“The Case of Raymund Madali and Rodel Madali”

Issue: Whether petitioners should be exempted from criminal liability.

Facts: On April 13, 1999, said accused, with intent to kill, conspiring, confederating and
mutually helping each other, did then and there by means of treachery and with evident
premeditation, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, strike with a coconut
frond and “llave inglesa” and strangle with a dog chain, one AAA, inflicting upon the
latter mortal wounds in different parts of his body which caused his untimely death. The
suspects, Raymund and Rodel were minors 15 years old and 16 years old respectively.
"The lower court found them guilty of homicide. Petitioners elevated the case to the CA
and during the pendency of the appeal, RA 9344 took effect.

Held: At the time of the commission of the crime, petitioners were minors. By provisions
of RA 9344, they are exempted from liability but not from criminal liability. Their
exemption however differs. In the case of Raymund, the case is dismissed as to him
since he was below 15 years old. He is to be released and custody is given to the
parents by virtue of RA 9344 Secs. 6 and 20 setting the minimum age of criminal
responsibility and who will have custody respectively. In the case of Rodel, who was 16
years old at that time, It is necessary to determine whether he acted with discernment or
not. Sec 6 provides that children above 15 but below 18 will be exempt from criminal
liability unless she acted with discernment. He, however, should be subjected to an
intervention program. Sec 36 provides for the automatic suspension of sentence.