Exempting Circumstance of Minority | Criminal Law

In this article, we shall talk about the exempting circumstance of minority. The law on this matter has evolved. In the Philippines, Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code has been effectively repealed by Republic Act No. 9344,¹ as amended,² the Philippines own Juvenile Justice and Welfare Law. It is designed to ensure that the State provides the best possible care and protection for minors who are in conflict with the law, and those who are in need of special protection.

The law aims to promote the rehabilitation and reformation of young offenders, while recognizing their rights and dignity as human beings. It also seeks to promote the well-being of minors and to ensure that they are provided with appropriate care, guidance, and assistance to help them grow into responsible and productive members of society.

What is the exempting circumstance of minority?

In exempting circumstances, Article 12, Paragraph 2 and 3 of the Revised Penal Code is deemed repealed by Republic Act No. 9344, otherwise known as Juvenile Justice and Welfare Law. Thus, minority as an exempting circumstance is now found in Section 6 of Republic Act No. 9344[1], this was adopted on 20 May 2006 and amended in 2013 that promotes the creation of a child-friendly justice system focused on rehabilitation and restoration rather than punishment.

In the old Revised Penal Code, it states that:

“2. A person under nine years of age.³

“3. A person over nine years of age and under fifteen, unless he has acted with discernment, in which case, such minor shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Art. 80 of this Code.⁴

When such minor is adjudged to be criminally irresponsible, the court, in conformably with the provisions of this and the preceding paragraph, shall commit him to the care and custody of his family who shall be charged with his surveillance and education otherwise, he shall be committed to the care of some institution or person mentioned in said Art. 80.”⁴

What is the minimum age of criminal responsibility?

Sec. 6, RA 9344, it provides that:

“Sec. 6. Minimum age of criminal responsibility. – A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. However, the child shall be subjected to an intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of this Act.⁵

A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age shall likewise be exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to an intervention program, unless he/she has acted with discernment, in which case, such child shall be subjected to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act.⁶

The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced in accordance with existing laws.”⁶

The second and third circumstance was already amended by R.A. 9344 or the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006. This refers to a child in conflict with the law. A child in conflict with the law is a child who is alleged as, accused of, or adjudged as, having committed an offense under Philippine laws. The effect of minority on the criminal liability would depend on the age of the minor.

What is the reason behind the exempting circumstance of minority?

It is difficult to establish a line between being an adult and becoming susceptible to criminal penalty. Only Filipinos 15 years of age and below 18, who acted with discernment, or 18 years of age or older, can be criminally charged for violating a penal law. There are various reasons why minors, below the age of criminal responsibility should be spared from criminal prosecution.

One, among others, is that these exempted minors are deemed by law to have perpetrated the supposed criminal act with discernment or not have to discern the reason and consequences of their acts. Thus, they have been considered by law to have acted without criminal intent. There is no crime if there is non criminal intent or one does know what he was doing was a crime–actus non facit reum nis men cit rea.

Although it may not seem like much on the surface, this exception may protect the police and courts from having to deal with too many petty offenders.

Child in Conflict with the Law

According to the law, a child who committed a felony when he was 15 years old or under is not held criminally liable. Do not expect for discernment once the perpetrator is 15 years old or younger. He is completely exempt just by virtue of being 15 years old or younger.

If he is over 15 but below 18, but he did not act with discernment, he is exempted from criminal liability.

If he is over 15 but below 18 and he acted with discernment, he is not exempted from criminal liability, and he will be prosecuted just like any other criminal.

Therefore, if the criminal is 16, he is over 15 but under 18, committed a crime, and acted with discernment. It was established and proven during the trial that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There is already a pronouncement of a judgment of civil liability.

Under Section 38 of RA 9344, once the child who is under 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime was found guilty of the offense charged the court shall determine and ascertain any civil liability which may have resulted from the offense committed.⁷

Automatic Suspension

Instead of pronouncing the judgment of conviction, the court shall place the child in conflict with the law under suspended sentence, without need of application, even if he is already 18 or above at the time of the pronouncement of his guilt. Provided, he is not yet beyond 21 years of age. Provided however, that the suspension of the sentence shall still be applied even if the juvenile is already 18 years of age or more at the time of the pronouncement of his guilt.

