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. 130613)

Respondent

• People of the Philippines
• Glenn Redoquerio

Key Dates

• Commission of the offense: January 1, 2010
• RTC decision convicting petitioner: September 2, 2016
• CA decision affirming conviction: September 5, 2017
• SC decision on certiorari: November 16, 2020

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution
• Revised Penal Code (RPC) Art. 12(3) (minor’s discernment), Art. 68(2) (mitigating circumstance of minority), homicide and frustrated felony provisions
• RPC Art. 101 (civil liability for minors acting without discernment)

Facts of the Case

An information charged CICL XXX, with discernment, conspiring with Puyo and Narag to commit homicide by mauling and striking Redoquerio with a stone, inflicting serious wounds. The victim survived due to prompt medical care. At trial, Redoquerio and an eyewitness, Michael de los Santos, positively identified CICL XXX as one of the assailants. Medical records were introduced by stipulation through Luague, who could authenticate but not interpret their clinical content.

Defense Version

CICL XXX denied participation, claiming he was at a family celebration when he merely observed Redoquerio mauling another person. He suggested mistaken identity and denied any gun possession beyond his father’s lawful police‐issue weapon.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

The RTC convicted CICL XXX of frustrated homicide, imposing an indeterminate sentence of four months to two years and four months’ imprisonment, and awarded P18,922.90 in actual damages, P30,000 in civil indemnity, and P30,000 in moral damages.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The CA affirmed the conviction, finding proof of conspiracy and that the victim’s injuries would have been fatal but for medical intervention. It discounted the petitioner’s bare denial against positive eyewitness testimony.

Issues for Resolution

  1. Whether the prosecution proved that the minor petitioner acted with discernment as required under RPC Art. 12(3).
  2. Whether there was proof that the victim’s injuries were inherently fatal, supporting a finding of frustrated homicide.

Court’s Ruling on Discernment

The Supreme Court held that under RPC Art. 12(3), a minor above 15 but below 18 is presumed to act without discernment, and the prosecution must affirmatively prove discernment as a distinct element. Neither the RTC nor the CA addressed discernment. They equated intent to kill with discernment, a conflation rejected by jurisprudence distinguishing intent (purpose of the mind) from discernment (capacity to know right from wrong). Because the prosecution failed to offer direct or circumstantial evidence of CICL XXX’s ability to distinguish right from wrong, the presumption of non-discernment remained unrebutted, warranting acquittal of the criminal charge.

Court’s Ruling on Extent of Injuries

Even assuming discernment, frustrated homicide requires proof that the wounds were intrinsically mortal and that death was averted by causes independent of the assailant’s will. The m

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.