People Vs Formigones

EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES completely of reason or discernment and
freedom of the will at the time of committing the

PEOPLE VS FORMIGONES crime. The Supreme Court of Spain held that in
order that this exempting circumstances may
be taken into account, it is necessary that there
FACTS: be a complete deprivation of intelligence in
committing the act, that is, that the accused be
Late in the afternoon, Julia was sitting at deprived of reason; that there be no
the head of the stairs of the house. The responsibility for his own acts; that he acts
accused, without any previous quarrel or without the least discernment;1 that there be a
provocation whatsoever, took his bolo from the complete absence of the power to discern, or
wall of the house and stabbed his wife, Julia, in that there be a total deprivation of freedom of
the back, the blade penetrating the right lung the will. For this reason, it was held that the
and causing a severe hemorrhage resulting in imbecility or insanity at the time of the
her death not long thereafter. The blow sent commission of the act should absolutely
Julia toppling down the stairs to the ground, deprive a person of intelligence or freedom of
immediately followed by her husband Abelardo will, because mere abnormality of his mental
who, taking her up in his arms, carried her up faculties does not exclude imputability.
the house, laid her on the floor of the living
room and then lay down beside her. In this The Supreme Court of Spain likewise held that
position he was found by the people who came deaf-muteness cannot be equaled to imbecility
in response to the shouts for help made by his or insanity.The allegation of insanity or
eldest daughter, who witnessed and testified to imbecility must be clearly proved. Without
the stabbing of her mother by her father. positive evidence that the defendant had
Defendant admitted that he killed, motive was previously lost his reason or was demented, a
admittedly of jealousy because according to his few moments prior to or during the perpetration
statement he used to have quarrels with his of the crime, it will be presumed that he was in
wife for the reason that he often saw her in the a normal condition. Acts penalized by law are
company of his brother Zacarias. always reputed to be voluntary, and it is
improper to conclude that a person acted
He appealed based on the theory that the unconsciously, in order to relieve him from
appellant is an imbecile and therefore exempt liability, on the basis of his mental condition,
from criminal liability under article 12 of the unless his insanity and absence of will are
Revised Penal Code. proved.
ISSUE: Is the appellant imbecile and covered As to the strange behaviour of the accused
by Article 12 of the RPC? during his confinement, assuming that it was
not feigned to stimulate insanity, it may be
attributed either to his being feebleminded or
RULING: eccentric, or to a morbid mental condition
produced by remorse at having killed his wife.
Dr. Francisco Gomez, who examined
him, it was his opinion that Abelardo was After a careful study of the record, we are
suffering only from feeblemindedness and not convinced that the appellant is not an imbecile.
imbecility and that he could distinguish right According to the evidence, during his marriage
from wrong. of about 16 years, he has not done anything or
conducted himself in anyway so as to warrant
In order that a person could be regarded as an an opinion that he was or is an imbecile. He
imbecile within the meaning of article 12 of the regularly and dutifully cultivated his farm,
Revised Penal Code so as to be exempt from raised five children, and supported his family
criminal liability, he must be deprived and even maintained in school his children of
school age, with the fruits of his work.
Occasionally, as a side line he made copra.
And a man who could feel the pangs of
jealousy to take violent measure to the extent
of killing his wife whom he suspected of being
unfaithful to him, in the belief that in doing so
he was vindicating his honor, could hardly be
regarded as an imbecile. Whether or not his
suspicions were justified, is of little or no
import. The fact is that he believed her
faithless.
Appellant was found guilty of parricide.

People Vs Formigones

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Formigones

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Formigones

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES completely of reason or discernment and

freedom of the will at the time of committing the

Appellant was found guilty of parricide.

You might also like