Llave vs. PEOPLE (Criminal Law Review 1)

G.R. No. 166040               April 26, 2006

NIEL F. LLAVE, Petitioner, 

vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS:

An Information charging petitioner (then only 12 years old) with rape of another minor Debbielyn (7 years old).

Petitioner, pulled her behind a pile of hollow blocks which was in front of the vacant house. There was a little light from the lamp post. She resisted to no avail. Petitioner ordered her to lie down on the cement. Petrified, she complied. He removed her shorts and underwear then removed his own. He got on top of her. She felt his penis being inserted into her vagina. He kissed her. She felt pain and cried. 

Petitioner argues that since he was only 12 years old at the time of the alleged rape incident, he is presumed to have acted without discernment under paragraph 3 of Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code.

ISSUE:

Whether he acted with discernment in perpetrating the crime; 

RULING:

Yes.

Petitioner’s arguments are bereft of merit. 

Article 12, paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code provides that a person over nine years of age and under fifteen is exempt from criminal liability, unless he acted with discernment. The basic reason behind the exempting circumstance is complete absence of intelligence, freedom of action of the offender which is an essential element of a felony either by dolus or by culpa. Intelligence is the power necessary to determine the morality of human acts to distinguish a licit from an illicit act. On the other hand, discernment is the mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong. The prosecution is burdened to prove that the accused acted with discernment by evidence of physical appearance, attitude or deportment not only before and during the commission of the act, but also after and during the trial. The surrounding circumstances must demonstrate that the minor knew what he was doing and that it was wrong. Such circumstance includes the gruesome nature of the crime and the minor’s cunning and shrewdness.

In the present case, the petitioner, with methodical fashion, dragged the resisting victim behind the pile of hollow blocks near the vacant house to insure that passersby would not be able to discover his dastardly acts. When he was discovered by Teofisto Bucud who shouted at him, the petitioner hastily fled from the scene to escape arrest. Upon the prodding of his father and her mother, he hid in his grandmother’s house to avoid being arrested by policemen and remained thereat until barangay tanods arrived and took him into custody.

The petitioner also testified that he had been an outstanding grade school student and even received awards. While in Grade I, he was the best in his class in his academic subjects. He represented his class in a quiz bee contest. At his the age of 12, he finished a computer course.

In this case, petitioner was fully aware of the nature and illegality of his wrongful act. He should not, therefore, be exempted from criminal liability. The prosecution has sufficiently proved that petitioner acted with discernment.