As a result, if he is under the age of 18 at the time of the crime, even if he is over the age of 18 at the time of the judgment of conviction, the court shall place the child in conflict with the law under suspended sentence, without the need for an application.

Nonetheless, the suspension of the punishment will still apply even if the youngster is already 18 years of age or older at the time of his guilt being declared. Thus, even though he is over the age of 18 at the time of promulgation of judgment, he can still benefit from the suspended sentence if he is under the age of 18 at the time the offense has been committed.

The Supreme Court ruled that Section 38 of Republic Act No. 9344 did not differentiate based on the nature of the offense committed. Thus, the court will not make any distinctions. Assuming, of course, he is not older than 21. Only Section 51 can be applied retroactively to an accused person. This means he can serve his sentence in agricultural camps rather than a prison.

SEC. 51. Confinement of Convicted Children in Agricultural Camps and other Training Facilities. – A child in conflict with the law may, after conviction and upon order of the court, be made to serve his/her sentence, in lieu of confinement in a regular penal institution, in an agricultural camp and other training facilities that may be established, maintained, supervised and controlled by the BUCOR, in coordination with the DSWD.⁸

However, under Section 40 of said act, if a child is under suspended sentence, the court shall decide to discharge or to extend the sentence for a specific period or until the child attains the maximum age of 21. Although there is automatic suspension, it is tempered by Section 40. Therefore, the maximum limit is 21 years old. Thus:

“x x x x . . . . If said child in conflict with the law has reached eighteen (18) years of age while under suspended sentence, the court shall determine whether to discharge the child in accordance with this Act, to order execution of sentence, or to extend the suspended sentence for a certain specified period or until the child reaches the maximum age of twenty-one (21) years.”⁹

What has been decided

In relation to the topic, this happened in the case of People vs Sarcia¹⁰ and in People vs Mantalaba.¹¹ In People vs Sarcia, the accused was convicted of statutory rape. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the law should be given a retroactive application.

Section 36 of the act if persons who have been convicted and are serving sentence at the time of the effectiveness of the act and who were below 18 at the time of the commission of the offense for which they were convicted and are serving sentence shall be given a retroactive application of the act.

The Supreme Court ruled that although the crime committed is a heinous crime, the accused can still be given a suspension of the sentence. Under Section 38, it does not distinguish the nature of the crime, be it heinous, capital, or light offense, the child is entitled to suspension of sentence.

However, the Supreme Court ruled that considering the age of Sarcia, 31 years old already, he cannot be given anymore the benefit of suspension. Although, he committed the crime when he was 17 years old, the maximum age is 21.

The only benefit that was available to him was that he shall serve his sentence in an agricultural camp and other training facilities.

The same case was applied in People vs Mantalaba. Both cases have the very same issues. The case is about the sale of illegal drugs involving minors. In this case, the Supreme Court remanded the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals should have suspended the sentence because at that time the law was enacted and was on appeal to the Court of Appeals, the accused was 20 years of age, therefore, he is entitled to the automatic suspension of his sentence.

Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659,¹² was the governing law at the time Sarcia committed the rape in question. Under the said law, the penalty of death shall be imposed when the victim of rape is a child below seven years of age.

In this case, the victim who was only five (5) years old at the time the rape was committed and alleged in the information and proven during trial by the presentation of her birth certificate, which showed her date of birth as January 16, 1991, the death penalty should be imposed.

However, the Court found a ground for modifying the penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court did not agree with the Court of Appeal’s conclusion that Sarcia cannot be deemed a minor at the time of the commission of the offense to entitle him to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority.¹³

When Sarcia testified, he admitted that he was 24 years old, which means that in 1996, he was 18 years of age. As found by the trial court, the rape incident could have taken place “in any month and date in the year 1996.” It is uncertain whether the crime of rape was committed on or after he turned 18 in 1996 because the prosecution was unable to establish the precise day and moment when it occurred.

In assessing the attendance of the mitigating circumstance of minority, all doubts should be resolved in favor of the accused, it being more beneficial to the latter. In fact, in several cases, the Court appreciated the circumstance based on a lone declaration of the accused regarding his age.

