Quiros, Laurene Ashley S.
Module 7 Assignment
ALW-3JDA
LEGAL OPINION ON LOWERING A CHILD’S CRIMINAL LIABILITY
I. FACTS
Congress has proposed a bill lowering the criminal liability age with
discernment from age fifteen (15) to nine (9). One of the reasons for such a proposal is
to teach children to understand liability especially since syndicates are using children
in the drug trade and other criminal activities.
Several human rights advocates and organizations representing various sectors
opposed such proposal. They proposed that instead of punishing children and lowering
the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility (MACR), the Juvenile Justice and
Welfare Act of 2006 (JJWA) must be fully implemented.
II. ISSUE
Whether or not the Republic Act No. 9344 (Juvenile Justice Law of 2006),
should be amended pursuant to the act of the Legislative to lower the criminal liability
age of discernment from age fifteen (15) to nine (9).
Based on the preceding law, there is no need to lower the criminal liability age
of discernment from age 15 to 9.
III. APPLICABLE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE
A. 1987 Philippine Constitution
Article XV, Section 3 (2) provides the right of children to assistance,
including proper care and nutrition, and special protection from all forms of
neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation, and other conditions prejudicial to their
development.
Quiros, Laurene Ashley S.
Module 7 Assignment
ALW-3JDA
B. United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child
An international organization where the Philippines is one of the signatories.
Studies show that a minimum age of criminal responsibility below the age of
12 years old is considered by the Committee not to be internationally
acceptable1.
C. Republic Act No. 7610
The law provides for the right to protection of a minor from abuse, neglect,
cruelty, exploitation, discrimination, and other prejudicial to their
development2.
D. Republic Act No. 9344
The law covers different stages involving children at risk and children in
conflict with the law from prevention to rehabilitation and reintegration.
E. Madali vs. People3
An accused who was only 14 years of age at the time he committed the crime
is exempt from criminal liability and should be released to the custody of his
parents or guardian pursuant to Sections 6 and 20 of Republic Act No. 9344.
Discernment is that mental capacity of a minor to fully appreciate the
consequences of his unlawful act, which capacity may be known and should
be determined by taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances
afforded by the records in each case.
1
[Link]
2 [Link]
3 [Link]
Quiros, Laurene Ashley S.
Module 7 Assignment
ALW-3JDA
F. Hubilla vs. People4
Although Section 38 of Republic Act No. 9344 allows the suspension of the
sentence of a child in conflict with the law adjudged as guilty of a crime, the
suspension is available only until the child offender turns 21 years of age,
pursuant to Section 40 of Republic Act No. 9344, to wit: Section 40. Return
of the Child in Conflict with the Law to Court.
G. Versoza vs. People5
A person who has a cognitive disability would be considered a child under
Republic Act (RA) No. 7610 based on his or her mental age, not
chronological age.
IV. RECOMMENDATION
From the above studies, there is no need to amend RA 9344. Children at all
times must be given care and support for it will mold their perspective in life when they
grow up. Since there is a specific law that provides the guideline on how children who
committed criminal acts should be handled, the State must focus on its full and strict
implementation.
In recent studies conducted by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF),
lowering the age of criminal responsibility is against child rights. Statistic studies show
that there is a lack of evidence and data that children are responsible for the increase
in crime rates committed in the Philippines6. Lowering the MACR will not prohibit the
real offenders from abusing children to commit crimes.
In a more scientific approach, brain function reaches maturity at around 16
years old. Hence, adjusting the MARC would be detrimental to children ages 9 years
4 [Link]
5
[Link]
6 [Link]
Quiros, Laurene Ashley S.
Module 7 Assignment
ALW-3JDA
old. It may be derived from this approach the reason why the legal capacity in the
Philippines is set to eighteen (18) years of age.
Therefore, the legislative act of the Congress in lowering the MACR is not the
proper subject to prevent criminal actions in the Philippines7. The subject matter must
be diverted to the real perpetrators and not the victims.
7
[Link]
