8/10/2014 Scribbles of a Lunatic Mind: People vs. Doquena [68 Phil.

580 (1939)]
http://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/2012/02/people-vs-doquena-68-phil-580-1939.html 1/3
Home Criminal Law
People vs. Doquena [68 Phil. 580 (1939)]
People vs. Doquena [68 Phil. 580 (1939)]
Post under case digests, Criminal Law at Wednesday, February 29, 2012 Posted by Schizophrenic Mind
Facts: Between 1-2 pm of Nov. 19, 1938, Juan Ragojos and
Epifanio Rarang were playing volleyball in the yard of their school in
Sual, Pangasinan. Valentin Doquena, the accused, intercepted the
ball, and threw it a Ragojos, who was hit in the stomach. Miffed,
Ragojos chased Doquena, and upon catching him, slapped
Doquena on the nape, and punched him in the face. After doing this,
Ragojos went back to Rarang to resume playing volleyball. Insulted,
Doquena looked for something to throw at Ragojos, finding none, he
got his cousin's (Romualdo Cocal) knife, and confronted Ragojos.
Ragojo's denied Doquena's request for a fight and resumed playing.
Doquena stabbed the unaware Ragojos in the chest, thereby killing
the latter. The court held that in committing the act, the accused
acted with discernment and was conscious of the nature and
consequences of his acts, therefore his defense that he was a minor
was untenable (given that the Doquena was a 7th grade pupil, one
of the brightest in his class, and was an officer in the CAT program),
and thus convicted him of the crime of homicide. The court ordered
him to be sent to the Training School for Boys until he reaches the
age of majority. Thus, the appeal by the accused, stating that to
determine whether or not there was discernment on the part of the
minor, the following must be taken into consideration:
a) The facts and circumstances which gave rise to the act
committed.
b) The state of mind at the time the crime was committed
c) The time he had at his disposal
d) The degree of reasoning of the minor
Issue: Whether or not the accused acted with discernment
Held: Decision affirmed. Yes, the accused acted with discernment.
Accused mistakes the discernment for premeditation, or at least for
lack of intention, as a mitigating circumstance. However, the
DISCERNMENT that constitutes an exception to the exemption from
criminal liability of a minor under 15 years but over nine, who
commits an act prohibited by law, is his MENTAL CAPACITY to
understand the difference between right and wrong, and such
capacity may be known and should be determined by taking into
consideration all the facts and circumstances afforded by the records
in each case, the very appearance, the very attitude, the very
comportment and behavior of said minor, not only before and during
the commission of the act, but also after and even during the trial.
Share
FOLLOW BY EMAI L
Subscribe in a reader
CATEGORI ES
bar exam questionnaire (8)
case digests (612)
Civil Law (123)
Commercial Law (89)
Criminal Law (102)
labor law (95)
Legal Ethics (89)
MCQ (28)
personal (6)
Political Law (163)
promo/discounts/f reebies (56)
Psychiatry (5)
Remedial Law (112)
Taxation (85)
villarama doctrines (103)
There was an error in this
gadget
Followers (9)
Follow this blog
RECOMMENDED READS
bethere2day
blog-links-exchange
BLOG-PH.com
Scribbles of a Lunatic
Mind
I'M A SCHIZOPHRENIC! I'M HAPPY! I'M PROUD TO BE ONE!
HOME POSTS RSS COMMENTS RSS EDIT enter your keywords here...
Email address... Submit
8/10/2014 Scribbles of a Lunatic Mind: People vs. Doquena [68 Phil. 580 (1939)]
http://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/2012/02/people-vs-doquena-68-phil-580-1939.html 2/3
POST A COMMENT
Newer Post Older Post
0 COMMENTS: ON "PEOPLE VS. DOQUENA [ 68 PHI L. 580 ( 1939) ] "
Enter your comment...
Comment as:
Google Account
Publish

