#76 gr 75256 Guevarra vs Almodovar

Facts:
The incident happened on October 29, 1984, the accused who was 11 yrs. Old at that time was
playing with the his bestfriend and 3 other children in their backyard. They were playing with an
air rifle to shoot a tansan 15-20 meters away from them. During their game, his bestfriend was
hit by a pellet in the collar bone which caused his death.
 
The accused was absolved by the fiscal considering his age and what happened appeared
to be an accident. The parents of the victim appealed to the ministry of justice, and a case
of homicide for reckless imprudence was filed. The parents of accused filed petition for
certiorari.
 
 
Issue: Whether or not the accused acted with discernment when he accidentally shoot the victim.
 
Ruling:
NO, the child did not act with discernment when he accidentally shoot the victim
RA 9344 sec 6 states that…..(1st par)
With the RA 9344 which amended the par 3 and 4 of the RPC it exempts children below 15
yrs of age from criminal liability.During this age it is consdered that the child committed the
offense without discernment.
Discernment is the mental capacity to fully appreciate the consequences of an
unlawful act. It can be shown by the manner the crime was committed and the
conduct of the offender after the commission of crime.
With the facts provided, the accused considering his age as being 11 years old may not
fully appreciate the consequences of his act. He was only playing with the rifle to
shoot on the tansan and may not be aware of the dangers if you accidentally shoot a
person with it.
Since the accused was below 15 years of age at the time of the commission of the
offense he is exempted to criminal liability.
 
The petition was dismissed for lack of merit and the Temporary restraining order was
lifted .The case was remanded to the lower court
 
the petition is was DISMISSED for lack of merit and the Temporary Restraining Order effective 17
September 1986 is LIFTED. Let this case be REMANDED to the lower court for trial on the merits.
No cost.
 
  The case happened prior the implementation of RA 9344 kaya ang ruling ay base pa sa old provision ng
sect 12. But my digest was based on RA 9344 na