Name: Bagoy Modesto Jr.
Subject: CRIM 5 (Juvenile Delinquency and Juvenile Justice System)
Time: 9:00am - 12:00nn
Date: June 05, 2021
G.R. No. 216671, October 03, 2016
JERWIN DORADO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
Digest the case given and give the following:
1. Case Title
JERWIN DORADO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
2. Facts of the case
Dorado, sixteen (16) years old, was charged with Frustrated Murder, his group allegedly threw stones at
Ronald’s (victim) group and Dorado used a sumpak and hit Ronald between his eyes. The latter was
subjected to a surgery and the attending surgeon testified that without medical intervention, Ronald
could have died. The trial court found Dorado guilty of the offense charged without determing whether
there was discernment on his partwhen he committed the offense.
3. Issue/s
*Dorado, Julius Ramos (Ramos), Jeffrey Confessor (Confessor) and Jayson Cabiaso (Cabiaso) were
charged with the crime of frustrated murder.
*The Prosecution did not determine the discernment of Dorado at the time of the commission of the
crime.
*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.
*In Criminal Case No. 127784, CICL Jerwin Dorado y Felipe is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Frustrated Murder, defined and penalized under Article 248, in relation to Article
6, 2nd paragraph, 2nd phrase of the Revised Penal Code and, taking into consideration the privileged
mitigating circumstance of minority, is sentenced to suffer the penalty of six (6) months and one (1) day
of prision correctional, as minimum, to eight (8) years of prision mayor, as maximum, with all the effects
thereof as provided" by law. He is further ordered to pay the victim Php50,000.00 as civil indemnity;
Php50,000.00 by way of moral damages; and to pay the costs, at the legal rate of interest from the time
of the filing of the Information until fully paid. Accused Julius Ramos y Labanero, Jeffrey Confessor and
Jayson Cabiaso are ACQUITTED on ground of reasonable doubt.
In Criminal Case No. 127785, CICL Jerwin Dorado y Felipe, accused Julius Ramos y Labanero, Jeffrey
Confessor and Jayson Cabiaso are ACQUITTED on ground of reasonable doubt. No costs.
4. Rulings of the
RTC
On July 5, 2010, the RTC rendered its decision. In Criminal Case No. 127784, the trial court found Dorado
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of frustrated murder; while in Criminal Case No. 127785,
accused Dorado, Ramos, Confessor and Cabiaso were all acquitted as the crime was not proven beyond
reasonable doubt. It noted that their participation in the crime was limited to the throwing of stones
and bottles and there was no indication that they Singled out Ronald as their target. The RTC also
acquitted all the accused for the charge of violation of R.A. No. 7610 because the prosecution failed to
establish Ronald's minority.
In finding Dorado guilty of frustrated murder, as defined under Article 248, in relation to Article 6,
paragraph 2, of the RPC, the RTC gave credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses that it
was Dorado who shot Ronald with a sumpak. The trial court considered the qualifying circumstance of
evident premeditation because of the following: Dorado's group had an ongoing feud with Ronald's
group; when the assault began, Dorado was already holding a sumpak; after Ronald fled, Dorado waited
intently for an opportunity to shoot him; and when Ronald came out, Dorado shot him on the face. 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. Thus, it disposed the case in this wise:
Court of Appeals
In its assailed decision, dated August 8, 2014, the 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. It noted that Ronald would have died
were it not for the timely medical attention. The appellate court also agreed with the RTC that Dorado's
act of waiting for Ronald to come out of the talipapa, where the latter was hiding, indicated evident
premeditation.
The CA did not give credence to Dorado's defense of alibi because his house was merely one block away
from the talipapa. It opined that it was not physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene at the
time in question.
Supreme Court
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.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 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).12chanrobleslaw
Curiously, neither the RTC nor the CA paid much attention to Dorado's minority and how it affected his
criminal responsibility. Thus, the Court deems it proper to lay down the salient provisions of R.A. No.
9344 regarding the prosecution of a Child In Conflict with the Law (CICL).13chanrobleslaw
One of the significant features of R.A. No. 9344 is the increase of the minimum age of criminal
responsibility, to wjt:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
SEC. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. — A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time
of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. However, the child shall be
subjected to an intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of this Act.
A child is deemed to be fifteen (15) years of age on the day of the fifteenth anniversary of his/her
birthdate.
A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age shall likewise be exempt from
criminal liability and be subjected to an intervention program, unless he/she has acted with
discernment, in which case, such child shall be subjected to the appropriate proceedings in accordance
with this Act.
The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not include exemption from civil liability,
which shall be enforced in accordance with existing laws.14
