Minority

Llave v.People (G.R. No. 166040)

Facts:
On Sept. 24, 2002, on an errand from her mother, the victim, who was only 7 years
old at that time, proceeded to their house, where the accused waited for her, and
accosted her; he proceeded to sexually abuse her, while the victim cried for help. A
barbecue vendor nearby heard her cries and came to the scene; the accused fled,
and the vendor told the victim to tell her parents what happened. Together with her
parents, the victim went to the police and reported the incident; the vendor also
testified to what he saw during that time. The medical examiner found no injury on
the hymen and perineum, but found scanty yellowish discharge between the labia
minora; there was also fresh abrasion of the perennial skin at 1 oclock position near
the anal opening. The trial court found the victim guilty, declaring that he acted
with discernment, but crediting him with the special mitigating circumstance of
minority.
Issue:
W/N accused had carnal knowledge of the victim, and if yes, whether he acted with
discernment, being a minor of age more than 9 years old but less than15?
Decision: YES
Penetration, no matter how slight, or the mere introduction of the male organ into
the labia of the pudendum, constitutes carnal knowledge. Hence, even if the
penetration is only slight, the fact that the private complainant felt pains, points to
the conclusion that the rape was consummated

Jose v. People (G.R. No. 162052)

Facts:
Accused was arrested in a drug buy-bust operation conducted by the police;
accused was a passenger in the car of Zarraga, whom allegedly made the deal with
the undercover in the said operation. They claimed that they were kidnapped by the
police and asked ransom for their release from one of the accuseds wife. The trial
court found them guilty, and credited in their favour the preventive imprisonment
they had undergone.CA reduced the penalty on petitioner since he was 13 years old
at the time of the commission of the offense.
Issue:
W/N petitioner acted with discernment and that prosecution failed to allege in the
information that he acted with discernment?
Decision: NO
For a minor at such an age to be criminally liable, the prosecution is burdened to
prove beyond reasonable doubt, by direct or circumstantial evidence, that he acted
with discernment, meaning that he knew what he was doing and that it was wrong.
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. The only evidence
of the prosecution against the petitioner is that he was in a car with his cousin, coaccused, when the latter inquired from the poseur-buyer, if he could afford to buy
shabu. There is no evidence that the petitioner knew what was inside the plastic
and soft white paper before and at the time he handed over the same to his cousin.
Indeed, the poseur-buyer did not bother to ask the petitioner his age because he
knew that pushers used young boys in their transactions for illegal drugs