Tacloban school shooting: What the law says when suspects are minors

CEBU CITY, Philippines — The arrest of two Grade 9 students in connection with the deadly shooting inside San Jose National High School in Tacloban City has prompted many Filipinos to ask: What happens when suspects in a serious crime are minors?

The Philippine National Police (PNP) identified the two suspects only through aliases — “Nash,” 14, and “Rod,” 15 — in accordance with laws protecting children in conflict with the law.

Authorities alleged that the two teenagers carried out the shooting that left two victims dead and at least 20 injured inside the school campus.

READ: Tacloban shooting: Slain student who shielded peers hailed a hero

While both suspects are minors, the law makes clear that their age does not automatically exempt them from accountability.

Instead, their treatment depends largely on their age and whether investigators can establish that they acted with discernment, a legal term referring to the ability to understand the consequences and wrongfulness of one’s actions.

Protected by law, but not automatically free from liability

The governing law is Republic Act No. 9344, or the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, as amended.

Under Section 6 of the law, children aged 15 years old and below at the time an offense is committed are generally exempt from criminal liability and must instead undergo intervention programs designed for rehabilitation and reintegration.

For children above 15 but below 18 years old, criminal liability depends on whether they acted with discernment.

If authorities establish that the child understood the nature and consequences of the act, the minor may face criminal proceedings under the juvenile justice system.

READ: Tacloban shooting: CICC imposes ban on game app GoreBox

However, the law stresses that exemption from criminal liability does not mean exemption from civil liability. Victims and their families may still seek damages in accordance with existing laws.

What happens to the 14-year-old suspect?

The younger suspect, identified by police as 14 years old, falls within the age bracket generally exempt from criminal liability under RA 9344.

If authorities confirm his age and determine that he was 15 or below when the offense occurred, the law requires authorities to place him under intervention programs rather than prosecute him in a regular court.

However, because this incident involves a grave offense, his release is not automatic. Under Republic Act No. 10630 (which amended the Juvenile Justice Act), children aged 12 to 15 who commit serious crimes, such as murder, kidnapping, or major drug offenses, cannot simply be released to their parents.

Instead, the law mandates that they be deemed “neglected children” and placed inside an Intensive Juvenile Intervention and Support Center (IJISC) hosted within a local Bahay Pag-asa facility.

The law dictates that this institutional placement must be for a mandatory rehabilitation period of at least one year, where the child will undergo strict counseling, psychological intervention, and educational support managed by social welfare authorities.

What about the 15-year-old suspect?

The case of the 15-year-old suspect is more legally complex.

Under the law, a child above 15 but below 18 may still face criminal proceedings if investigators and prosecutors establish that he acted with discernment.

READ: Tacloban shooting: Cebu City police ready to help track down gun owner

Factors often examined include the planning involved, efforts to conceal the act, behavior before and after the crime, and indications that the child understood the consequences of his actions.

Police have disclosed that investigators are examining several circumstances surrounding the shooting, including claims of a bullying-related grudge, alleged access to firearms, social media activity involving violent content, and reports that one suspect may have imitated foreign school shooters.

Should authorities establish discernment, the child could be subjected to juvenile court proceedings.

Accountability goes beyond the minors

Lawyers say the legal consequences of the Tacloban school shooting may extend beyond the two student suspects, depending on the outcome of ongoing investigations.

Lawyer Mae Elaine Bathan, in a public commentary posted to her social media page, said the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act clearly exempts children aged 15 and below from criminal liability, but stressed that exemption does not mean the absence of accountability.

“Parents may still face civil liability under the Civil Code for damages arising from the acts of their minor children, particularly where negligence in supervision is shown,” Bathan said.

She added that individuals who allowed minors access to firearms could also face separate legal consequences.

“If a firearm was carelessly stored or made accessible to a child, the owner of the firearm may likewise incur separate criminal, civil, or administrative liability under applicable laws and regulations,” she said.

Investigators have already traced one of the firearms allegedly used in the attack—a 9mm Glock pistol—to an active police officer who is reportedly the aunt of one of the suspects. Authorities have also linked a .38-caliber revolver recovered in the case to a security agency based in Cebu City.

