GUEVARRA Vs ALMODOVAR
G.R. No.: 75256 January 26, 1989
Facts:
Petitioner John Philip Guevarra, then 11 years old, was playing with his best friend Teodoro Almine, Jr. and three other children in their backyard in the morning of 29 October 1984. They were target-shooting a bottle cap (tansan) placed around fifteen (15) to twenty (20) meters away with an air rifle borrowed from a neighbour. In the course of their game, Teodoro was hit by a pellet on his left collar bone which caused his unfortunate death. After conducting a preliminary investigation, the examining Fiscal exculpated petitioner due to his age and because the unfortunate occurrence appeared to be an accident. The victim's parents appealed to the Ministry of Justice, which ordered the Fiscal to file a case against petitioner for Homicide through reckless Imprudence on the ground that the petitioner acted with discernment. On 26 July 1986, Mr. Guevarra present petition for certiorari implying that discernment connotes intent.
Issues:
1. Whether or Not an eleven year old boy could be charged with the Crime of homicide thru reckless imprudence
2. Whether or Not the court had jurisdiction over the case notwithstanding the fact that it did not pass thru the barangay Lupon
Ruling:
1. Yes, discernment that constitutes an exception to the exemption from criminal liability of a minor under fifteen years of age but over nine, who commits an act prohibited by law, is his mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong. Intent on the other hand is a determination to do a certain things; an aim; the purpose of the mind, including such knowledge as is essential to such intent; the design resolve, or determination with which a person acts. It could not therefore be argued that discernment is equivalent or connotes 'intent' for they refer to two different concepts. In evaluating felonies committed by means of culpa, three (3) elements are indispensable, namely, intelligence, freedom of action, and negligence. Obviously, intent is wanting in such felonies. However, intelligence remains as an essential element, hence, it is necessary that a minor above nine but below fifteen years of age be possessed with intelligence in committing a negligent act which results in a quasi-offense. Intelligence, which includes discernment, is a distinct element of dolo as a means of committing an offense.
2. Yes, P.D. 1508 is not jurisdictional. it is contended by the petitioner that the case against him should have first been brought before the Lupong Tagapayapa pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1508, Section 2(3). The petitioner, in his arguments, asserts that since P.D. 1508 has not been complied with, the trial court has no jurisdiction over the case. This erroneous perception has been corrected long before. As intimated in the case of Royales vs. IAC, 127 SCRA 470. Thus the petition is dismissed for lack of merit.