ON June 22, 2026, high school students “Nash” and “Rod” — ages 14 and 15, respectively — went on a shooting rampage at San Jose National High School in Tacloban City. The incident left three students dead and 20 others injured, including three who were sent to the intensive care unit. An initial investigation indicates that Rod being bullied over his supposed “ugly haircut” led to the tragedy. For that apparent reason, Nash shot his schoolmates, emptying two magazines of ammunition from a Glock 9mm pistol belonging to his aunt, a police officer, while Rod used a.38 caliber revolver from his grandfather, a security guard.
Many people see this behavior as an indicator of the state of mental health among today’s children, a mirror of the level of their emotional, social and adversity quotients. Others express alarm over how serious bullying has become, especially in schools, as shown by similar incidents in the past, with the Tacloban shooting the most recent and most notorious.
But a disturbing finding relevant to the shooting tells a different story. Forensic examinations of the suspects’ cellular phones reveal that the mass shooting was planned as early as April or May, police said. The crime was clearly premeditated, and its execution was cold and deliberate.
Nash and Rod were, in fact, discussing on a messaging application what happens after they killed their victims. They were emboldened, knowing that their being minors exempts them from liability, and they will be released if they are arrested. There was evident discernment of the consequences of their actions.
And they were right. Republic Act (RA) 9344, or Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, provides absolute exemption from criminal liability due to minority in the case of Nash and of Rod if discernment cannot be proven. In both cases, they can only be held civilly liable. This brings this law, authored by Sen. Francis “Kiko” Pangilinan, to renewed public scrutiny.
Under existing laws, so-called children in conflict with the law (CICL) aged 9 to 15 are absolutely free from criminal liability (Section 6). They are to be immediately released to the custody of their parents, guardian or nearest relative, and subjected to a “comprehensive juvenile intervention program” covering at least three years, to be instituted by the local government unit from the barangay (village) up to the provincial level.
CICL who are older than 15 but younger than 18 are likewise exempt from criminal liability and subjected to the same intervention program, unless they acted with discernment (Section 6, paragraph 2), in which case they will be subjected to the “Diversion Program.” They will not undergo court proceedings or be imprisoned. Instead, they will undergo mediation, family conferencing, conciliation or other forms of diversion program, depending upon the imposable years of imprisonment commensurate to the crime committed.
In short, despite evident discernment and criminal mind at the time of the commission of the felony, they are exempt from criminal liability — will not even set foot in any court for criminal proceedings — on account of minority.
Interventions
I must agree that there are other forms of intervention to address the issue of minors committing serious crimes.
For one, parents should take primary responsibility in rearing and educating their children, as basic moral education begins at home. But the government must expedite the passing of stricter laws governing the access of children to the internet, which is their handy source of information, education, motivation and inspiration.
Given these and other interventions, there is a need to amend RA 9344.
I understand that lowering the age when a minor may be sentenced to imprisonment is a contentious issue. Because of child rights advocates, it is not just an issue of penalty but also for various other reasons like poverty, lack of education, or other unfortunate circumstances that may have pushed a child to violate the law. But I must concede that the time is ripe to consider reverting the age of criminal responsibility in accordance with the Revised Penal Code (RPC) before it was amended by RA 9344.
Under Article 12 of the RPC, a child younger than 9 years old is completely exempt from criminal liability. Children between 9 and 15 years old could be held criminally liable if it can be proven that they acted with discernment in committing the crime. And by discernment, the offender is shown by evidence that he or she is able to distinguish right from wrong and understands the consequences of his or her actions.
In this case, the likes of Rod and Nash, who committed multiple murders, and others who commit rape, rape with homicide, and parricide, among others, should be made to face trial and to serve prison terms if convicted. Minority should be unavailable as an exempting circumstance in the commission of heinous crimes.
Lowering the age of criminal responsibility is more attuned to contemporary realities where children are more educated, given their access to information through technology, the internet and social media to enable them to discern right from wrong. Besides, holding them responsible is likely to serve as a warning, if not an outright deterrence, to think about the consequences before committing a felony, instead of an assurance that their acts will go unpunished.
Much as the offenders have rights, so do their victims and, in their demise, their families. The state has the obligation to protect its citizens, like Sophia Marie Coquilla, a 19-year-old University of the Philippines Diliman journalism student who was fatally stabbed 38 times by four robbery suspects, of whom three were minors. And there could be many other victims of offenders who are children under contemplation of law.
If children are not criminals like what Mamamayang Liberal Party-list Rep. Leila de Lima passionately argues, then how would she call Nash and Rod? She and her fellow advocates should explain it to the heirs of Sophia Marie or the grieving families who lost their loved ones to discerning suspects. This is because calling the offenders “children in conflict with the law” is sugarcoating it, the same way we refer to those who victimize unwitting landowners deprived of the quiet possession of their property as “informal settlers,” instead of “squatters.”
Amendments to the law and the needed interventions must be put in place before the heartbreak of the mass shooting is forgotten, only to come to public consciousness again when another such tragedy hits the headlines.
atty.edarevalo@gmail.com
