GR No 180380

Raymund Madali and Rodel Madali vs People of the Philippines

GR No 180380        August 4, 2009

Facts:

          Raymund and Rodel were accused of the crime of Murder after allegedly willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attacking, assaulting, and striking AAA with a coconut frond and ‘llave inglesia’ and strangling with a dog chain, leading to an untimely death.

          Both plead not guilty by denial and alibi. The RTC, however, rendered a guilty verdict against them and convicted them only of homicide as there was a failure to prove the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation. They were sentenced to suffer an indeterminate sentence of 4 years, 2 months, and I day to six years of imprisonment. They elevated their conviction to the CA.

          CA affirmed the findings of RTC that both of the accused killed AAA. However, pursuant to Section 64 of RA No 9344, Raymond’s case was dismissed as the law provides exemption from criminal liability a minor 15 years of below at the time of the commission of the crime. Rodel’s conviction was sustained with six months and one day6 months and 1 day of prision coreccional to 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor, but the imposition was suspended pursuant to RA No 9344. Both assailed the decision.

Issue:

          WON the accused may avail of the benefit provided by RA 9344.

Held:

          Yes, Raymond may avail of the benefit provided by RA 9344 while Rodel may not as he acted with discernment in the act of crime.

          As to Raymond’s criminal liability, he is exempt. He was only 14 years old at the time he committed the crime. He would be exempt from criminal liability and should be released to the custody of his parents or guardian. Under RA 9344, a child 15 years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability, but he will be subject to an intervention program.

          As to Rodel, it must be borne in mind that he was 16 years old at the time of the commission of the crime. A determination of whether he acted with or without discernment is necessary pursuant to RA 9344. It provides that a child above 15 years of age but below 18 years of age shall 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. As the CA correctly opined, Rodel acted with discernment as was aware that killing AAA was a condemnable act and should be kept in secrecy.

          However, as he was only 16 years old, Article 68 of the RPC provided that the penalty imposed upon him should be the penalty next lower than that prescribed. Thus, 6 months and 1 day of prision correccional to 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor is in order.