTC and CA did not analyze or attempt to prove discernment; they equated the established intent to kill with discernment. The evidence presented (positive identifications by Redoquerio and the eyewitness, and testimony establishing involvement in the mauling) established intent and participation but did not supply the specific indicia required to show that a 17-year-old knew the moral wrongfulness of his acts. The prosecution’s cross-examination focused on other matters (motive for false accusation, family gun ownership) and did not meaningfully address CICL XXX’s mental capacity or behavior indicative of discernment. Because the prosecution did not prove discernment beyond reasonable doubt, the exemption attached to CICL XXX’s age could not lawfully be overcome, warranting acquittal of the charged crime.

Legal Standard and Court’s Analysis on Frustrated Homicide and Medical Evidence

To sustain conviction for frustrated homicide (or to distinguish between attempted and frustrated homicide), the prosecution must prove that the accused performed all the acts of execution which would produce death (i.e., inflicted mortal wounds that would cause death absent medical intervention), that those acts would have produced the felony, and that the felony was not produced by causes independent of the accused’s will. In this case, medical records were admitted through a custodial witness who could not testify as to the nature, gravity or fatality of the wounds. The Supreme Court emphasized that, while the attending physician need not personally testify, competent medical testimony was required to interpret the documentary medical findings and establish that the injuries were of a mortal nature such that death would have ensued without timely medical care. Because no medical expert explained the records or opined on fatality, the factual predicate for frustrated hom

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms