You are on page 1of 4

EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES

1. MADALI VS PEOPLE
FACTS:
At around 5:30 in the afternoon of 13 April 1999, BBB, who made a
living by selling goods aboard ships docked at the Romblon Pier, and
who was constantly assisted by her 15-year-old son AAA, was on a
ship plying her wares. AAA, together with Jovencio and Raymund,
was there helping his mother. Sometime later, Raymund and AAA left
the ship. Jovencio and another friend named Michael Manasan sat
beside the Rizal monument|.Michael had just left Jovencio when
Raymund, Rodel, Bernardino and the victim AAA arrived. After
meandering around, the group proceeded to climb the stairs, atop of
which was the reservoir just beside the Romblon National High
School. The victim, AAA, ascended first; behind him were Rodel,
Raymund, Bernardino and witness Jovencio. As soon as they
reached the reservoir, Bernardino blindfolded AAA with the
handkerchief of Raymund. Bernardino at once blurted out, "Join the
rugby boys." AAA replied, "That's enough." Bernardino then struck
AAA thrice with a fresh and hard coconut frond. AAA lost his balance
and was made to stand up by Raymund, Rodel and Bernardino.
Raymund took his turn clobbering AAA at the back of his thighs with
the same coconut frond. AAA wobbled. Before he could recover, he
received punches to his head and body from Rodel, who was
wearing brass knuckles. The punishments proved too much, as AAA
lost consciousness.
Not satisfied, Raymund placed his handkerchief around the neck of
AAA, with its ends tied to a dog chain. With the contraption, the three
malefactors pulled the body up a tree.
Stunned at the sight of his cousin being ill-treated, Jovencio could
only muster a faint voice saying "Enough" every single-time AAA
received the painful blows. Bernardino, who seemed to suggest
finishing off the victim, remarked, "Since we're all here, let's get on

with it." Before leaving the scene, the three assailants warned
Jovencio not to reveal the incident to anyone, or he would be next.
It was three days later that a certain Eugenio Murchanto reported to
the police authorities about a dead man found in Barangay ZZZ near
the Romblon National High School. Dr. Floresto P. Arizala, Jr., who
conducted the examination, opined that the victim died due to head
injuries and not to asphyxiation by hanging. He declared that the
victim was already dead when he was tied to the tree, and that the
variety of injuries sustained by the victim could be attributed to more
than one assailant. Jovencio narrated the incident and pointed to
Raymund, Rodel and Bernardino as the perpetrators of the crime.
RTC rendered a guilty verdict against the three accused. On account
of the prosecution's failure to prove the qualifying circumstances of
treachery and evident premeditation, they were only convicted of
homicide. The RTC observed that the incident was a sort of initiation,
in which the victim voluntarily went along with the perpetrators, not
totally unaware that he would be beaten. The RTC also appreciated
the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority in favor of the three
accused.
Court of Appeals affirmed the findings of the RTC that Rodel and
Raymund killed the victim. However, pursuant to Section 64 of
Republic Act No. 9344, otherwise known as the "Juvenile Justice and
Welfare Act of 2006," which exempts from criminal liability a minor
fifteen (15) years or below at the time of the commission of the
offense, Raymund's case was dismissed. Rodel's conviction was
sustained, and he was sentenced to six months and one day of
prision correccional to eight years and one day of prision mayor, but
the imposition of said penalty was suspended pursuant to Republic
Act No. 9344.
ISSUE:
Whether or not, they being a minors, be exempt from criminal
liability as well as civil liability
HELD:
As to the criminal liability, Raymond is exempt. As correctly ruled by

