14-Year-Old Tacloban Shooting Suspect Not Criminally Liable, DSWD Says

The 14-year-old suspect involved in the fatal shooting of three students at San Jose National High School in Tacloban City cannot be charged with a criminal case, as the law exempts children below the age of criminal responsibility from criminal liability, according to the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) in Eastern Visayas. The DSWD-8 clarified that despite witness accounts linking the 14-year-old to the fatal incident involving three students, the minor cannot be criminally prosecuted under existing Philippine law. READ: Tacloban shooting sparks debate on lowering age of criminal liability Atty. Jonalyndie Chua, head of the DSWD-8 Legal Unit, explained that filing criminal charges against the minor would violate constitutional protections, particularly Article III, Section 22 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which prohibits ex post facto laws and ensures that individuals cannot be punished for acts not legally punishable at the time they were committed. “An ex post facto law is a law that makes an act criminal after it was committed, retroactively punishing the person who did it. To file a criminal charge when he turns 15 years old is a violation of his constitutional rights,” she said in an interview. Under Philippine law, children aged below 15 are exempt from criminal liability. Instead, they are placed under intervention and rehabilitation measures within the child protection system. The boy is set to turn 15 this August. READ: Palace: Marcos open to lowering age of criminal responsibility When asked about the possibility of detention, the DSWD clarified that minors found to have committed offenses are placed in rehabilitation centers rather than regular detention facilities. Their length of stay depends on the progress of their rehabilitation program and court disposition. Even in cases when a minor is later assessed to have acted with discernment, the legal process remains focused on rehabilitation rather than punishment, according to Chua. “Discernment should be determined by taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances accorded 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,” she said, noting that evaluations are conducted by social workers from the local social welfare and development office. She added that while social workers conduct assessments, the final decision on whether discernment exists and what disposition applies rests with the court. If discernment is established in older minors, the court may impose a suspended sentence, with the child remaining in rehabilitation until the age of 21. Reintegration into the community depends on successful completion of rehabilitation, while unsuccessful cases may result in placement in a regular detention facility, subject to court approval. However, the DSWD emphasized that the law clearly provides exemption from criminal liability for the 14-year-old suspect. READ: Is it time to review juvenile justice law? Regarding custody and visitation, the DSWD-8 said that the two minors under rehabilitation are not allowed regular visitation or cellphone use, as these may disrupt the rehabilitation program. Any visitation is subject to the schedule and rules of the rehabilitation center and court orders. The agency stressed that the system’s primary objective is rehabilitation and reintegration, not incarceration. The 15-year-old suspect is facing three counts of murder, three counts of frustrated murder, and multiple counts of serious physical injuries following the mass shooting incident inside the campus of San Jose National High School on June 22, which also injured 20 others, 15 of whom suffered firearm-related injuries./coa