You are on page 1of 4

Jsa2101378|Scribd CaseDigest G.R. No. 162052 January 13, 2005 ALVIN JOSE vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Facts: On November 14, 1995, P/Supt Joseph Castro received an information from an unnamed informant that a big time group of drug pushers from Greenhills will deliver 100 grams of shabu at Chowking. Acting on such report, SPO1 Bonifacio Gueverra was assigned to act as a poseur buyer. They positioned their cars at the parking area where they had a commanding view of people going in and out. In the afternoon a Toyota Corolla arrived, Sonny Zarraga was the driver with Alvin Jose. The unnamed informant approached and talked to Sonny Zarraga. Then, the informant called SPO1 Bonifacio Guevarra and informed the latter that Sonny Zarraga had with him 100 grams of shabu. SPO1 Guevarra offered to buy the shabu. Sonny Zarraga asked SPO1 Bonifacio Guevarra if he had the money. Guevarra said yes. He showed the aforecited bundle of "money bills." Sonny Zarraga then asked Alvin Jose to bring out the shabu and handover to Guevarra. SPO1 Guevarra, in turn, handed the bundle of "money bills. Then the other police approached and introduced themselves as Narcom Operatives. They arrested Sonny Zarraga and Alvin Jose. The RTC finds both the accused Sonny Zarraga and Alvin Jose guilty beyond reasonable doubt, for violation of R.A. 6425. On appeal to the CA, the CA rendered judgment affirming the decision appealed from with modification. The appellate court reduced the penalty imposed on appellant Alvin Jose, on its finding that he was only thirteen (13) years old when he committed the crime. Appellant Jose, now the petitioner, filed his petition for review on certiorari, alleging that under paragraph 3, Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code, a minor over nine (9) and under fifteen (15) years of age at the time of the commission of the crime is exempt from criminal liability. Issue: Whether or not Alvin Jose can be exempt from criminal liability under the mitigating circumstances of minority. Ruling: Yes. Under Article 12(3) of the Revised Penal Code, a minor over nine years of age and under fifteen is exempt from criminal liability if charged with a felony. The law applies even if such minor is charged with a crime defined and penalized by a special penal law. In such case, it is the burden of the minor to prove his age in order for him to be exempt from criminal liability. The reason for the exemption is that a minor of such age is presumed lacking the mental element of a crime.

Jsa2101378|Scribd In the present case, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner, who was thirteen (13) years of age when the crime charged was committed, acted with discernment relative to the sale of shabu to the poseur-buyer. Aside from bringing out and handing over the plastic bag to accused Zarraga, the petitioner merely sat inside the car and had no other participation whatsoever in the transaction between the accused Zarraga and the poseurbuyer. There is no evidence that the petitioner knew what was inside the plastic and soft white paper before and at the time he handed over the same to his cousin. Indeed, the poseur-buyer did not bother to ask the petitioner his age because he knew that pushers used young boys in their transactions for illegal drugs.


CaseDigest G.R. No. 123298 November 27, 2003 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. FRANCISCO L. CALPITO Facts: On November 21, 1990, Israel Montilla was sleeping in the sala of the victims residence when he was awakened by the victims shout for help. He then rushed to the victims bedroom which was just 2 meters away from the sofa on which he slept. By the doorway, he met appellant who was holding a fan knife in his right hand and the victims shoulder bag in his left. He grappled with appellant, who suddenly stabbed him on his left upper arm. While Montilla searched for something with which he could defend himself, appellant rushed out of the house through the kitchen door, the lock of which the latter had destroyed. Montilla looked inside the bedroom and saw his grandmother on the bed lying in a pool of blood, with stab wounds all over her body. The RTC finds the charge of Robbery with Homicide unsubstantiated by evidence, convicted appellant of the crime of Murder. Appellant, thereafter, filed a Motion for Reconsideration arguing that the trial court erred in convicting him of Murder instead of Homicide, and in failing to apply the mitigating circumstance of minority. Issue: Whether or not the court erred in not appreciating the privileged mitigating circumstances of minority interposed by the defense. Ruling: This Court, however, disagrees with the trial court in its conclusion on the mitigating circumstance of minority. In its order, the court a quo found appellants birth certificate doubtful because there appeared a slight discrepancy between the name stated thereon and the name being used by appellant. 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, this Court has appreciated this circumstance on the basis of a lone declaration of the accused regarding his age. This Court emphasizes that while the submitted birth certificate is not entirely satisfactory, a careful review of the records reveals other evidence of appellants minority. Furthermore, this Court agrees with appellants claim that he should be credited with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary plea of guilty to the offense charged. The requisites of this circumstance are: (1) that the offender spontaneously confessed his guilt; (2) that the confession of guilt was made in open court, that is, before the competent court that is to try the case; and (3)

Jsa2101378|Scribd that the confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution. In this case, upon re-arraignment, appellant, in the presence of his counsel, and in open court, voluntarily pleaded guilty to the crime charged before the prosecution presented its evidence.