III #118

Criminal Law Review (Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability)

EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES; MINORITY
Jose vs. People of the Philippines
489 Phil. 106 (January 13, 2005)
Callejo, Sr., J.
Prosecution has burden to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a minor acted with discernment

FACTS: The records show that Alvin Jose and his cousin, Sonny Zarraga were charged with the violation of Section
21(b), Article IV in relation to Section 29, Article IV of Republic Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972), as
amended, in an Information.
According to the prosecution, the Fourth Regional Narcotics Unit received an information from an unnamed
informant a big time group of drug pushers from Greenhills will deliver 100 grams of shabu at Chowking Restaurant
located at Brgy. Real, Calamba, Laguna. Acting on such report, SPO1 Bonifacio Guevarra was assigned to act as the
poseur-buyer. He was provided with marked money.
It was about 4 oclock in the afternoon when a Toyota Corolla arrived. Sonny Zarraga was the driver with
petitioner Alvin Jose [then 13 y/o]. The unnamed informant approached and talked to Sonny. Then, the informant
called SPO1 Bonifacio Guevarra and informed the latter that Sonny had with him 100 grams of shabu. SPO1
Guevarra offered to buy the shabu. Sonny asked SPO1 Guevarra if he had the money to buy 100 grams of shabu.
Guevarra responded in the affirmative. He showed the bundle of money bills. Sonny then asked Alvin Jose to bring
out the shabu and hand it over to SPO1 Guevarra. SPO1 Guevarra, in turn, handed the bundle of money bills. Then,
SPO1 Guevarra scratched his head, the pre-arranged signal to signify that the transaction was consummated.
Immediately thereafter, officers William Manglo and Wilfredo Luna approached and introduced themselves as
Narcom Operatives. They arrested Sonny Zarraga and Alvin Jose. The buy-bust bundle of money bills and the shabu
were recovered. The two were brought to Camp Vicente Lim for investigation. Edgar Groyon conducted the
investigation. The shabu was brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. P/Senior Inspector Mary Jean
Geronimo examined the shabu. She reported and testified that the specimen, indeed, was a second or low grade
methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The Defense, however, claimed that Sonny Zarraga and petitioner Alvin Jose were approached by policemen
who were all in civilian clothes. They also alleged that said police officers tried to extort money from them.

BACKDROP IN COURTS:
RTC, Calamba, Laguna found both the accused Sonny Zarraga and Alvin Jose guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
They filed an appeal.
CA rendered judgment affirming the decision appealed from with modification. The appellate court reduced the
penalty imposed on appellant Alvin Jose, on its finding that he was only thirteen (13) years old when he committed
the crime; hence, he was entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority and to a reduction of the
penalty by two degrees.

Page 1 of 3
2017 BANGSAMORO DIGEST GUILD(AUF, JD est. 2013)
III #118
Criminal Law Review (Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability)
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES; MINORITY
The appellant filed an MR, alleging that since the Information failed to allege that he acted with discernment
when the crime was committed and that the prosecution failed to prove the same, he should be acquitted. The
appellate court denied the motion.
ISSUE/s: WON PETITIONER JOSE SHOULD BE ACQUITTED.
HELD: YES. The petitioner asserts that, under paragraph 3, Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code, a minor over nine
(9) and under fifteen (15) years of age at the time of the commission of the crime is exempt from criminal liability
unless he acted with discernment, in which case he shall be proceeded against in accordance with Article 192 of
Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 603, as amended by P.D. No. 1179, as provided for in Article 68 of the Revised Penal
Code. He avers that the prosecution was burdened to allege in the Information and prove beyond reasonable doubt
that he acted with discernment, but that the prosecution failed to do so.
Under Article 12(3) of the Revised Penal Code, a minor over nine years of age and under fifteen is exempt
from criminal liability if charged with a felony. The law applies even if such minor is charged with a crime defined
and penalized by a special penal law. In such case, it is the burden of the minor to prove his age in order for him to
be exempt from criminal liability. The reason for the exemption is that a minor of such age is presumed
lacking the mental element of a crime the capacity to know what is wrong as distinguished from what
is right or to determine the morality of human acts; wrong in the sense in which the term is used in
moral wrong. However, such presumption is rebuttable. For a minor at such an age to be criminally liable,
the prosecution is burdened to prove beyond reasonable doubt, by direct or circumstantial evidence,
that he acted with discernment, meaning that he knew what he was doing and that it was wrong. Such
circumstantial evidence may include the utterances of the minor; his overt acts before, during and after the
commission of the crime relative thereto; the nature of the weapon used in the commission of the crime; his attempt
to silence a witness; his disposal of evidence or his hiding the corpus delicti.
In the present case, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner, who was
thirteen (13) years of age when the crime charged was committed, acted with discernment relative to the sale of
shabu to the poseur-buyer. Aside from bringing out and handing over the plastic bag to accused Zarraga, the
petitioner merely sat inside the car and had no other participation whatsoever in the transaction between the
accused Zarraga and the poseur-buyer. There is no evidence that the petitioner knew what was inside the plastic
and soft white paper before and at the time he handed over the same to his cousin. Indeed, the poseur-buyer did not
bother to ask the petitioner his age because he knew that pushers used young boys in their transactions for illegal
drugs.
The claim of the OSG that the prosecution was able to prove that the petitioner conspired with his co-accused
to sell shabu to the poseur-buyer, and thereby proved the capacity of the petitioner to discern right from wrong, is
untenable. Conspiracy presupposes capacity of the parties to such conspiracy to discern what is right
from what is wrong. Since the prosecution failed to prove that the petitioner acted with discernment, it cannot
thereby be concluded that he conspired with his co-accused.

Page 2 of 3
2017 BANGSAMORO DIGEST GUILD(AUF, JD est. 2013)
III #118
Criminal Law Review (Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability)
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES; MINORITY

DILLs NOTES: In May 20, 2006, R.A. No. 9344 took effect. 1 Section 6 thereof provides that a child fifteen (15) years
of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. So as children
below eighteen (18), unless they acted with discernment.

Final Ruling: the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 22289
which affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Calamba, Laguna, Branch 36, is SET ASIDE.
The petitioner is ACQUITTED of the crime charged for insufficiency of evidence.

- Dill Yanga y Rivera

1 People vs. Arpon, GR No. 183563, 14 December 2011.

Page 3 of 3
2017 BANGSAMORO DIGEST GUILD(AUF, JD est. 2013)