Title
People vs. Maralit
Case
G.R. No. 11979
Decision Date
Jan 25, 1917
A minor, Maximo Maralit, convicted of homicide for stabbing Florentino Luistro, argued self-defense. Court upheld guilt, citing discernment, but reduced penalty due to age.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 11979)

Factual Background

Maximo Maralit was convicted of homicide for the stabbing death of Florentino Luistro. The incident occurred when Maralit and his companion encountered Luistro and two witnesses while carrying bundles of zacate. Argument arose, leading to a physical altercation where Maralit allegedly stabbed Luistro. Following the altercation, Luistro succumbed to his injuries days later. The prosecution's evidence included testimony from two eyewitnesses, while Maralit claimed self-defense based on an attack by Luistro.

Trial Court Findings

The trial court favored the prosecution's version of events and upheld the conviction against Maralit despite the arguments presented by his counsel. Maralit’s defense heavily contested the trial court's findings, arguing for the acceptance of their narrative over the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Ultimately, the court's determination that the prosecution's evidence was more credible held firm upon review.

Legal Argument on Discernment

A vital aspect of the defense's appeal revolved around whether Maralit acted with discernment when committing the act. Given that Maralit was less than 15 years old, the legal framework, as stated in paragraph 3 of Article 8 of the Penal Code, indicated that a minor below this age could be exempt from criminal liability unless they acted with discernment. The defense argued that the prosecution failed to prove discernment, which is essential for establishing liability in this age group.

Evidence of Discernment

Although the trial court concluded that Maralit acted with discernment, the defense claimed there was insufficient evidence to support this finding. However, the court maintained that discernment could be inferred from a comprehensive evaluation of the circumstances surrounding the incident rather than requiring a direct admission from witnesses. The court noted Maralit’s behavioral indicators during the trial and assessed that he possessed the mental capacity to understand his actions' nature and consequences.

Modification of Penalty

While the verdict and the findings of discernment were upheld,

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.