Title
Jose vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 162052
Decision Date
Jan 13, 2005
A minor, Alvin Jose, acquitted as prosecution failed to prove discernment in a 1995 drug sale case involving 98.40g of shabu.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 177573)

Factual Background — Prosecution Version

On November 14, 1995, narcotics operatives, acting on information from an unnamed informant, conducted a buy-bust at a Chowking restaurant in Calamba, Laguna. SPO1 Bonifacio Guevarra acted as the poseur-buyer, carrying marked money (a visible P1,000 bill on top of a bundle). A Toyota Corolla bearing co-accused Sonny Zarraga and the petitioner arrived; the informant signaled that the 100 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) would be delivered. Guevarra negotiated and displayed the marked buy money; Zarraga asked petitioner to bring out the shabu, the pre-arranged signal was given, operatives identified themselves and arrested Zarraga and petitioner. The shabu and the buy-bust money were recovered and later sent to the PNP Crime Laboratory, which testified that the specimen was methamphetamine hydrochloride, second or low grade.

Factual Background — Defense Version

The defense asserted that on November 13, 1995, petitioner and Zarraga were accosted at SM Megamall by men identified as police officers (in civilian clothes), forcibly taken, blindfolded, and subjected to an alleged extortion/ransom scheme involving demands for large sums. The defense claimed that petitioner and Zarraga were wrongfully detained, deprived of property (jewelry, cash, car accessories), and that the events culminating in their presence at Calamba were part of police conduct rather than voluntary participation in drug selling. The defense further asserted that petitioner had no prior knowledge of the contents of the plastic handed over and that he merely handed an item to his cousin at the co-accused’s direction.

Procedural History — Trial Court

An Information charged petitioner and Zarraga with conspiring to sell 98.40 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride on or about November 14, 1995. Both pleaded not guilty. On June 10, 1998, the Regional Trial Court (Branch 36, Calamba, Laguna) convicted both accused of violating R.A. 6425 as amended, sentenced each to an indeterminate term of imprisonment (after application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, six years and one day to ten years) and imposed a fine of P2,000,000 each, ordering turnover of the confiscated drug to the Dangerous Drugs Board.

Issues Raised on Appeal to the Court of Appeals

Appellants argued that: (1) the trial court erred in giving full credence to the prosecution’s evidence; (2) mere presentation of the drug in court did not establish identity and guilt beyond reasonable doubt; and (3) even if guilty, the penalty and the amount of the fine were excessive and improperly imposed. Specific to petitioner Alvin Jose, later petitioned to the Supreme Court on the ground that, being thirteen at the time of the offense, he was exempt from criminal liability unless proven to have acted with discernment, and the Information and the evidence did not allege or establish discernment.

Court of Appeals Ruling and Modification

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s conviction but modified the penalty as to Alvin Jose, finding that he was thirteen years old when the offense occurred and therefore entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority. The CA reduced his penalty by two degrees accordingly. The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, which argued that the Information did not allege that he acted with discernment and that the prosecution failed to prove discernment.

Petition to the Supreme Court — Central Legal Question

The primary legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner, aged thirteen at the time, acted with discernment (i.e., knew what he was doing and that it was wrong), such that he could be held criminally liable under the Revised Penal Code’s rule that minors over nine and under fifteen are exempt from criminal liability unless they acted with discernment.

Relevant Legal Principles on Minority and Discernment

Under Article 12(3) of the Revised Penal Code, a person over nine and under fifteen years of age at the time of the commission of a crime is presumed to be exempt from criminal liability because of lack of discernment. This presumption is rebuttable; if the prosecution wishes to hold such a minor criminally liable it must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the minor acted with discernment. Discernment means the capacity to know what one is doing and that it is wrong; it may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence such as the minor’s utterances, conduct before, during or after the incident, efforts to conceal or dispose of evidence, attempts to silence witnesses, the nature of the weapon or means employed, or other circumstances that demonstrate awareness and comprehension of wrongfulness.

Application of the Law to the Evidence — Supreme Court Analysis

The Supreme Court examined the evidence specifically as to petitioner’s discernment. The prosecution’s case showed petitioner was present in the vehicle, that Zarraga engaged the poseur-buyer, that petitioner brought out a plastic package which was later handed over to Zarraga who delivered it to the poseur-buyer, and that the money exchange and the prearranged signal followed leading to arrest. However, the Court emphasized that mere presence and a passive act of handing over an object do not, without more, prove discernment for a minor of thirteen. The evidence did not show that petitioner knew the contents of the package before handing it over, nor did it demonstrate overt acts or statements by petitioner indicating that he knew the package contained illegal drugs or that he recognized the wrongfulness of selling drugs. The poseur-buyer himself testified that he knew only that the boy was a minor and did not inquire into the boy’s age or elicit facts showing the boy’s capacity to understand the nature and wrongfulness of the act. On cross-examination the prosecution did not extract statements from petitioner demonstrating comprehension or intent; petitioner offered to submit to a urine test and denied drug use or prior familiarity with shabu.

Burden of Proof and Conspiracy Argument

The Office of the Solicitor General argued that the Information’s allegation of conspiracy and the conduct at the scene sufficed to establish that petitioner acted with discernment, and that explicit pleading or judicial statement of discernment was unnecessary. The Supreme Court rejected this contention in t

    ...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