Preview
Home
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Maruism
NURSINGnle
Philippine Case Digests
Databank
Scire Licet
The Digester
Uberdigests
ARCHI VE
Archive
DI SCLAI MER
All contents provided on this blog are for
informational/educational purposes only.
Coffeeafficionado makes no representation as to the
accuracy or completeness of any information on this site
or found by following any link on this site. The owner will
not also be liable for any errors or omissions on the
information provided nor for the availability of this
information.
Coffeeafficionado claims no credit for any
image/video/ads featured on this blog. They are all
copyrighted to its site owners. If you own rights to any of
the images/videos featured on this blog, and do not wish
them to appear on this site, contact Coffeeafficionado
thru email and they will be immediately removed.
POPULAR POSTS
BANAT vs. COMELEC , GR 17927 [ April 21, 2009 ]
Facts: Barangay Association for National Advancement
and Transparency (BANAT) filed before the Commission
on Elections (COMELEC) a petitio...
Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization vs.
PBM, 51 SCRA 189
Facts: Philippine Blooming Employees Organization
(PBMEO) decided to stage a mass demonstration in
front of Malacaang to express their gri...
Abakada Guro Party List, et al vs Exec. Sec. Ermita
Facts: On May 24, 2005, the President signed into law
Republic Act 9337 or the VAT Reform Act. Before the law
took effect on July 1, 2005,...
Calalang vs. Williams, 70 Phil 726
Facts: Pursuant to the power delegated to it by the
Legislature, the Director of Public Works promulgated
rules and regulations pertainin...
Garcia vs. Mata
Facts: Garcia was a reserve officer on active duty who
was reversed to inactive status. He filed an action for
mandamus to compel the DND ...
FOLLOWERS

Live Traffic Feed
Real-time view Menu
A visitor from Makati,
Mindoro Occidental viewed
"Scribbles of a Lunatic Mind:
La Mallorca v. Court of
Appeals (17 SCRA 739)" 1
min ago
A visitor from Muntinlupa,
Rizal viewed "Scribbles of a
Lunatic Mind: Philippine
Blooming Mills Employees
Organization vs. PBM, 51
SCRA 189" 5 mins ago
A visitor from Philippines
viewed "Scribbles of a Lunatic
Mind: First Lepanto Ceramics
vs. CA [G.R. No. 110571,
March 10, 1994]" 7 mins ago
A visitor from Buting, Rizal
viewed "Scribbles of a Lunatic
Mind: NAPOCOR vs. City of
Cabanatuan" 9 mins ago A visitor from Cavite viewed
"Scribbles of a Lunatic Mind:
Marcos vs. Manglapus, [G.R.
# 88211 September 15, 1989
]" 13 mins ago
A visitor from Quezon City
viewed "Scribbles of a Lunatic
Mind: Velasco vs. Villegas
[G.R. No. L-24153 (120
SCRA), February 14, 1983]"
25 mins ago
A visitor from Makati,
Mindoro Occidental viewed
"Scribbles of a Lunatic Mind:
BANAT vs. COMELEC ,
GR 17927 [ April 21, 2009 ]"
28 mins ago
A visitor from Santa Rosa,
Laguna viewed "Scribbles of a
Lunatic Mind: Llorente vs.
Court of Appeals, G. R. No.
124371, November 23,
2000" 30 mins ago
A visitor from Philippines
viewed "Scribbles of a Lunatic
Mind: Development Bank of
the Phils. vs. CA, 449 SCRA
57" 34 mins ago
A visitor from Quezon City
viewed "Scribbles of a Lunatic
Mind: Guijarno vs. CIR" 39
mins ago
8/10/2014 Scribbles of a Lunatic Mind: People vs. Doquena [68 Phil. 580 (1939)]
http://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/2012/02/people-vs-doquena-68-phil-580-1939.html 3/3
Copyright 2009. Scribbles of a Lunatic Mind - WPBoxedTech Theme Design by Technology Tricks f or Health Coupons.
Bloggerized by Free Blogger Template - Sponsored by Graphic ZONe and Technology Inf o