THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. VALENTIN DOQUEÑA, defendant-appellant.
G.R. No. 46539
September 27, 1939
Overview: Accused is a minor prosecuted for homicide. Did he act with discernment?
Full Case : People vs Doquena
Facts:
Between 1-2 pm of Nov. 19, 1938, Juan Ragojos and EpifanioRarang were playing volleyball in the yard of their school in Sual, Pangasinan. Valentin Doquena, the accused, intercepted the ball, and threw it a Ragojos, who was hit in the stomach. Miffed, Ragojos chased Doquena, and upon catching him, slapped Doquena on the nape, and punched him in the face. After doing this, Ragojos went back to Rarang to resume playing volleyball. Insulted, Doquena looked for something to throw at Ragojos, finding none, he got his cousin's (RomualdoCocal) knife, and confronted Ragojos. Ragojo's denied Doquena's request for a fight and resumed playing. Doquena stabbed the unaware Ragojos in the chest, thereby killing the latter.
Issue:
WON the accused is criminally liable for acting with discernment in committing the crime?
Held:
Yes, the accused acted with discernment. Accused mistakes the discernment for premeditation, or at least for lack of intention, as a mitigating circumstance. However, the DISCERNMENT that constitutes an exception to the exemption from criminal liability of a minor under 15 years but over nine, who commits an act prohibited by law, is his MENTAL CAPACITY to understand the difference between right and wrong, and 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, the very appearance, the very attitude, the very comportment and behavior of said minor, not only before and during the commission of the act, but also after and even during the trial. Article 12 section 3 of the Revised Penal Code states that: 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 Article 80 of this Code. When such minor is adjudged to be criminally irresponsible, the court, in conformity 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 Article 80.
