ANALYSIS on

the Juvenile
Justice System

PAT Vhrandon Lee C. Palitayan, RCrim

Advantages of the Juvenile Justice System

1. The JJS, as emphasized in RA 9344 and its amendatory law, RA

10630, established a mechanism for children's rights to be
respected, particularly those who are classified as CICLs.
2. The main law of the Juvenile Justice System, which is RA 9344
(as amended by RA 10360) strengthened the formal system for
the handling of CICLs.
3. The SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS were given a role that will help a
CICL during the course of the intervention or the diversion
programs.
2
Disadvantages of the Juvenile Justice System

1. Increase of CICL cases after RA 9344

2. Implementation problems due to facilities
3. Lack of continuous training for the social workers
(LSWDO level)
4. No BCPC or lack of awareness/ implementation at
the brgy. level
5. Lack of information among local officers
3
Advantage no. 1

The JJS, as emphasized in RA 9344 and its

amendatory law, RA 10630, established a mechanism
for children's rights to be respected, particularly those
who are classified as CICLs. This special penal law
recognizes the RIGHTS and ROLES of children in
nation building.

4
Rule 4 Declaration of Policies

Paragraph 1: The State recognizes

the vital role of children and youth
in nation-building and shall
promote and protect their
physical, moral, spiritual,
intellectual and social well-being.

5
Rule 4 Declaration of Policies

Paragraph 2: The State shall

protect the best interests of the
child, through measures that will
ensure the observance of
international standards of child
protection…

6
Rule 4 Declaration of Policies

Paragraph 3: The State likewise

recognizes the right of children to
assistance, including proper care and
nutrition, and special protection from all
forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty and
exploitation, and other conditions
prejudicial to their normal development.
7
Rule 4 Declaration of Policies

Paragraph 4: Pursuant to Article 40 of the United Nations

Convention on the Rights of the Child, the State recognizes
the right of every child alleged as, accused of, adjudged, or
recognized as having infringed the penal law to be treated in
a manner consistent with the promotion of the child’s sense
of dignity and worth, taking into account the child’s age and
desirability of promoting the child’s reintegration.

8
Rule 4 Declaration of Policies

Paragraph 6: The State shall apply and operationalize the

principles of restorative justice in all its laws, policies and
programs applicable to children in conflict with the law…

9
Advantage no. 2

The main law of the Juvenile Justice System, which is RA

9344 (as amended by RA 10360) strengthened the formal
system for the handling of CICLs (Children in Conflict with
the Law).

10
As we all know, children are capable of committing crimes
that are punished under the Revised Penal Code. When RA
9344 was not yet in effect, a youngster who commits a crime
is treated as an adult offender. Before, youthful offenders
were incarcerated along with adult offenders. This made the
youthful offenders learn other trades of criminality from
their comrades inside the jail. Thus, instead of reforming
them, it worsens the effect of incarceration.

11
12
Although, significant mitigation was applied and recognized
under the Revised Penal Code.

Furthermore, the age of criminal culpability for juveniles has

been raised from nine (9) prior to the [Revised Penal Code]
to fifteen (15). It also gave particular programs for the
CICLs under different age classifications.

13
I. CICLs fifteen (15) years old
or below

= immediately release the child

to the custody of the parents or
guardians, or in their absence,
the child’s nearest relative +
INTERVENTION PROGRAMS
14
II. CICLs fifteen (15) but below
eighteen (18) years and ACTED
WITHOUT DISCERNMENT

= shall be exempt from criminal

responsibility + treated like
CICLs fifteen (15) years old or
below
15
III. CICLs fifteen (15) but below
eighteen (18) years and ACTED
WITH DISCERNMENT

= DIVERSION PROGRAM
either at the BAHAY PAGASA
+ AFTER CARE PROGRAM

16
Advantage no. 3

The SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS were given a role that

will help a CICL during the course of the intervention
or the diversion programs.

17
RULE 15. Family

As provided in Section 12 of the Act, the

family shall be responsible for the primary
nurturing and rearing of children, which are
critical in delinquency prevention. As far as
practicable, and in accordance with the
procedures of the Act, as amended, a child in
conflict with the law shall stay and be
maintained with the child’s family.