Could the school be held liable?

Bathan also said schools are not automatically liable simply because a violent incident occurred within their premises.

Instead, courts would examine whether school officials exercised reasonable diligence in supervising students, maintaining campus security, and responding to possible warning signs.

“Liability depends on whether negligence is established,” she said.

Among the questions investigators and courts may eventually examine are whether adequate safeguards were in place, whether warning signs were overlooked, and whether reasonable measures could have prevented the tragedy.

READ: Cop who owns gun used in Tacloban shooting will be fired – PNP

“The law will determine liability. But tragedies such as this remind us that accountability is not confined to the courtroom,” Bathan said.

Possible charges

Meanwhile, criminal law author and practitioner Atty. Abbas Macadatar, in a separate analysis shared online, said the nature of the offense and the evidence gathered by investigators will determine the criminal charges that may be filed.

If prosecutors establish that the attack was planned and attended by qualifying circumstances such as treachery, Macadatar said charges of murder may be considered for each fatality.

Separate charges of frustrated murder or attempted murder may also arise for victims who survived the attack, depending on the extent of their injuries and medical findings.

Macadatar also noted that investigators may separately examine possible violations involving the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms.

However, he emphasized that any criminal liability of the 15-year-old suspect would still hinge on whether authorities can establish discernment, as required under Republic Act No. 9344.

Discernment likely to be key issue

For legal observers, the central question in the case may ultimately be whether the suspects, particularly the 15-year-old, acted with discernment.

Under the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act, discernment refers to a child’s ability to understand the nature, consequences, and wrongfulness of an act.

Police have disclosed that investigators are reviewing several factors, including the suspects’ alleged planning of the attack, access to firearms, social media activity, and statements regarding a supposed bullying-related grudge.

Should prosecutors establish discernment, the child may face proceedings as a child in conflict with the law. If not, authorities would instead place the child under intervention and rehabilitation programs mandated by the law.

Can they be jailed?

Not in the same way adults are.

RA 9344 strictly prohibits the detention of minors together with adult offenders.

Children in conflict with the law may instead be placed in youth detention homes, youth rehabilitation centers, or other child-focused facilities while their cases are pending.

The law also emphasizes that detention should only be used as a last resort and for the shortest possible period.

Courts may also order release on recognizance, bail, or transfer to rehabilitation facilities instead of conventional detention.

Is diversion still possible?

Diversion, a process that avoids formal court proceedings and focuses on rehabilitation, is a cornerstone of the juvenile justice system. However, diversion is generally limited in serious cases.

Under Section 23 of RA 9344, offenses carrying penalties exceeding six years of imprisonment may only qualify for diversion through court action and after careful evaluation.

Given the gravity of the Tacloban school shooting and the potential charges that may arise, legal proceedings are expected to focus on whether diversion remains appropriate and whether the suspects acted with discernment.

What if they are eventually found guilty?

Even if convicted, minors receive protections unavailable to adult offenders.

The law provides for the automatic suspension of sentences for children who were below 18 years old when they committed the offense.

Instead of immediately serving a prison sentence, the child may undergo court-supervised rehabilitation and intervention programs.

If rehabilitation succeeds, the court may eventually dismiss the case and order the child’s discharge.

If the child fails to comply with rehabilitation requirements or commits further violations, the court may later execute the judgment.

Why authorities cannot reveal their names

The public disclosure of the suspects’ identities is also prohibited under RA 9344.

The law requires all records and proceedings involving children in conflict with the law to remain confidential from the moment of apprehension until the final disposition of the case.

Media organizations, law enforcement agencies, and other authorities are prohibited from revealing information that could identify the child.

The law likewise bans labeling or shaming minors involved in criminal cases and prohibits sensationalized publicity that may harm their welfare and future reintegration.

Sources: The LawPhil Project, Atty. Elaine Tantengco Bathan LLM – The Law & Me, Law & Crim Daily by Atty. Abbas S. Macadatar, RCRIM

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

Read Next