U.S. vs. Maralit

A minor over 9 and under 15 years of age who is found to have acted with discernment is not exempt from criminal liability, and discernment may be established by necessary inference from the totality of the evidence — including the circumstances of the crime and the accused's appearance and testimony in court — without requiring a witness to testify directly that the accused acted with knowledge of the wrongfulness of his act. The penalty imposed on such a minor must always be at least two degrees lower than that prescribed by law for the offense committed.

The case was prosecuted under the old Penal Code of the Philippines during the American colonial period, with the United States as plaintiff-appellee. The accused, Maximo Maralit, was a minor less than 15 but over 9 years of age at the time of the offense, placing him within the age bracket governed by paragraph 3 of Article 8 of the Penal Code, which exempts such minors from criminal liability unless they acted with discernment. Article 85 of the same Code prescribed the penalty reduction applicable to minors in this category found to have acted with discernment.

The accused, Maximo Maralit, was a minor less than 15 years of age at the time of the offense. The deceased, Florentino Luistro, was less than 16 years old, his certificate of death stating his age as fifteen.

According to the prosecution's two eyewitnesses, they and Florentino were walking in single file, each carrying a bundle of zacate on his head, with Florentino bringing up the rear, when they met the defendant and a companion. As the two groups passed each other, the witnesses heard a sound similar to that made by the dropping of one of the bundles of zacate. They turned and saw Florentino and the defendant fighting with their fists. The combatants soon separated, and Florentino, returning to his bundle of zacate, stooped to pick it up. At that moment, the defendant ran to him quickly and stabbed him in the left side with a knife. The defendant and his companion then fled. The witnesses and Florentino went home. Florentino died a few days later as a result of the wound.

The accused and his witness offered a different account. They claimed that Florentino had made an attack upon the accused after some sharp words had passed between them, striking him several times with a club, whereupon the accused, in self-defense, used his dagger with the effect already noted.

The trial court credited the prosecution's version and found that the accused acted with complete discernment in committing the crime. The accused was convicted of homicide and sentenced to five years of prision correccional, with the accessories provided by law, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P1,000, and to pay the costs. On appeal, counsel for the appellant challenged both the trial court's factual findings and its finding of discernment, while the Supreme Court found no reason to disturb the factual conclusions but corrected the penalty.

• Credibility of Defense Evidence: Appellant argued that the trial court should have accepted the testimony of the defense rather than that of the prosecution, and that the trial court's findings of fact should be reversed accordingly.
• Lack of Proof of Discernment: Appellant contended that the prosecution failed to prove by affirmative evidence that the accused acted with discernment — that is, with a full understanding of the nature and consequences of his act — and that the trial court's finding of discernment had no evidentiary basis in the record.

• Findings of Fact: Whether the trial court's findings of fact, crediting the prosecution witnesses over the defense, should be reversed.
• Discernment: Whether the prosecution was required to prove by direct, affirmative evidence that the accused acted with discernment, or whether discernment may be inferred from the totality of the evidence.
• Proper Penalty: Whether the penalty of five years of prision correccional imposed by the trial court was correct for a minor over 9 and under 15 years of age found to have acted with discernment.

• Findings of Fact: No. A careful examination of the evidence furnished no sufficient reason to reverse the trial court's factual findings, which were based on the credible testimony of two prosecution eyewitnesses.
• Discernment: No, direct testimony is not required. Discernment may be established by necessary inference from the evidence as a whole, including the circumstances of the crime and the accused's appearance and testimony in court.
• Proper Penalty: No. The penalty should have been two years of prision correccional instead of five, Article 85 of the Penal Code mandating that a minor over 9 and under 15 found to have acted with discernment receive a discretionary penalty at least two degrees lower than that prescribed for the offense.

