SOLOMON VERDADERO Y GALERA v.

PEOPLE

GR No. 216021 Mar 02, 2016

Facts:

Solomon Verdadero was charged with the crime of murder for killing Romeo B. Plata.
On June 3, 2011, Verdadero was arraigned and pleaded "Not Guilty." During the pre-
trial, he invoked the defense of insanity.

The evidence of the prosecution tended to establish that Maynard and his father Romeo
went to the Baggao Police Station. Together with Ronnie Elaydo, to report that
Verdadero had stolen the fan belt of their irrigation pump. After a confrontation with
Verdadero at the police station, the three men made their way home on a tricycle but
stopped at a drugstore. Romeo proceeded towards a store near the drugstore while
Ronnie stayed inside the tricycle. From the drug store, Maynard saw Verdadero
stabbing Romeo, after he was alerted by the shouts of Ronnie.

Ronnie ran towards the police station to seek assistance. The responding police officers
arrested Verdadero, while Maynard and Ronnie brought Romeo to a clinic but were
advised to bring him to the Cagayan Valley Medical Center (CVMC). Romeo, however,
died upon arrival at the CVMC. Based on the Post-Mortem Examination Report, his
cause of death was cardiopulmonary arrest secondary to severe hemorrhage secondary
to multiple stab wounds and hack wounds.

The evidence for the defense did not refute the material allegations but revolved around
Verdadero's alleged insanity. On July 21, 2003, he was diagnosed with schizophrenia
and was given medications to address his mental illness. Verdadero would irregularly
consult with his doctors as he had a lifelong chronic disease. Then, in 2009, he was
again confined for the fourth (4th) time at CVMC due to a relapse.

Acting on the January 4, 2011 Order of the RTC, Dr. Ethel Maureen Pagaddu (Dr.
Pagaddu) conducted a mental examination on Verdadero. She confirmed that as early
as 1999, he was already brought to CVMC and that he was diagnosed with
schizophrenia on July 21, 2003. Dr. Pagaddu agreed with Dr. Andres-Juliana that
Verdadero had suffered a relapse on the day of the stabbing incident.

On May 30, 2013, the RTC rendered a decision finding Verdadero guilty for the crime of
homicide. The trial court, however, opined that Verdadero failed to establish insanity as
an exempting circumstance. The trial court posited that Verdadero was unsuccessful in
establishing that he was not in a lucid interval at the time he stabbed Romeo or that he
was completely of unsound mind prior to or coetaneous with the commission of the
crime.
Verdadero appealed before the CA. the CA upheld Verdadero's conviction of homicide.
The appellate court agreed that the defense was able to establish that Verdadero had a
history of schizophrenic attacks, but was unable to prove that he was not lucid at the
time of the commission of the offense.

Issue:

WHETHER OR NOT THE FACT THAT VERDADERO’S INSANITY AT THE TIME OF

Decision:

The Court finds that Verdadero sufficiently proved that he was insane at the time of the
stabbing. It is true that there is no direct evidence to show Verdadero's mental state at
the exact moment the crime was committed. This, however, is not fatal to the finding
that he was insane. His insanity may still be shown by circumstances immediately
before and after the incident. Further, the expert opinion of the psychiatrist Dr. Pagaddu
may also be taken into account. Dr. Pagaddu categorically testified that Verdadero was
suffering a relapse at the time of the stabbing incident.

Maynard was familiar with Verdadero as the latter was his neighbor for a long time. He
had observed that there were times that Verdadero appeared to be of unsound mind as
he would sometimes become violent. On the day of the stabbing incident, Maynard
perceived that Verdadero was again of unsound mind noting that he had reddish eyes
and appeared to be drunk. Moreover, he was immediately transferred to the psychiatry
department because of his impaired sleep and to control him from harming himself and
others. These circumstances are consistent with Dr. Paggadu's testimony. The
evidence on record supports the finding that Verdadero exhibited symptoms of a
relapse of schizophrenia at the time of the stabbing incident.

