By Brian Campued
It was a normal Monday at San Jose National High School in Barangay 87, Tacloban City, where students, including alias “Nash,” attended a flag ceremony at 7:30 in the morning.
The 14-year-old then hid in the school’s comfort room before he was joined by his 15-year-old companion, identified as alias “Rod,” 30 minutes later.
Around 9:00 a.m., both students left the CR and wandered around the campus before shooting at fellow students at 9:20 a.m.
Alias Rod was quickly restrained by authorities at 9:30 a.m. while alias Nash was turned over to the police at 11:15 a.m. by civilians.
Three fellow learners were killed while 20 others were wounded in the shooting spree before the two were caught—turning what seemed to be a peaceful day in school into a bloody tragedy.
According to Police Regional Office 8 (PRO-8), screenshots of alleged conversation between the two children in conflict with the law (CICL) show that the shooting was planned at least a month in advance, with both suspects discussing protections afforded by the law for minor offenders.
It clarified, however, that the investigation is still ongoing to establish the facts of the case.
Though minors are generally exempt from criminal liability under Republic Act 9344 or the “Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006,” those above 15 years old but below 18 may be held liable if it is proven that they “acted with discernment.”
Determining discernment
The concept of “discernment” in relation to crimes committed by minors has become a focal point in discussions surrounding the Tacloban school shooting case as victims and their families cry for justice.
According to the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court (SC) en banc in February 2024, discernment is the capacity of the child at the time of the commission of the offense to “understand the difference between right and wrong and the consequences of the wrongful act.”
For discernment to be established, a social worker must initially assess the child, but the final determination belongs to the court.
“The determination shall take into account the ability of a child to understand the moral and psychological components of criminal responsibility and the consequences of the wrongful act; and whether a child can be held responsible for essentially antisocial behavior,” the high court said.
However, the ruling states that a social worker’s assessment is merely evidentiary and is not binding on the court. The court ultimately determines discernment based on its appreciation of all facts and circumstances in each case.
Moreover, the SC said there is no presumption that a minor acted with discernment, stressing, “For a minor at such an age to be criminally liable, the prosecution is burdened to prove beyond reasonable doubt, by direct or circumstantial evidence, that he or she acted with discernment.”
In determining discernment, courts consider the totality of facts and circumstances in each case. These may include:
- the minor’s appearance, attitude, comportment, and behavior before, during, and after the commission of the offense;
- the “gruesome” nature of the crime;
- the minor’s alleged cunning or shrewdness;
- the minor’s utterances;
- the minor’s overt acts before, during, and after the crime;
- the nature of the weapon used;
- the minor’s attempts to silence a witness; and
- any disposal or hiding of the “corpus delicti” or the body or substance of the crime.
What happens to the CICL according to the law?
According to Section 38 of the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act, once the child who is under 18 at the time of the offense is found guilty, the court shall determine and ascertain any civil liability which may have resulted from the act committed.
However, instead of pronouncing the judgment of conviction, the court shall place the CICL under suspended sentence. The law also added that the suspension of sentence shall still be applied even if the juvenile is already 18 or more at the time of the pronouncement of guilt.
Instead of a jail sentence, the child is subjected to rehabilitative disposition measures, such as placement in a Youth Rehabilitation Center or undergoing community-based programs overseen by the court and the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD).
Meanwhile, Section 39 states that the court may dismiss a case against a minor whose sentence was suspended upon the recommendation of the supervising social worker, confirming that the objectives of the rehabilitation program have been met.
While the dismissal clears the CICL’s criminal liability, it shall not affect the civil liability resulting from the commission of the offense, which shall be enforced in accordance with law.
On the other hand, if the court finds that the disposition measures imposed upon the minor were not fulfilled or if the child willfully failed to comply with the conditions of the rehabilitation program, he/she will be brought to court for the execution of judgment.
If the CICL turns 18 while still under a suspended sentence, the court must determine whether to discharge the offender, order the service of the sentence, or extend the suspended sentence until the person reaches 21.
For minors aged 12 to 15 who commit serious crimes, such as parricide, infanticide, murder, kidnapping, or major drug offenses, RA 10630 (which amended the juvenile justice act) mandates that they be deemed “neglected children” and mandatorily placed inside an Intensive Juvenile Intervention and Support Center (IJISC) hosted within a local Bahay Pag-asa facility for at least one year.
-av