• Findings of Fact: The trial court found the prosecution's two eyewitnesses more credible than the defense's witnesses. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and found no reason to reverse the trial court on the facts, noting that the prosecution witnesses gave a consistent account of the events — the fistfight, the separation, Florentino stooping to pick up his bundle, and the defendant running to stab him. The defense's claim of self-defense was rejected.

• Discernment: Counsel argued that paragraph 3 of Article 8 of the Penal Code exempts a person over 9 and under 15 from criminal liability unless he acted with discernment, and that the court must make an express finding on that fact. Counsel contended the prosecution bore the burden of proving discernment by affirmative evidence. The Court acknowledged that it must appear from the evidence that the accused acted with knowledge of the nature of his acts and their likely consequences, but held that direct testimony on the point is not indispensable. It is sufficient that, from the evidence as a whole, it is a necessary inference that the accused so acted. The trial court considered all the facts and circumstances in the record, together with the appearance of the accused as he stood and testified in court, and concluded that he possessed sufficient intelligence and judgment to know that his act was wrong and likely to produce death. That finding was sustained.

• Proper Penalty: Article 85 of the Penal Code provides that in the case of a minor less than 15 and over 9 years of age who is found to have acted with discernment — and is therefore not exempt from criminal liability — a discretionary penalty shall be imposed, provided that it shall always be at least two degrees lower than that prescribed by law for the offense committed. The trial court imposed five years of prision correccional, which failed to comply with this requirement. The correct penalty was two years of prision correccional. The judgment was affirmed as modified.

• Discernment in minors over 9 and under 15 (Article 8, paragraph 3, Penal Code) — A minor over 9 and under 15 years of age is exempt from criminal liability unless he acted with discernment, defined as acting with knowledge of the nature of his acts and of the results which would naturally follow therefrom. The court must make an express finding on whether the minor acted with discernment. In this case, the Court established that discernment need not be proven by a witness declaring directly and in words that the accused acted with such knowledge; it is sufficient that, from the evidence as a whole, it is a necessary inference that the accused so acted. The trial court may consider the circumstances of the crime and the appearance and testimony of the accused in court in reaching this conclusion.

• Penalty reduction for discerning minors (Article 85, Penal Code) — When a minor over 9 and under 15 is found to have acted with discernment and is therefore not exempt from criminal liability, a discretionary penalty shall be imposed, provided that it shall always be at least two degrees lower than that prescribed by law for the offense committed. The trial court's failure to reduce the penalty by the required two degrees was corrected, and the penalty of five years of prision correccional was reduced to two years.

• "It is true, as counsel asserts, that it must appear from the evidence that the accused acted with knowledge of the nature of his acts and of the results which would naturally follow therefrom; but to establish that fact it is not necessary that some witness declare directly and in words that he acted with such knowledge. It is sufficient that, from the evidence as a whole, it is a necessary inference that he so acted." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi on the issue of discernment: the standard of proof does not require direct testimony but permits inference from the totality of the evidence.

• "In the case of minor of less than fifteen and over nine years of age, who is found by the court to have acted with discernment, and, therefore, not being exempt from criminal liability, a discretional penalty shall be imposed, provided that the same shall always be less by two degrees, at least, than that prescribed by the law for the offense committed." — This is the Court's quotation of Article 85 of the Penal Code, the provision governing the proper penalty for discerning minors, which formed the basis for reducing the sentence from five years to two years of prision correccional.

• Paragraph 3, Article 8, Penal Code — Provides that a person over 9 and under 15 years of age is exempt from criminal liability unless he acted with discernment, and requires the court to make an express finding on whether the minor acted with discernment. Applied to determine that the accused, being within this age bracket, was not exempt because the trial court expressly found he acted with discernment.
• Article 85, Penal Code — Mandates that a minor less than 15 and over 9 years of age found to have acted with discernment shall receive a discretionary penalty at least two degrees lower than that prescribed by law for the offense. Applied to correct the trial court's penalty from five years to two years of prision correccional.

Torres, Carson, Trent, and Araullo, JJ., concurred.