The Court grants the petition and ACQUITS accused-appellant Solomon

Facts:
Debbielyn testified that on September 24, 2002, she arrived home at past 6:00 p.m. She
changed her clothes and proceeded to her mother’s store. Marilou asked her daughter
to bring home the container with the unsold quail eggs and she then went on her
way. As she neared the vacant house, she saw petitioner NIEL F. LLAVE (then only 12
years old), who suddenly pulled her behind a pile of hollow blocks which was in front of
the vacant house. She resisted to no avail. Petitioner ordered her to lie down on the
cement. Petrified, she complied. He removed her shorts and underwear then removed
his own. He got on top of her. She felt his penis being inserted into her vagina. She felt
pain and cried.
Teofisto came out of their house and heard the girl’s cries. He rushed to the place and
saw petitioner on top of Debbielyn, naked from the waist down. Teofisto shouted at
petitioner, and the latter fled from the scene. Teofisto told Debbielyn to inform her
parents about what happened. She told her father about the incident and her parents
later reported what happened to the police authorities.
The trial court rendered judgment convicting Neil of rape. The trial court declared that
based on the evidence of the prosecution that petitioner pushed the victim towards the
vacant house and sexually abused her, petitioner acted with discernment. It also
considered petitioners declaration that he had been a consistent honor student.
Petitioner appealed the decision to the CA. The CA rendered judgment affirming the
decision with modification as to the penalty meted on him.

Issue:
WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER, WHO WAS A MINOR ABOVE 9 YEARS BUT
BELOW 15 YEARS OF AGE AT THE TIME OF THE CRIME, ACTED WITH
DISCERNMENT.

Decision:
Discernment, as used in Article 12(3) of the Revised Penal Code is defined as follows:
the discernment that constitutes an exception to the exemption from criminal liability of a
minor under fifteen (15) years of age but over nine (9), who commits an act prohibited
by law, is his mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong
(People v. Doquena, 68 Phil. 580 [1939]). For a minor above nine but below fifteen
years of age, he must discern the rightness or wrongness of the effects of his act
(Guevarra v. Almodova, G.R. No. 75256, January 26, 1989).
In the instant case, petitioners actuations during and after the rape incident, as well as
his behavior during the trial showed that he acted with discernment.

The fact appears undisputed that immediately after being discovered by the
prosecutions witness, Teofisto Bucud, petitioner immediately stood up and ran away.
Shortly thereafter petitioner went into hiding. It was not until the Barangay Tanod came
to arrest him in his grandmothers house that petitioner came out in the open to face the
charges against him. His flight as well as his act of going into hiding clearly conveys the
idea that he was fully aware of the moral depravity of his act and that he knew he
committed something wrong.

The fact that petitioner was a recipient of several academic awards and was an honor
student further reinforces the finding that he was possessed of intelligence well beyond
his years and thus was able to distinguish, better than other minors of his age could,
which conduct is right and which is morally reprehensible. Hence, although appellant
was still a minor of twelve years of age, he possessed intelligence far beyond his age. It
cannot then be denied that he had the mental capacity to understand the difference
between right and wrong.
RAYMUND MADALI AND RODEL MADALI V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 180380 August 4, 2009
Facts:

At about 9:00 p.m. of 13 April 1999, Jovencio and his friend Michael Manasan sat
beside the Rizal monument in the Poblacion of Romblon. Michael had just left Jovencio
when Raymund, Rodel, Bernardino and the victim AAA arrived. As soon as they reached
the reservoir, Bernardino blindfolded AAA with a handkerchief. Bernardino at once blurted
out, Join the rugby boys. AAA replied, Thats enough. Bernardino then struck AAA thrice
with a fresh and hard coconut frond. AAA lost his balance and was made to stand up by
Raymund, Rodel and Bernardino. Raymund took his turn clobbering AAA at the back of
his thighs with the same coconut frond. AAA wobbled. Before he could recover, he
received punches to his head and body from Rodel, who was wearing brass
knuckles. The punishments proved too much, as AAA lost consciousness.

Not satisfied, Raymund placed his handkerchief around the neck of AAA, with its
ends tied to a dog chain. With the contraption, the three malefactors pulled the body up
a tree.

Stunned at the sight of his cousin being ill-treated, Jovencio could only muster a
faint voice saying Enough every single-time AAA received the painful blows. Before
leaving the scene, the three assailants warned Jovencio not to reveal the incident to
anyone, or he would be next.

Tormented and torn between the desire to come clean and the fear for his life,
Jovencio did not divulge the incident to anyone for the next few days.

