The Impact of Minority on Criminal Liability in the Philippines

G.R. No. 115217, November 21, 1996

Imagine a scenario: a teenager, influenced by older peers, participates in a crime. Should they be judged with the same severity as adults? Philippine law recognizes that young offenders require a different approach, emphasizing rehabilitation over strict punishment. This case, People of the Philippines vs. Santos Paredes, Jr., delves into the crucial issue of how minority affects criminal liability, highlighting the application of mitigating circumstances for youthful offenders.

Introduction

The case revolves around the tragic death of Evangelio Asis Jr., who was fatally shot and stabbed by Danny and Santos Paredes Jr. Santos Paredes Jr. was convicted as the assailant while his older brother was acquitted. The central legal question is whether the younger Paredes, Santos Jr., should receive a lighter sentence due to his age at the time of the crime. This case underscores the importance of considering age as a mitigating factor in criminal cases involving minors, balancing justice for the victim with the potential for rehabilitation of the offender.

Legal Context: The Child and Youth Welfare Code

Philippine law recognizes that minors are not fully responsible for their actions due to their limited understanding and susceptibility to influence. The Revised Penal Code, in Article 13, par. (2), provides that being under eighteen years of age is a mitigating circumstance. This provision is further developed by Presidential Decree No. 603, also known as The Child and Youth Welfare Code, which defines a “youthful offender” as someone over nine but under eighteen years of age at the time of the offense. The law aims to protect children from the full brunt of the law, focusing on rehabilitation rather than retribution.

Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code states the penalty to be imposed on a person over fifteen (15) and under eighteen (18) years of age:

“Upon a person over fifteen and under eighteen years of age, the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be imposed, but always in the proper period.”

For example, if an adult commits a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua, a minor in this age bracket would receive a penalty one degree lower, such as reclusion temporal. This difference in sentencing reflects the legal system’s recognition of diminished culpability due to age.

Case Breakdown: The Tragedy in Surigao del Sur

The case began with the brutal murder of Evangelio Asis Jr. in Cabacungan, Barobo, Surigao del Sur. Amelito Banug, a witness, testified that he saw Danny Paredes shooting Evangelio and Santos Paredes Jr. stabbing him. The Paredes brothers were charged with murder, both claiming alibi as their defense.

• Danny claimed he was hospitalized due to a gunshot wound sustained days prior.
• Santos Jr. claimed he was attending to his brother during his confinement.

The trial court acquitted Danny based on a medical certificate and witness testimony supporting his alibi. However, Santos Jr. was convicted, with the court citing Amelito’s positive identification and finding that Santos Jr. had both the capability and motive to commit the crime.

Santos Paredes Jr. appealed his conviction, arguing that he was not at the scene of the crime and that he was a minor at the time, entitling him to a privileged mitigating circumstance. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence, acknowledging his minority. The Court stated:

“The testimony of Amelito against appellant may still be considered credible. It is perfectly within the discretion of the trial court to accept portions of the testimony of a witness as it may deem credible and reject those which it believes to be false.”

The court further emphasized the importance of the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, stating:

“We have examined the records with great care but found nothing which might justify our taking a different view.”

However, the Supreme Court agreed that Santos Jr.’s age at the time of the crime warranted a reduced sentence. The Court considered Article 68, par. (2), of the Revised Penal Code and applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law, ultimately modifying his sentence to an indeterminate prison term.

Practical Implications: Protecting Youthful Offenders

This case highlights the importance of considering age as a mitigating factor in criminal cases. It reinforces the principle that youthful offenders should be treated differently from adults, with a focus on rehabilitation. The ruling serves as a reminder to lower courts to carefully assess the age of the accused at the time of the offense and apply the appropriate penalties.

For legal practitioners, this case provides guidance on how to present evidence of minority effectively. It also emphasizes the need to understand the interplay between the Revised Penal Code and The Child and Youth Welfare Code in cases involving youthful offenders.

Key Lessons

• Age is a significant mitigating factor in criminal cases involving minors.
• The Child and Youth Welfare Code provides specific guidelines for dealing with youthful offenders.
• Courts must consider the potential for rehabilitation when sentencing minors.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is the age range for a “youthful offender” in the Philippines?

A: A “youthful offender” is defined as a child, minor, or youth who is over nine years but under eighteen years of age at the time of the commission of the offense.

Q: How does minority affect the penalty imposed on a criminal?

A: If the offender is over fifteen and under eighteen years of age, the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be imposed, but always in the proper period.

Q: What is the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and how does it apply to youthful offenders?

A: The Indeterminate Sentence Law requires courts to impose a minimum and maximum term of imprisonment. For youthful offenders, the minimum term is taken from the penalty next lower in degree, while the maximum term is taken from the proper period of the imposable penalty.

Q: Can a court disregard the testimony of a witness if it finds part of their testimony to be false?

A: No, the court has the discretion to accept portions of the testimony of a witness as credible and reject those which it believes to be false. The maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not an absolute rule.

Q: What is the primary goal of the law when dealing with youthful offenders?

A: The primary goal is rehabilitation rather than retribution. The law aims to provide opportunities for youthful offenders to reform and reintegrate into society.

ASG Law specializes in criminal law and juvenile justice. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.