Dorado Vs People

Facts:
On April 15, 2004, at around 11:00 o'clock in the evening, Ronald was talking to his friends Raniel, Delon
Busar, Annan Luna, Jerome Amergo and a certain Erwin (Ronald's group) along A. Reyes Street, Lower
Bicutan, Taguig. At that very time, Dorado, carrying a sumpak, and his friends, Confessor and Cabiaso
(Dorado's group), arrived and threw stones and bottles at Ronald's group.
Ronald's group scampered for shelter toward the talipapa and hid inside to avoid being hit by the stones
and bottles. When Ronald thought that Dorado's group was no longer-in the vicinity, they came out of
hiding. Dorado's group, however, was out there waiting for them. When they finally surfaced, Dorado's
group resumed throwing stones at Ronald's group. During the commotion, Dorado fired his sumpak and
hit Ronald between the eyes. Ronald fell unconscious for about ten (10) minutes while Dorado's group
ran away. Thereafter, Ronald was brought to the Rizal Medical Center by Raniel and Delon Busan.
The trial court found Dorado guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of frustrated murder. The
RTC, nevertheless, appreciated the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority in Dorado's favor as
he was still a minor at the time of the incident. It, however, stated that Dorado was not entitled to a
suspension of sentence because he was above twenty-one (21) years old at the time of the
pronouncement of guilt.
CA affirmed the RTC decision, finding that Dorado committed the crime of frustrated murder because he
had the intent to kill Ronald when he fired his sumpak hitting the portion between the two eyes of the
victim.
Issue: Was he rightly charged?
Ruling:
A perusal of the records will readily show that Dorado was a sixteen (16) year old minor at the time of
the commission of the crime on March 15, 2004. The Informations filed against him consistently stated
his minority.11 For said reason, he must benefit from the provisions of R.A. No. 9344, or the Juvenile
Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, as amended. Even though the said law was enacted on April 28, 2006,
the same must still be retroactively applied for the benefit of Dorado
Section 6 of R.A. No. 9344 provides that the following minors shall be exempt from criminal liability:
1. Those below fifteen (15) years of age at the time of the commission of the crime; and ,
2. Those above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age who acted without
discernment.
In other words, aside from increasing the minimum age of criminal responsibility, R.A. No. 9344 also
provides for alternative measures to address the criminal tendencies of a minor. The law endeavors that
a minor should be given several opportunities to mend his or her ways without resorting to detention
and incarceration. A judgment for conviction shall only be executed if all the alternative measures prove
to be ineffective.
when a minor above fifteen (15) but below eighteen (18) years old is charged with a crime, it cannot be
presumed that he or she acted with discernment. During the trial, the prosecution must specifically
prove as a separate circumstance that the CICL committed the alleged crime with discernment.
Accordingly, Dorado is deemed exempted from criminal liability. Nevertheless, he is not excused from
the civil liability that arose from the act.
"The discernment that constitutes an exception to the exemption from criminal liability of a minor x x x
who commits an act prohibited by law, is his mental capacity to understand the difference between
right and wrong, and such capacity may be known and should be determined by taking into
consideration all the facts and circumstances accorded by the records in each case, the very appearance,
the very attitude, the very comportment and behavior of said minor, not only before and during the
commission of the act, but also after and even during the trial."
Such circumstantial evidence may include the utterances of the minor; his overt acts before, during and
after the commission of the crime relative thereto; the nature of the weapon used in the commission of
the crime; his attempt to silence a witness; his disposal of evidence or his hiding the corpus delicti.
Discernment cannot be presumed even if Dorado intended to do away with Ronald. Discernment is
different from intent.
The word "intent" has been defined as:
"(a) design; a determination to do a certain things; an aim the purpose of the mind, including such
knowledge as is essential to such intent; . . .; the design resolve, or determination with which a person
acts."
It is this intent which comprises the third element of dolo as a means of committing a felony, freedom
and intelligence being the other two. On the other hand, We have defined the term "discernment," "The
discernment that constitutes an exception to the exemption from criminal liability of a minor under
fifteen years of age but over nine, who commits an act prohibited by law, is his mental capacity to
understand the difference between right and wrong ..."
While both are products of the mental processes within a person, the former refers to the desire of
one's act while the latter relate to the moral significance that person ascribes to the said act.
a person may not intend to shoot another but may be aware of the consequences of his negligent act
which may cause injury to the same person in .negligently handling an air rifle. It is not correct,
therefore, to argue, as petitioner does, that since a minor above nine years of age but below fifteen
acted with discernment, then he intended such act to be done.
Only Frustrated Homicide was committed as Evident Premeditation was not duly proven
For evident premeditation to be appreciated, the following must be proven beyond reasonable doubt:
(1) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the
accused clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between such determination and
execution to allow him to reflect upon the circumstances of his act.
vident premeditation was not established because, first, the prosecution evidence only referred to the
matters that happened during the incident, and not to the preparations undertaken by Dorado
beforehand to kill Ronald. There was no evidence on record which would indicate how and when
Dorado hatched his plan to kill Ronald. The mere fact that Dorado was seen with a sumpak at the
beginning of the . altercation does not unequivocally establish that he earlier devised a deliberate plot
to murder Ronald. In order to be considered an aggravation of the offense, the circumstance must not
merely be "premeditation" but must be "evident premeditation."
As can be gleaned above, the prosecution witness did not testify on how long they hid at the back of
the talipapa or how long Dorado's group waited for them to come out. As the lapse of time between the
determination until the execution of the unlawful deed was unclear, it cannot be established that
Dorado had sufficient time to reflect on his actions.
Lastly, Dorado did not have a cool thought and reflection when he shot Ronald. The RTC observed that
there was an ongoing feud between Dorado's group and Ronald's group.

Dorado Vs People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dorado Vs People

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dorado Vs People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Facts:

Issue: Was he rightly charged?

The word "intent" has been defined as:

You might also like