THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. MAXIMO MARALIT, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

United States versus Maralit

The Case

This is a criminal case from the early American period in Philippine legal history. The Government of the United States prosecuted Maximo Maralit for stabbing Florentino Luistro with a knife and causing his death, and the trial court convicted him of homicide. The case matters to a Bar candidate because it is a clean, compact authority on two things: the standard for reviewing findings of fact on appeal, and the rule on criminal liability of a minor over nine and under fifteen years of age who acted with discernment, including how discernment may be established and how the penalty must be graduated.

Procedural History

The accused was tried before the Court of First Instance, which convicted him of homicide and sentenced him to five years of prision correccional, with the accessory penalties provided by law, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of one thousand pesos, and to pay the costs. The accused appealed to the Supreme Court, and the appeal was resolved by the Court en banc.

Facts

Two witnesses for the prosecution testified that they and the deceased, Florentino Luistro, were walking along in single file, each carrying a bundle of zacate on his head, with Florentino bringing up the rear. They met the defendant and a companion. As the two groups were passing each other, the witnesses heard a sound similar to that made by the dropping of one of the bundles of zacate.

They turned instantly and saw Florentino and the defendant fighting with their fists. The two soon separated, and Florentino, returning to his bundle of zacate, stooped to pick it up. At that moment the defendant ran to him quickly and stabbed him in the left side with a knife. The defendant and his companion then ran away. Florentino went home with the witnesses and died a few days later as a result of the wound.

The accused and his witness told a different story: that Florentino made an attack upon the accused after sharp words had passed between them and struck him several times with a club, whereupon the accused used his dagger in self-defense. The trial court believed the prosecution witnesses. It also found that the accused, who was less than fifteen years of age at the time of the crime, acted with discernment.

Issues

• Whether or not the findings of fact of the trial court should be reversed on appeal.
• Whether or not the prosecution was required to prove by direct and affirmative testimony that the accused acted with discernment.
• Whether or not the penalty imposed by the trial court was correct under the law on minors acting with discernment.

Applicable Provisions

Paragraph 3 of Article 8 of the Penal Code, as discussed in the decision, provides:

In the case of a minor under fifteen years of age and over nine years of age, the court shall make an express finding upon the fact that he acted with discernment in order to impose a penalty upon such a person.

This provision fixes the age of exemption and makes the express finding of discernment the condition for imposing any penalty on the minor.

Article 85 of the Penal Code provides:

In the case of a minor of less than fifteen and over nine years of age, who is found by the court to have acted with discernment, and, therefore, not being exempt from criminal liability, a discretional penalty shall be imposed, provided that the same shall always be less by two degrees, at least, than that prescribed by the law for the offense committed.

This provision governs the penalty to be imposed once discernment is found, requiring a penalty at least two degrees lower than that prescribed for the offense.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court affirmed the findings of fact of the trial court. A careful examination of the evidence furnished no sufficient reason to reverse the trial court, which had the advantage of observing the witnesses and the accused.

On the second issue, the Court held that the contention of counsel was not well grounded. It is true that it must appear from the evidence that the accused acted with knowledge of the nature of his acts and of the results which would naturally follow therefrom, but to establish that fact it is not necessary that some witness declare directly and in words that he acted with such knowledge. It is sufficient that, from the evidence as a whole, it is a necessary inference that he so acted. The trial court, considering all the facts and circumstances, together with the appearance of the accused as he stood and testified in court, concluded that he was of sufficient intelligence and judgment to know that the act was wrong and likely to produce death, and made the express finding of discernment.

On the third issue, the Court held that the penalty imposed was not correct. Applying Article 85 of the Penal Code, the penalty should have been two years of prision correccional instead of five years.

Doctrine

First, findings of fact of the trial court, especially those resting on the credibility of witnesses and the demeanor of the accused, will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing of error.

Second, for a minor over nine and under fifteen years of age, criminal liability attaches only if he acted with discernment, and the court must make an express finding of that fact. Discernment need not be proved by direct testimony; it may be inferred from the evidence as a whole, including the appearance and testimony of the accused in court.

Third, once discernment is found, the penalty must be discretionary but always at least two degrees lower than that prescribed by law for the offense committed, as Article 85 of the Penal Code commands.

Disposition

The judgment of conviction was affirmed, but the penalty was modified to two years of prision correccional.

Remember This

Discernment need not be shown by words; it may be inferred from the evidence as a whole, and once found, the minor's penalty must be at least two degrees lower than that prescribed by law. Examiners use this case to test the rules on the criminal liability of minors and the deference given to trial court findings of fact.