R.A. No. 9344 provides for its retroactive application to those who were under the age of 18 at the time of the commission of the crime and who have already been found guilty and are currently serving their sentences.

Furthermore, the Act should apply to this case wherein the conviction by the lower court is still under review. Hence, it is necessary to examine which provisions of R.A. No. 9344 shall apply to Sarcia, who was below 18 years old at the time of the commission of the offense.

Sec. 38 of R.A. No. 9344 provides for the automatic suspension of sentence of a child in conflict with the law, even if he/she is already 18 years of age or more at the time he/she is found guilty of the offense charged.¹⁴

To date, Sarcia is about in mid 30’s years of age, and the judgment of the RTC had been promulgated, even before the effectivity of R.A. No. 9344. Thus, the application of Sec. 38 and Sec. 40 to the suspension of sentence is now moot and academic. However, Sarcia shall be entitled to appropriate disposition under Sec. 51 of R.A. No. 9344, which provides for the confinement of convicted children.

What is an act of discernment?

In the case of Madali vs People,¹⁵ there is an act of discernment when the minor knows the consequences and circumstances of his act.¹⁶

Discernment is that mental capacity of a minor to fully appreciate the consequences of his unlawful act. Such capacity may be known and should be determined by taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances afforded by the records in each case.¹⁶

So, in this case, the accused who was 16 years old at the time of the commission of the crime, warned the witness not to reveal their hideous act, otherwise, the accused and his co-accused would kill him. Therefore, he knew that killing the victim was a condemnable act and should be kept in secrecy. He fully appreciated the consequences for his unlawful act.

Although the crime was committed on April 13, 1999, and Republic Act No. 9344 took effect only on May 20 2006, the said law should be given retroactive effect in favor of Raymund who was not shown to be a habitual criminal.¹⁷ Hence, Raymund is exempt from criminal liability, his civil liability is not extinguished pursuant to the second paragraph of Section 6, Republic Act No. 9344.

Summary 

The Juvenile Justice and Welfare Law (RA 9344) is a Philippine law that governs the treatment and rehabilitation of children who are in conflict with the law. This act aims to protect the rights of children and to provide a system of juvenile justice that promotes their rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

Under Article 12, Paragraph 2 and 3 of the Revised Penal Code exempts minors from criminal liability. However, RA 9344 has been deemed to repeal this exemption and has replaced it with a different approach to juvenile justice. The new law provides that minors may still be held criminally responsible for their actions, but the emphasis is on rehabilitation and reintegration instead of punishment.

In Section 6 of RA 9344, it establishes the minimum age of criminal responsibility, which is 15 years old. The children below 15 years old are exempt from criminal liability and will not be subject to prosecution in a criminal court. Instead, they will be subjected to appropriate interventions that aim to address the root causes of their offending behavior and promote their rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

Conclusion 

Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code have been repealed by Republic Act No. 9344, otherwise known as Juvenile Justice and Welfare Law, It aims to provide a separate justice system for children in conflict with the law in the Philippines. The law recognizes the special needs and circumstances of children, and seeks to ensure that they receive appropriate care, protection, and rehabilitation.

The law places an emphasis on the principle of restorative justice, which aims to strike a balance between the needs of holding children accountable for their acts and giving them opportunity for rehabilitation and reintegration into society. It aims to safeguard children’s rights, particularly their right to due process, and offers a variety of solutions to the underlying causes of juvenile crime.

1. RA 9344[↩]
2. RA 10630[↩]
3. Article 12, Paragraph 2, Revised Penal Code[↩]
4. Id.[↩][↩]
5. Section 6, RA 9344[↩]
6. Id.[↩][↩]
7. Section 38, RA 9344[↩]
8. Section 51, RA 9344[↩]
9. Section 40, RA 9344[↩]
10. G.R. No. 169641, September 10, 2009[↩]
11. G.R. No. 186227, July 20, 2011[↩]
12. RA 7659[↩]
13. Article 68(2), Revised Penal Code[↩]
14. Sec. 38, RA 9344[↩]
15. G.R. No. 180380, August 4, 2009[↩]
16. Ibid.[↩][↩]
17. Article 22, Revised Penal Code[↩]