It was three days later that a certain Eugenio Murchanto reported to the police
authorities about a dead man found in Barangay ZZZ near the Romblon National High
School. The policemen found the cadaver emitting a foul odor, with maggots crawling all
over, hanging from a tree with a handkerchief tied around the neck and a dog chain
fastened to the handkerchief. Also found in the area were paraphernalia for inhaling
rugby, as well as empty bottles of gin and a coconut frond.

Upon investigation, Jovencio narrated the incident and pointed to Raymund, Rodel
and Bernardino as the perpetrators of the crime.

Convinced by the version of the prosecution, the RTC rendered the three
accused to be guilty to the crime of homicide. The RTC also appreciated the privileged
mitigating circumstance of minority in favor of the three accused.
 The Court of Appeals affirmed the findings of the RTC. However, pursuant to
Section 64 of Republic Act No. 9344, otherwise known as the Juvenile Justice and
Welfare Act of 2006, which exempts from criminal liability a minor fifteen (15) years or
below at the time of the commission of the offense, Raymunds case was dismissed.
Rodels conviction was sustained.

Issue:
Whether petitioners should be exempted from criminal liability.

Decision:
As to the criminal liability, Raymond is exempt. As correctly ruled by the Court of
Appeals, Raymund, who was only 14 years of age at the time he committed the crime,
should be exempt from criminal liability and should be released to the custody of his
parents or guardian pursuant to Sections 6 and 20 of Republic Act No. 9344. Although
the crime was committed on 13 April 1999 and Republic Act No. 9344 took effect only
on 20 May 2006, the said law should be given retroactive effect in favor of Raymund
who was not shown to be a habitual criminal. This is based on Article 22 of the Revised
Penal Code. While Raymund is exempt from criminal liability, his civil liability is not
extinguished pursuant to the second paragraph of Section 6, Republic Act No. 9344.
As to Rodels situation, it must be borne in mind that he was 16 years old at the time of
the commission of the crime. A determination of whether he acted with or without
discernment is necessary pursuant to Section 6 of Republic Act No. 9344. The Court of
Appeals could not have been more accurate when it opined that Rodel acted with
discernment. Rodel, together with his cohorts, warned Jovencio not to reveal their
hideous act to anyone; otherwise, they would kill him. Rodel knew, therefore, that killing
AAA was a condemnable act and should be kept in secrecy. He fully appreciated the
consequences of his unlawful act.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RICHARD O. SARCIA
G.R. No. 169641 September 10, 2009
Facts:
The crime of rape was allegedly committed sometime in 1996 against AAA, a five (5)
year old girl. After almost four (4) years, AAAs father filed a complaint for acts of
lasciviousness against herein accused-appellant RICHARD O. SARCIA on July 7,
2000. Upon review of the evidence, the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor at Ligao,
Albay upgraded the charge to rape.
At his arraignment, accused-appellant, with the assistance of his counsel, entered a
plea of not guilty. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued. On January 17, 2003, the trial
court rendered its Decision finding the accused-appellant guilty of the crime of rape and
imposed the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua.
When accused-appellant was detained at the New Bilibid Prison pending the outcome
of his appeal before this Court, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9344, the Juvenile Justice and
Welfare Act of 2006 took effect on May 20, 2006. The RTC decision and CA decision
were promulgated on January 17, 2003 and July 14, 2005, respectively.

Issue:
Whether or not the accused-appellant can avail of the retroactive effect of RA 9344 with
regard to automatic suspension of sentence.

Decision:

R.A. No. 9344 provides for its retroactive application to those who have been
convicted and are serving sentence at the time of the effectivity of this said Act, and who
were below the age of 18 years at the time of the commission of the offense. With more
reason, the Act should apply to this case wherein the conviction by the lower court is still
under review. Hence, it is necessary to examine which provisions of R.A. No. 9344 shall
apply to accused-appellant, who was below 18 years old at the time of the commission of
the offense.

Nonetheless, while Sec. 38 of R.A. No. 9344 provides that suspension of sentence can
still be applied even if the child in conflict with the law is already eighteen (18) years of
age or more at the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt, Sec. 40 of the same law
limits the said suspension of sentence until the said child reaches the maximum age of
21.
To date, accused-appellant is about 31 years of age, and the judgment of the RTC had
been promulgated, even before the effectivity of R.A. No. 9344. Thus, the application of
Secs. 38 and 40 to the suspension of sentence is now moot and academic. However,
accused-appellant shall be entitled to appropriate disposition under Sec. 51 of R.A. No.
9344, which provides for the confinement of convicted children.