Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 52 views

    PEOPLE V. TANEO G.R. No. L-37673

    Uploaded by

    yanyan yu
    Potenciano Taneo was convicted of parricide for wounding his pregnant wife, who later died, during a violent episode where he also attacked guests in his home. On appeal, the Supreme Court found that Taneo acted while dreaming and his acts were involuntary due to a lack of motive and evidence he loved his wife. An expert witness also found Taneo acted in a dream state and not in his right mind. The Court ruled Taneo was not criminally liable but should be confined to an insane asylum until deemed no longer a threat.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved

    PEOPLE V. TANEO G.R. No. L-37673

    Uploaded by

    yanyan yu
    52 views2 pages
    Potenciano Taneo was convicted of parricide for wounding his pregnant wife, who later died, during a violent episode where he also attacked guests in his home. On appeal, the Supreme Court found that Taneo acted while dreaming and his acts were involuntary due to a lack of motive and evidence he loved his wife. An expert witness also found Taneo acted in a dream state and not in his right mind. The Court ruled Taneo was not criminally liable but should be confined to an insane asylum until deemed no longer a threat.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Potenciano Taneo was convicted of parricide for wounding his pregnant wife, who later died, during a violent episode where he also attacked guests in his home. On appeal, the Supreme Court found that Taneo acted while dreaming and his acts were involuntary due to a lack of motive and evidence he loved his wife. An expert witness also found Taneo acted in a dream state and not in his right mind. The Court ruled Taneo was not criminally liable but should be confined to an insane asylum until deemed no longer a threat.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    52 views2 pages

    PEOPLE V. TANEO G.R. No. L-37673

    Uploaded by

    yanyan yu
    Potenciano Taneo was convicted of parricide for wounding his pregnant wife, who later died, during a violent episode where he also attacked guests in his home. On appeal, the Supreme Court found that Taneo acted while dreaming and his acts were involuntary due to a lack of motive and evidence he loved his wife. An expert witness also found Taneo acted in a dream state and not in his right mind. The Court ruled Taneo was not criminally liable but should be confined to an insane asylum until deemed no longer a threat.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    of 2

    9/9/2019 G.R. No.

    L-37673

    Today is Monday, September 09, 2019

    Custom Search

    Constitution Statutes Executive Issuances Judicial Issuances Other Issuances Jurisprudence International Legal Resources AUSL Exclusive

    Republic of the Philippines


    SUPREME COURT
    Manila

    EN BANC

    G.R. No. L-37673 March 31, 1933

    THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,


    vs.
    POTENCIANO TANEO, defendant-appellant.

    Carlos S. Tan for appellant.


    Attorney-General Jaranilla for appellee.

    AVANCEÑA, C.J.:

    Potenciano Tadeo live with his wife in his parent's house of the barrio of Dolores, municipality of Ormoc, Leyte. On
    January 16, 1932, a fiesta was being celebrated in the said barrio and visitors were entertained in the house. Among
    them were Fred Tanner and Luis Malinao. Early that afternoon, Potenciano Taneo, went to sleep and while sleeping,
    he suddenly got up, left the room bolo in hand and, upon meeting his wife who tried to stop him, he wounded her in
    the abdomen. Potenciano Taneo attacked Fred Tanner and Luis Malinao and tried to attack his father after which he
    wounded himself. Potenciano's wife who was then seven months pregnant, died five days later as a result of her
    wound, and also the foetus which was asphyxiated in the mother's womb.

    An information for parricide was filed against Potenciano Taneo, and upon conviction he was sentenced by the trial
    court to reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties, to indemnity the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P500
    and to pay the costs. From this sentence, the defendant appealed.

    It appears from the evidence that the day before the commission of the crime the defendant had a quarrel over a
    glass of "tuba" with Enrique Collantes and Valentin Abadilla, who invited him to come down to fight, and when he
    was about to go down, he was stopped by his wife and his mother. On the day of the commission of the crime, it
    was noted that the defendant was sad and weak, and early in the afternoon he had a severe stomachache which
    made it necessary for him to go to bed. It was then when he fell asleep. The defendant states that when he fell
    asleep, he dreamed that Collantes was trying to stab him with a bolo while Abadilla held his feet, by reason of which
    he got up; and as it seemed to him that his enemies were inviting him to come down, he armed himself with a bolo
    and left the room. At the door, he met his wife who seemed to say to him that she was wounded. Then he fancied
    seeing his wife really wounded and in desperation wounded himself. As his enemies seemed to multiply around him,
    he attacked everybody that came his way.

    The evidence shows that the defendant not only did not have any trouble with his wife, but that he loved her dearly.
    Neither did he have any dispute with Tanner and Malinao, or have any motive for assaulting them.

    Our conclusion is that the defendant acted while in a dream and his acts, with which he is charged, were not
    voluntary in the sense of entailing criminal liability.

    In arriving at this conclusion, we are taking into consideration the fact that the apparent lack of a motive for
    committing a criminal act does not necessarily mean that there are none, but that simply they are not known to us,
    for we cannot probe into depths of one's conscience where they may be found, hidden away and inaccessible to our
    observation. We are also conscious of the fact that an extreme moral perversion may lead a man commit a crime
    without a real motive but just for the sake of committing it. But under the special circumstances of the case, in which
    the victim was the defendant's own wife whom he dearly loved, and taking into consideration the fact that the
    defendant tried to attack also his father, in whose house and under whose protection he lived, besides attacking
    Tanner and Malinao, his guests, whom he himself invited as may be inferred from the evidence presented, we find
    not only a lack of motives for the defendant to voluntarily commit the acts complained of, but also motives for not
    committing said acts.

    Doctor Serafica, an expert witness in this case, is also of the same opinion. The doctor stated that considering the
    circumstances of the case, the defendant acted while in a dream, under the influence of an hallucination and not in
    his right mind.

    We have thus far regarded the case upon the supposition that the wound of the deceased was direct result of the
    defendant's act performed in order to inflict it. Nevertheless we may say further that the evidence does not clearly
    show this to have been the case, but that it may have been caused accidentally. Nobody saw how the wound was
    inflicted. The defendant did not testify that he wounded his wife. He only seemed to have heard her say that she
    was wounded. What the evidence shows is that the deceased, who was in the sala, intercepted the defendant at the
    door of the room as he was coming out. The defendant did not dream that he was assaulting his wife but he was
    defending himself from his enemies. And so, believing that his wife was really wounded, in desperation, he stabbed
    himself.

    In view of all these considerations, and reserving the judgment appealed from, the courts finds that the defendant is
    not criminally liable for the offense with which he is charged, and it is ordered that he be confined in the Government
    insane asylum, whence he shall not be released until the director thereof finds that his liberty would no longer
    constitute a menace, with costs de oficio. So ordered.

    Street, Ostrand, Abad Santos, and Butte, JJ., concur.

    The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

    https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1933/mar1933/gr_l-37673_1933.html 1/2
    9/9/2019 G.R. No. L-37673

    https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1933/mar1933/gr_l-37673_1933.html 2/2

    You might also like