Children and youth, despite their young age, play an important role in society. In the Philippine context, the three branches of government recognize their vital role in nation-building, as they serve as catalysts for change and the future leaders of succeeding generations. Consequently, lawmakers have enacted measures to promote and protect their physical, moral, intellectual, and social well-being while instilling in them a sense of nationalism and patriotism. However, what happens when a child commits an offense and comes into conflict with the law? Will that child be held criminally liable for the offense committed?

To determine whether a child is criminally liable for an offense, the child’s age at the time the offense was committed must first be established. Under Section 6 of Republic Act No. 10630, also known as the Amended Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, a child who is fifteen (15) years old or below at the time of the commission of the offense is exempt from criminal liability but shall be subjected to an appropriate intervention program. Similarly, a child who is above fifteen (15) years old but below eighteen (18) years old at the time of the commission of the offense is likewise exempt from criminal liability and shall undergo an intervention program, unless it is established that the child acted with discernment, in which case the child will undergo court proceedings filed in a Family Court to determine the appropriate disposition measures. However, if a child above twelve (12) years old but not over fifteen (15) years old commits a serious offense, such as parricide, murder, infanticide, kidnapping and serious illegal detention where the victim is killed or raped, robbery, with homicide or rape, destructive arson, rape, or carnapping where the driver or occupant is killed or raped or offenses under Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) punishable by more than twelve (12) years of imprisonment, the child shall be mandatorily placed in an Intensive Juvenile Intervention and Support Center.

During court proceedings involving a child in conflict with the law under the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act, the court prioritizes the child’s welfare and rehabilitation rather than punishment. Once the child is brought before the court, the judge first determines whether the child may be released through recognizance to parents or a responsible guardian, or through bail, taking into account the child’s minority as a mitigating circumstance; detention is avoided whenever possible and is never done in a regular jail. If release is not possible, the child is placed in a youth detention home or a DSWD-accredited rehabilitation facility, with detention treated as a last resort and only for the shortest time necessary. Before trial proceeds, the court may consider diversion measures for less serious offenses, allowing the child to undergo community-based rehabilitation instead of formal prosecution. If the case continues and the child is found guilty, the court does not immediately impose imprisonment but instead suspends the sentence and places the child under rehabilitation and disposition programs supervised by social workers. The child may be discharged if these programs are successfully completed, effectively closing the case while focusing on reform. However, if the child fails to comply with the rehabilitation conditions, the court may reinstate or execute the sentence or modify the rehabilitation plan. Throughout the process, any time spent in custody is credited toward the sentence, and even after conviction, probation may still be granted as an alternative to imprisonment, reflecting the law’s emphasis on restoration, reintegration, and the best interest of the child.

Meanwhile, Intervention and Diversion programs are determined by the imposable penalty for the offense committed. When a child commits an offense punishable by not more than six (6) years of imprisonment, diversion measures may be applied instead of formal judicial proceedings. The law enforcement officer or Punong Barangay, assisted by the local social welfare and development officer or members of the Local Council for the Protection of Children, facilitates mediation, family conferencing, conciliation, and, when appropriate, indigenous conflict resolution methods, with the participation of the child and their family, to promote restorative justice and develop a diversion program. In victimless offenses carrying the same penalty, the local social welfare and development officer, in coordination with the Barangay Council for the Protection of Children, collaborates with the child and their parents or guardians to prepare a suitable diversion and rehabilitation program. However, when the offense is punishable by more than six years of imprisonment, diversion may only be granted through the court.

In determining whether diversion is appropriate for a child in conflict with the law, authorities consider factors such as the nature, circumstances, frequency, and severity of the offense, the child’s age, maturity, intelligence, family and environmental influences, the extent of harm and reparation to the victim, the strength of the evidence, community safety, and the child’s best interests. If diversion is deemed suitable, an individualized program is developed based on the child’s personal circumstances, level of remorse, the ability of parents or guardians to provide guidance and supervision, the victim’s views, and the availability of community-based rehabilitation and reintegration programs. Depending on the stage of the proceedings, diversion measures may include restitution or reparation, apologies, counseling, parental guidance and supervision, participation in educational, vocational, life skills, or community service programs, attendance in seminars on values formation, anger management, and conflict resolution, confiscation of the proceeds or instruments of the crime, written or oral reprimands, fines, payment of legal costs, or institutional care and custody when ordered by the court.

Under Section 40 of R.A. 9344, also known as the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, if a child in conflict with the law fails to achieve the objectives of the disposition measures or intentionally violates the conditions of the rehabilitation or disposition program, the court may require the child to appear for the execution of the judgment. When the child reaches eighteen years of age while under a suspended sentence, the court has the discretion to discharge the child, enforce the sentence, or extend the suspended sentence for a specified period, but not beyond the age of twenty-one.

As clearly shown, children are generally exempt from criminal liability, subject to the child’s age and whether the child acted with discernment. Instead of being subjected to the regular criminal justice system, they are placed under the Juvenile Justice and Welfare System, where they undergo appropriate intervention and diversion programs. Children are not treated as criminals but as children in conflict with the law, recognizing their capacity for reform and rehabilitation. Accordingly, lawmakers have established a juvenile justice system that emphasizes corrective and rehabilitative measures rather than punishment, with the goal of guiding children toward responsible citizenship and enabling them to become productive members of society. These measures reflect the government’s commitment to safeguarding the welfare of all children, including those in conflict with the law, while recognizing their vital role in nation-building and the development of a progressive and productive society.

Overall, the law highlights that children and youth are the future leaders of society. A positive, corrective, and rehabilitative approach for children in conflict with the law is necessary to ensure that they come to realize their role in building a community rather than destroying it. Most importantly, safeguarding children’s welfare is a responsibility shared by all levels of society. While lowering the age of criminal liability may be considered as an option, a collective effort—from family members to lawmakers—to create a healthier and more supportive environment for children will have a more meaningful impact on their well-being, as well as on their sense of nationalism and patriotism.

Legal Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is created by your access to or use of this content. Readers should consult qualified legal counsel regarding their specific legal concerns.