18
RULE 16. Educational System

By way of contributing to juvenile intervention and delinquency prevention, educational

institutions shall, consistent with Section 13 of the Act:

(1) Work together with families, community organizations and agencies in the
prevention of juvenile delinquency, and in the rehabilitation and reintegration of
children in conflict with the law.
(2) Provide adequate, necessary and individualized educational schemes for children
who are manifesting difficult behavior, children-at-risk and children in conflict with the
law.
(3) In cases where children in conflict with the law are taken into custody or placed in a
“Bahay Pag-asa” and youth rehabilitation centers, provide the opportunity to continue
their learning under an alternative learning system with basic literacy program or non-
formal education accreditation equivalency system.
19
RULE 17. Mass Media

In all news and publicity materials concerning children, the best interest of the child and the
child’s right to privacy and confidentiality should be the primordial, paramount and
overriding consideration. Any undue, inappropriate and sensationalized publicity of any
case involving a child in conflict with the law or a child-at-risk is hereby declared a
violation of the child’s rights. Media practitioners shall not disclose any information that
may reasonably identify the child or will lead to the identification of the child.

The mass media shall also be encouraged to:

(1) Portray the positive contribution of children to society;

(2) Provide children with age-appropriate information and material for their development;
and
(3) Disseminate information on the existence and the procedures for availing of services,
facilities and opportunities for children in society.
20
RULE 18. Local Councils for the Protection of Children

(1) Serve as the coordinating body that will support the concerned LGU for the adoption,
implementation, assessment, monitoring and evaluation of the Comprehensive Juvenile
Intervention Program, as provided in Rule 23.b herein;

(2) Coordinate with, and assist, the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) and youth organizations, in
the formulation and implementation of juvenile intervention and diversion programs in the
community, in accordance with the Youth-to-Youth Guidelines promulgated by the NYC
and approved by the JJWC;

(3) Provide coordinative linkages with other agencies and institutions in the planning,
monitoring and evaluation of juvenile intervention and diversion programs in the
community;

(4) Assist the Punong Barangay in conducting diversion proceedings in cases provided
under Section 23(a) of the Act and RULE 47 herein; 21
(5) Support the Local Social Welfare and Development Officer (LSWDO) in
the development of the appropriate diversion programs, as provided under
Section 8 23(b) of the Act;

(6) Initiate, in collaboration with the schools, youth organizations and other
concerned agencies, the community-based programs on juvenile justice and
welfare, in accordance with the Youth-to-Youth Guidelines promulgated by the
NYC and approved by the JJWC;

(7) Conduct capability-building programs to enhance the knowledge and skills

of 14 LCPC members in handling children’s programs; and

(8) Document best practices on juvenile intervention and delinquency

prevention.
22
RULE 20. Children and Youth Sector

The Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) shall coordinate with the LCPC, in

the formulation and implementation of juvenile intervention and
diversion programs in the community.

The children and the youth sector, through other children and youth
organizations, shall participate in the formulation and
implementation of juvenile intervention and diversion programs in
the community.

23
Disadvantages No. 1

INCREASE OF CICL CASES AFTER RA 9344

Research Title= Discernment: The Minds of Children in Conflict

with the Law in Bacolod City

Researchers= John Emmer Gamo and Victoria Veronica Azurin

Location of the study= Bacolod City

24
25
26
Disadvantages No. 2

IMPLEMENTATION PROBLEMS DUE TO FACILITIES

A. Not enough building facilities (some LGU do not allocate

budgets to build Bahay Pag-asa in their locality)

B. Lack of the social workers (lswdo level) and training for the
social workers

27
28
Disadvantages No. 3

NO BCPC OR LACK OF AWARENESS/ IMPLEMENTATION AT

THE BRGY LEVEL

RA 9344 mandates that LGUs should allot 1% of their internal

revenue allotment (IRA) for the BCPCs, which have the power to
take preventive steps against juvenile delinquency at the onset
through intervention or diversion, which is “an alternative, child-
appropriate process of determining the responsibility and treatment
of a CICL…without resorting to formal court proceedings.”

29
Unfortunately, not all BCPCs are effective.
Sometimes, those in the barangay are
unaware that they could already start
diversion procedures at the local level.

In Caloocan, Acdog said BCPCs are not

functional. Instead of city social workers
focusing on children who committed serious
crimes, they are asked to settle petty crimes.

30
“Kailangan dapat magiging functional ang
BCPC. Parang di nila alam yung batas. Refer
nang refer lang sa amin. Supposed to be
kasama ang barangay sa 5 pillars of justice,”
she said.