A determination of whether he acted with or without discernment is necessary pursuant to Section 6 of Republic Act No. While Raymund is exempt from criminal liability. his civil liability is not extinguished pursuant to the second paragraph of Section 6. . SEC. guardians or nearest relatives cannot be located. the DSWD. the child shall be subjected to an intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of this Act. it must be borne in mind that he was 16 years old at the time of the commission of the crime. neglected or abused by his parents. CAaDSI xxx xxx xxx The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not include exemption from civil liability. — A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. As to Rodel's situation.the Court of Appeals.Children Below the Age of Criminal Responsibility. such child shall be subjected to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act. should be exempt from criminal liability and should be released to the custody of his parents or guardian pursuant to Sections 6 and 20 of Republic Act No. which shall be enforced in accordance with existing laws. 603. unless he/she has acted with discernment. or in the absence thereof. Raymund. or. If the child referred to herein has been found by the Local Social Welfare and Development Office to be abandoned. otherwise known as "The Child and Youth Welfare Code. 9344. who was only 14 years of age at the time he committed the crime. or if they refuse to take custody. a barangay official or a member of the Barangay Council for the Protection of Children (BCPC). . Said authority shall give notice to the local social welfare and development officer who will determine the appropriate programs in consultation with the child and to the person having custody over the child. the child's nearest relative. in which case. viz. If the parents.: SEC. the child may be released to any of the following: a duly registered nongovernmental or religious organization. . — If it has been determined that the child taken into custody is fifteen (15) years old or below. . 6. the authority which will have an initial contact with the child has the duty to immediately release the child to the custody of his/her parents or guardian. to wit: SEC. However. 20. when and where appropriate. the proper petition for involuntary commitment shall be filed by the DSWD or the Local Social Welfare and Development Office pursuant to Presidential Decree No. of Criminal 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. a local social welfare and development officer. Republic Act No.Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. — . or in the event that the parents will not comply with the prevention program.Minimum Age Responsibility. 9344. 6. 9344.

Rodel. therefore. Thereafter. [AAA's cousin] instinctively rushed to the house of [AAA's] mother. [AAA]'s medical findings are as follows: "negative for introital vulvar laceration nor scars. She also felt an intense pain inside her stomach. She agreed. after satisfying his lust. Meanwhile. At home. appellant removed [AAA's] shorts and underwear. [AAA's mother]. [AAA] felt severe pain inside her private part and said "aray". Later. was playing in the yard of Saling Crisologo near a mango tree. Suddenly. and (7) there is a complete perforation of the hymen which means that it could have been subjected to a certain trauma or pressure such as strenuous exercise or the entry of an object like a medical instrument or penis. Unknown to appellant. together with her [cousin and two other playmates]. when her mother washed her body. Thereafter. [AAA's cousin] approached [AAA] and asked her what appellant had done to her. [AAA's cousin] immediately returned to the backyard of Saling Crisologo where she found [AAA] crying. Rodel knew. 24 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. was gone. Perplexed. [AAA's] mother answered that they (referring to {AAA and her cousin} were still very young to be talking about such matters. Horrified. appellant appeared and invited [AAA] to go with him to the backyard of Saling Crisologo's house. He also removed his trousers and brief. [AAA's] father was working in Manila. they would kill him. vaginal admits little finger with resistance. At that time. Upon reaching the place. [AAA] did not tell her mother what appellant had done to her because she feared that her mother might slap her. Then. and told the latter what she had seen. Appellant made an up-anddown movement ("Nagdapadapa tabi"). . perforated hymen. however. her aunt Emily. [AAA's cousin] followed them. otherwise. appellant stood up and ordered [AAA] to put on her clothes. together with his cohorts. he ordered [AAA] to lie down on her back. warned Jovencio not to reveal their hideous act to anyone. five-year-old [AAA]. that there was no showing of any scar or wound. complete.PEOPLE VS SARCIA FACTS: On December 16. Appellant.Discernment is that mental capacity of a minor to fully appreciate the consequences of his unlawful act. 1996. The Court of Appeals could not have been more accurate when it opined that Rodel acted with discernment. [AAA's cousin] came to their house and told [AAA's] mother again that appellant had earlier made an up-and-down movement on top of [AAA]. pinkish vaginal mucosa. He fully appreciated the consequences of his unlawful act. When [AAA] did not answer. 2. [AAA] called for [her cousin]. witnessed appellant's dastardly act. [AAA's cousin]. Appellant then left. [her cousin] did not ask her any further question and just accompanied her home. who positioned herself around five (5) meters away from them. that killing AAA was a condemnable act and should be kept in secrecy. she felt a grating sensation in her private part. he lay on top of her and inserted his penis into [AAA's] private organ. (6) the finding "negative for introital bulvar laceration nor scars" means. however did not say anything. in layman's language.

. who was seventeen (17) years old at the time. a buy-bust team was organized. PEOPLE VS MANTALABA FACTS: The Task Force Regional Anti-Crime Emergency Response (RACER) in Butuan City received a report from an informer that a certain Allen Mantalaba. was selling shabu.RTC decision was guilty of rape ISSUE: (d ko ma connect sa exempting. Thus.) 3. .