Minor 15 to 17 years old, A12(3) Revised Penal Code
Minor 15 to 17 years old – refers to the exempting circumstance that exempts an accused from criminal liability for committing an offense due to being a 15 to 17 years old, unless the accused acted with discernment.
1. Concept
Minor 15 to 17 years old – refers to the exempting circumstance that exempts an accused from criminal liability for committing an offense due to being a 15 to 17 years old, unless the accused acted with discernment.
a. Legal basis
Article 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. – the following are exempt from criminal liability:
3. Minor above 15 years but below 18 years of age, unless acted with discernment (as amended by Section 6, R.A. 9344);
(Revised Penal Code)
b. Effects of exempting circumstances
1) Admission by the accused
An exempting circumstance, by its nature, admits that criminal and civil liabilities exist, but the accused is freed from criminal liability; in other words, the accused committed a crime, but he cannot be held criminally liable therefor because of an exemption granted by law. (Sierra v. People, G.R. No. 182941, July 3, 2009, Per Brion, J.)
Strictly speaking, a person acting under any of the exempting circumstances commits a crime but cannot be held criminally liable therefor. The exemption from punishment stems from the complete absence of intelligence or free will in performing the act. (People v. Pantoja, G.R. No. 223114, November 29, 2017, Per Martires, J.)
2) Burden shifts to accused
As with justifying circumstances, exempting circumstances presupposes that the accused admits to the commission of the offense; however, the accused pleads an exempting circumstance to avoid criminal liability. Thus, the accused has the burden of proof on the applicability the exempting circumstance that is being invoked.
Well settled is the rule in criminal cases, that the prosecution has the burden of proof to establish the guilt of the accused. However, once the defendant admits the commission of the offense charged, but raises an exempting circumstance as a defense, the burden of proof is shifted to him. (People v. Concepcion, G.R. No. 136844, August 1, 2002, Per Quisumbing, J.)
2. Minor above 15 years but below 18 years of age
This person is exempt from criminal liability: Minor above 15 years but below 18 years of age, unless acted with discernment (as amended by Section 6, R.A. 9344). (REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 12[3], as amended by Section 6, R.A. 9344)
R.A. 9344, Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, provides:
SEC. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. – …
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, unless he/she has acted with discernment, in which case, such child shall be subjected to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act.
The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced in accordance with existing laws.
The Court recognizes the mandate of Republic Act No. 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006) to protect the best interest of the child in conflict with the law through measures that will ensure the observance of international standards of child protection, and to apply the principles of restorative justice in all laws, policies and programs applicable to children in conflict with the law. The mandate notwithstanding, the Court will not hesitate or halt to impose the penalty of imprisonment whenever warranted on a child in conflict with the law. (Hubilla v. People, G.R. No. 176102, November 26, 2014, Per Bersamin, J.)
A review of the provisions of Republic Act No. 9344 reveals, however, that imprisonment of children in conflict with the law is by no means prohibited. While Section 5 (c) of Republic Act No. 9344 bestows on children in conflict with the law the right not to be unlawfully or arbitrarily deprived of their liberty; imprisonment as a proper disposition of a case is duly recognized, subject to certain restrictions on the imposition of imprisonment, namely: (a) the detention or imprisonment is a disposition of last resort, and (b) the detention or imprisonment shall be for the shortest appropriate period of time. Thereby, the trial and appellate courts did not violate the letter and spirit of Republic Act No. 9344 by imposing the penalty of imprisonment on the petitioner simply because the penalty was imposed as a last recourse after holding him to be disqualified from probation and from the suspension of his sentence, and the term of his imprisonment was for the shortest duration permitted by the law. (Ibid.)
1) Retroactive application
Ortega v. People, G.R. No. 151085, August 20, 2008, Per Nachura, J.:
• Ostensibly, the only issue that requires resolution in this case is whether or not petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape as found by both the RTC and the CA. However, with the advent of R.A. No. 9344 while petitioner’s case is pending before this Court, a new issue arises, namely, whether the pertinent provisions of R.A. No. 9344 apply to petitioner’s case, considering that at the time he committed the alleged rape, he was merely 13 years old.
• [S]ection 64 of the law categorically provides that cases of children 15 years old and below, at the time of the commission of the crime, shall immediately be dismissed and the child shall be referred to the appropriate local social welfare and development officer (LSWDO). What is controlling, therefore, with respect to the exemption from criminal liability of the CICL, is not the CICL’s age at the time of the promulgation of judgment but the CICL’s age at the time of the commission of the offense. In short, by virtue of R.A. No. 9344, the age of criminal irresponsibility has been raised from 9 to 15 years old.
• Given this precise statutory declaration, it is imperative that this Court accord retroactive application to the aforequoted provisions of R.A. No. 9344 pursuant to the well-entrenched principle in criminal law – favorabilia sunt amplianda adiosa restrigenda. Penal laws which are favorable to the accused are given retroactive effect. This principle is embodied in Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code.
References
• Title I – Felonies and Circumstances which Affect Criminal Liability, Book I, Act No. 3815, Revised Penal Code
—
/Updated: August 26, 2023
