People v. Surbida
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On August 15, 1957, Mardonio Surbida was charged with frustrated homicide before the justice of the peace of Gonzaga, Cagayan. He pleaded guilty. Subsequently, the provincial fiscal filed an information accusing him of frustrated homicide for having, on or about August 5, 1957, armed with a knife, with intent to kill, wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously assaulted and stabbed Juanito Salvador, inflicting a penetrating wound to the left hypochondrium. The information alleged that all acts of execution were performed, which would have resulted in homicide, but were prevented by timely medical assistance. Procedural History: Arraigned before the Court of First Instance, Surbida again pleaded guilty with the assistance of counsel. The court noted that the accused was 14 years old and applied Article 80 of the Revised Penal Code, ordering his confinement at Welfareville until he reached the age of majority, with periodic reports on his conduct and progress. Subsequently, Surbida, with new counsel, filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that the court erred in not taking evidence to determine if he acted with discernment, given his age (between nine and fifteen). The motion was denied, leading to this appeal. The Petition: The defendant-appellant appealed the denial of his motion for a new trial, contending that the court should have taken evidence to ascertain his discernment at the time of the offense and arraignment, as he was a minor between nine and fifteen years old.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of First Instance erred in convicting the accused of frustrated homicide without taking evidence to determine his discernment, given his age at the time of the offense and arraignment. Whether the phrase 'with intent to kill, did then and there wilfully, criminally and feloniously' in the information is sufficient to establish that a minor offender between nine and fifteen years old acted with discernment.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Court of First Instance. The Court held that when a minor between nine and fifteen years old pleads guilty to an information alleging that the accused acted 'with intent to kill, did then and there wilfully, criminally and feloniously' attack his victim, conviction may proceed without the need for positive proof of discernment. The Court found no merit in the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Court of First Instance erred in convicting the accused without taking evidence to determine his discernment: The Court held that no error was committed. In People v. Nieto, the Court established that when a minor between nine and fifteen years of age pleads guilty to an information alleging that the accused acted 'with intent to kill, did then and there wilfully, criminally and feloniously' attack his victim, conviction can proceed without positive proof of discernment. The Court reiterated that the phraseology used in the information sufficiently implies that the accused understood the unlawful nature of his act. Furthermore, in this particular case, no affidavit was presented disputing the minor's mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong or the consequences of his criminal act. Therefore, the application of Article 80 of the Revised Penal Code and the subsequent conviction were deemed proper. On the issue of whether the phrase 'with intent to kill, did then and there wilfully, criminally and feloniously' is sufficient to establish discernment in a minor offender: The Court affirmed that this phraseology is indeed sufficient. The Court explained that the quoted phrase signifies more than merely knowing the difference between right and wrong. It connotes that the accused killed with the intention to kill and with the knowledge that killing is a crime. The combined effect of the adverbs 'willfully, criminally and feloniously' together with the phrases 'with intent to kill' and 'contrary to the provision of Article 240 of the Revised Penal Code' emphasizes the accused's knowledge or understanding when committing the act that the act is unlawful and penalized. This interpretation was applied in the present case, obviating the need for further evidence on discernment when a guilty plea is entered to such an information.
Main Doctrine
When a minor between nine and fifteen years of age pleads guilty to an information alleging that the accused acted 'with intent to kill, did then and there wilfully, criminally and feloniously' attack his victim, the accused may be convicted without the need of positive proof of his having acted with discernment, as the said phraseology implies knowledge of the unlawful nature of the act.