People v. Doquena

078. People v.
Doquena
G.R. No. 4653, September 27, 1939
People of the Philippines - plaintiff-appellee
Valentin Doquena, defendant-appellant
Decision by: J. Diaz. Digest by Lor Saguinsin.
Short Version:
For hitting him earlier, the appellant stabbed the deceased Ragojos thereby killing him. On
the date of the crime, the appellant was exactly thirteen years, nine months and five days old. The
trial court ruled that he acted with discernment and this was affirmed by the Supreme Court.
Facts:
1. The now deceased Juan Ragojos and one Epifanio Rarang were playing volleyball in the yard
of the school. The herein accused, who was also in said yard, intervened and, catching the
ball, tossed it at Ragojos, hitting him on the stomach. For this act of the accused, Ragojos
chased him around the yard and, upon overtaking him, slapped him on the nape.
2. Said accused then turned against the deceased assuming a threatening attitude, for which
the reason said deceased struck him on the mouth with his fist, returning immediately to the
place where Rarang was in order to continue playing with him.
3. Apellant looked around the yard for a stone with which to attack Ragojos, but finding none.
He forcibly took a pocket knife from his cousin. He then approached Ragojos and challenged
the latter to give him another blow with his fist, to which the deceased answered that he did
not want to do so. Juan Ragojos, ignorant of the intentions of the accused, continued playing
and, while he was thus unprepared and in the act of stopping the ball with his two hands, the
accused stabbed him in the chest with the knife which he carried.
4. The accused-appellant, who is a minor (On the date of the crime, the appellant was exactly
thirteen years, nine months and five days old.), was prosecuted for homicide, having killed
Juan Ragojos by stabbing him in the breast with a knife. The court, after trying the case, held
that the accused acted with discernment in committing the act imputed to him and,
proceeding in accordance with the provisions of article 80 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by Commonwealth Act No. 99, ordered him to be sent to the Training School for
Boys to remain therein until he reaches the age of majority.
5. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court. The lawyer for the defense in his brief, claims
that to determine whether or not a minor acted with discernment, the court must take into
consideration not only the facts and circumstances which gave rise to the act committed by
the minor, but also his state of mind at the time the crime was committed, the time he might
have had at his disposal for the purpose of meditating on the consequences of his act, and
the degree of reasoning he could have had at that moment.
Issue:
1. Whether the accused acted with discernment? (YES)
Ruling:
The appealed order is affirmed
Ratio:
1. The proven facts, as stated by the lower court in the appealed order, convinces the court to dismiss
said appeal. It is error to determine discernment by the means resorted to by the attorney for the
defense, as discussed by him in his brief.
 It is clear that the attorney for the defense mistakes the discernment referred to in article 12,
subsection 3, of the Revised Penal Code, for premeditation, or at least for lack of intention
which, as a mitigating circumstance, is included among other mitigating circumstances in
article 13 of said Code.
 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.
 And such capacity may be known and should be determined by taking into consideration all
the facts and circumstances afforded by the records in each case, the very appearance, the
very attitude, the very comportment and behaviour of said minor, not only before and during
the commission of the act, but also after and even during the trial.
 This was done by the trial court, and the conclusion arrived at by it is correct.
o Taking into account the fact that when the accused Valentin Doqueña committed
the crime in question, he was a 7th grade pupil in the intermediate school of the
municipality of Sual, Pangasinan, and as such pupil, he was one of the brightest in
said school and was a captain of a company of the cadet corps thereof, and during
the time he was studying therein he always obtained excellent marks, the trial court
is convinced that the accused, in committing the crime, acted with discernment and
was conscious of the nature and consequences of his act, and so also has this court
observed at the time said accused was testifying in his behalf during the trial of this
case.

People v. Doquena

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Doquena

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

People v. Doquena

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

078. People v.

You might also like