Guevarra vs.

Almodovar
GR No. 75256, Jan 26, 1989

The case is a special civil action for certiorari against the respondent Judge.
FACTS:
On October 29, 1984, the petitioner, who was then 11 years old, was playing with his
bestfriend, Teodoro Almine, Jr., and three other children in their backyard. They were targetshooting bottle caps placed 15 to 20 meters away with an air rifle borrowed from a neighbor. In
the course of the game, Teodoro was hit by a pellet on his left collar bone which caused his
unfortunate death. After the investigation, the examining fiscal exculpated the petitioner due to
his age and because the unfortunate event appeared to be an accident.
The victims parents appealed to the Ministry of Justice, who ordered the fiscal to file a
case against the petitioner for homicide through reckless imprudence. On October 25, 1985, the
petitioner moved to quash the said information of the following grounds: a) that the facts
charged do not constitute an offense; b) that the information contains averments which, if true,
would constitute a legal excuse or justification; and; c) that the court has no jurisdiction over the
offense charged.
The petitioners main argument was that the term discernment connotes intent under
the exempting circumstance found under Article 12, Section 3 of the RPC. If this was true, then
no minor between the age of 9 to 15 years may be convicted of quasi-offense under Article 365
which is criminal negligence. On April 4, 1986, the said motion was denied with respect to the
first and third grounds upon decision on and part was deferred until evidence shall have been
presented during trial.
ISSUES:
1. Whether an eleven (11) year old boy could be charged with the crime of homicide thru
reckless imprudence, and
2. Whether the court had jurisdiction over the case notwithstanding the fact that it did not
pass thru the Barangay Lupon.
HELD:
Yes. Intent and discernment are two different concepts. Intent means a determination
to do certain things; an aim; the purpose of the mind, including such knowledge as is essential
to such intent. Discernment means the mental capacity to understand the difference between
right and wrong. The second element of dolus is intelligence; without this power, necessary o
determine the morality of human acts to distinguish a licit from an illicit act, no crime can exist,
and because the infant has no intelligence, the exempts him from criminal liability. In
evaluating felonies committed by means of culpa, three elements are indispensable, namely,
intelligence, freedom of action and negligence. Obviously, intent is wanting in such felonies.
However, intelligence remains as an essential element, hence, it is necessary that a minor
above nine but below fifteen years of age be possessed with intelligence in committing a
negligent act which results in a quasi-offense. For him to be criminally liable he must discern the
rightness or wrongness of the effects of is negligent act. Indeed, a minor over nine years of age
but below fifteen may be held liable for quasi-offense under Article 365 of the RPC. Minors nine
years to fifteen years are presumed to be without criminal liability; but this presumption may be
rebutted if it could be proven that they were capable of appreciating the nature and criminality of
the act, that is, that they acted with discernment.
Yes. The petitioner contended that he was entitled to a two-degree privileged mitigating
circumstance due to his minority because of PD 1508. He argued that this can be applied to his
case because the penalty imposable is reduced to not higher that arresto menor from an original
arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional medium as prescribed in Article 365 of the RPC.

The jurisdiction of the court over a criminal case is determined by the penalty imposable under
the law for the offense and not the penalty ultimately imposed. The same principle applies n
construing Section 2(3) of PD 1508, which states that offenses punishable by imprisonment
exceeding 30 days, or a fine exceeding P 200.00. Expounding on the provision, a member of
the committee that drafted PD 1508 has said that the law says punishable, not punished.
One should therefore consider the penalty provided for by the law or ordinance as distinguished
from the penalty which the law actually imposed in particular cases after considering the
attendant circumstances affecting criminal liability. Hence, any circumstance which may affect
criminal liability must not be considered.
Petition was dismissed for lack of merit and the case was remanded to the lower court
for trial on the merits.