(The BCPC should be functional. It appears

like they don’t know the law. They just keep
on referring children to us. Barangays are
supposedly included in the 5 pillars of
justice.)
31
“Kung may CICL na-apprehend doon sa barangay, nagu-undergo
na dapat sila ng intervention program. Pero ang nangyayari tinu-
turn over nila sa amin kahit tsinelas lang ang ninakaw, pinapa-
detain sa amin nang ilang araw. Kami ang nag-aayos ng kaso nila
or ng settlement kasi ilang araw o weeks dito, eh parang nade-
deprive mo na rin ang rights ng bata,” Acdog added.

(If there are CICL apprehended in the barangay, they should go

through an intervention program. But what happens is they are
turned over to us even if their crime is just stealing slippers. The
barangay officials ask us to detain them for a few days. We take
care of their cases or settlement because they spend several days
or weeks here, and it’s like depriving the kids of their rights.)

32
Disadvantages No. 4

LACK OF INFORMATION AMONG LOCAL OFFICERS

Another problem in the implementation of the law is the shortcuts in

dealing with CICL.

A CICL aged 15 or below should be placed under the custody of a

law enforcement officer, who then looks for the child’s parent or
guardian, depending on the severity of the crime.

33
The officer is mandated to check whether
the child will be in danger if he or she
returns to his or her parents. If the officer
determines that the child is subjected to
abuse or abandonment, the child has to go
through a diversion or intervention
program. These include counseling and
education, among others, to improve the
child’s psycho-social development. ”

34
But Paundog said there are cases where this process is not followed
– not just by barangay officers, but also by the police and
prosecutors.

“Other than sa barangay, there is such a thing as police diversion.

Pag less than 6 years ang penalty, puwede mag-diversion at that
level. Pati si prosecutor puwede. Kung gagawin lang sana namin
nang tama, masusunod ito (If the penalty is less than 6 years, the
police can conduct diversion at that level. Even the prosecutor can
do that. If they only do it properly, the law will be followed),” she
said.

35
Paundog said this gap might be due to the lack of information
among local officers, even if there are already numerous capacity-
building events conducted, lack of interest, or as simple as
overloading of social and barangay workers, exacerbate the
problem.

“Minsan ang mga stakeholders hindi nagdi-diversion. Minsan di rin

nila alam na puwede sila mag-diversion kahit marami nang
capability-building na ginagawa. Siguro iwas abala or nakasanayan
na, pinapasa na lang lahat sa city social welfare development, sa
city hall,” she said.

36
Let us look at the case of JERWIN DORADO, PETITIONER, VS.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

Facts of the case:

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.

37
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. He sustained
the following injuries:

Xxx Ruptured Globe, OU; S/P Excision of prolapsed Uvea + Repair of Corneal & Scleral
laceration, OD; S/P Enucleation & Evacuation of Foreign body's + Repair of Lower lid
margin laceration, OS xxx.[6]

Ronald was operated on his forehead and was confined for a month at the Rizal Medical
Center. As a result of the shooting incident, Ronald lost his left eye while his right eye could
only see some light. Dr. Artes, the operating surgeon, testified that without medical
intervention, Ronald could have died.
38
ISSUE:

DORADO was convicted at the RTC and CA. The defense

have filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking to
reverse and set aside the August 8, 2014 Decision and the
January 29, 2015 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
CA-G.R. CR No. 33581, which affirmed the July 5, 2010
Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Taguig City, Branch 163
(RTC), in Criminal Case No. 127784, finding accused Jerwin
Dorado (Dorado) guilty of the crime of Frustrated Murder.

39
THE COURT'S RULING ON THE PETITION:

The Court finds merit in the petition.

Dorado was a minor at the time of the commission of the crime. 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. 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 pursuant to the
well-entrenched principle in criminal law — favorabilia sunt amplianda adiosa
restrigenda (penal laws which are favorable to the accused are given retroactive
effect).
40
The Prosecution did not determine the discernment of Dorado at the time of the
commission of the crime. To recapitulate, R.A. No. 9344 provides that only
those minors above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age who
acted with discernment shall not be exempted from criminal responsibility.
During the deliberations for Senate Bill No. 1402, Senator Pangilinan explained
to the Senate President of that time that during the trial, the prosecution must
specifically prove as a separate circumstance that the CICL committed the
alleged crime with discernment.

After a judicious study of the records, the Court finds that the prosecution did
not make an effort to prove that Dorado, then a sixteen (16)-year old minor,
acted with discernment at the time of the commission of the crime

41