PEOPLE VS BUTIONG, G.R.NO.

168932, OCTOBER 19, instead administered to appropriately determine AAA’s

2011 |ARTICLE 12, PAR. 1 | IMBECILITY mental age.

FACTS: ISSUE:

In the evening of October 7, 1998, AAA, then a Whether or not the accused is guilty of rape.
29-year-old mental retardate, was invited by Butiong,
Rulings:
her long-time neighbor, to go over to his house because
Yes. Rape is essentially a crime committed through
he would give her something. AAA obliged. He locked force or intimidation, that is, against the will of
the door as soon as she had stepped inside his house, the female. It is also committed without force or
and then took off his shorts and the shorts of AAA. He intimidation when carnal knowledge of a female is
led her to the sofa, where he had carnal knowledge of alleged and shown to be without her consent. This
understanding of the commission of rape has been
her. AAA remembered that she then felt pain in her
prevalent in both the common law and the
abdomen and became angry at him for what he had statutory law systems.
done.

Upon reaching home, AAA forthwith told her There are four modes of committing the crime of
older sister what had happened. Her sister brought AAA rape as provided in paragraph 1, Article 266-A of
to the police station, and later on to the National Bureau
the Revised Penal Code, as amended, applied in
of Investigation (NBI), where AAA underwent a medico-
legal examination by Dr. Armie M. Soreta-Umil. The his case, namely:
medico-legal examination revealed that AAA’s hymen
was intact but “distensible and its orifice wide (2.5 cms. a.     Through force, threat or intimidation;
in diameter) as to allow complete penetration by an
average-sized adult Filipino male organ in full erection b.     When the offended party is deprived of reason or
without producing any genital injury.” Noticing AAA’s is otherwise unconscious;
disorientation and incoherence, Dr. Soreta-Umil c.      By means of fraudulent machination or grave
endorsed her to the NBI Psychiatric Section for abuse of authority;
evaluation. AAA also underwent a series of psychological
tests at the National Mental Hospital. The tests included d.     When the offended party is under 12 years of age,
the Raven’s Progressive Matrices Test, Bender Visual or is demented, even though none of the
circumstances first mentioned is present.
Motor Gestalt Test, and Draw a Person Test. A
Rorschach Psycho-Diagnostic Test was not used because
AAA was not able to answer. Another test, the Sack’s Carnal knowledge of a mental retardate is rape
Sentence Completion Test, was not used because of under paragraph 1 of Article 266-A of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353
AAA’s inability to comply with the instructions. The
because a mental retardate is not capable of
results of the psychological tests showed that she had a giving her consent to a sexual act. Proof of force
mild level of mental retardation, and that her mental or intimidation is not necessary, it being sufficient
age was that of a child aged from six to seven years; she for the State to establish, one, the sexual congress
was unaware of what went on around her and was between the accused and the victim, and, two,
the mental retardation of the victim. It should no
interested only in gratifying her own needs.
longer be debatable that rape of a mental
retardate falls under paragraph 1, b), of Article
The Defense presented only one witness in the 266-A, supra, because the provision refers to a
person of Dr. Natividad Dayan, whom it offered as an rape of a female “deprived of reason,” a phrase
expert psychologist. She concluded that the Raven’s that refers to mental abnormality, deficiency or
Progressive Matrices Test and the Bender Visual Motor retardation.
Gestalt Test administered on AAA were unreliable for
Considering the findings of psychologist de Guzman to
determining the existence of mental retardation. She the effect that AAA had the mental age of a six- to
based her conclusion on James Morizon’s DSM-4 Made seven-year old, an age equated with imbecility under
Easy: The Clinician’s Guide for Diagnosis, and Jay Siskin’s the previous classification, her mental age was even
Coping With Psychiatric and Psychological Testimony. lower than that of a borderline mental deficiency within
According to her, an individually administered the context of that term as characterized in People v.
intelligence test, like the Stamp Intelligence Scale or the Dalandas, supra.34 As such, Butiong’s carnal knowledge
of AAA amounted to rape of a person deprived of
Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale, as well as projective
reason.
techniques, like the Rorschach Psychodiagnostic Test
and the Thematic Perception Test, should have been
Her mental retardation, the Court held, was equivalent Republic Act No. 8353 because a mental retardate is not
to imbecility “in traditional parlance.” capable of giving her consent to a sexual act. Proof of
force or intimidation is not necessary, it being sufficient
DOCTRINES: for the State to establish, one, the sexual congress
The basic element of rape is carnal knowledge or sexual between the accused and the victim, and, two, the
intercourse, not ejaculation; Carnal knowledge is defined mental retardation of the victim. It should no longer be
as “the act of a man having sexual bodily connections debatable that rape of a mental retardate falls under
with a woman.”—Nor did the absence of spermatozoa paragraph 1, b), of Article 266-A, supra, because the
from the genitalia of AAA negate or disprove the rape. provision refers to a rape of a female “deprived of
The basic element of rape is carnal knowledge or sexual reason,” a phrase that refers to mental abnormality,
intercourse, not ejaculation. Carnal knowledge is defined deficiency or retardation.
as “the act of a man having sexual bodily connections
with a woman.” This explains why the slightest Court has consistently considered carnal knowledge of a
penetration of the female genitalia consummates the female mental retardate with the mental age below 12
rape. As such, a mere touching of the external genitalia years of age as rape of a woman deprived of reason.—
by the penis capable of consummating the sexual act The ability of the female to given rational consent to
already constitutes consummated rape. carnal intercourse determines if carnal knowledge of a
mental retardate like AAA is rape. Indeed, the Court has
Mental Retardates; Carnal knowledge of a mental consistently considered carnal knowledge of a female
retardate is rape under paragraph 1 of Article 266-A of mental retardate with the mental age below 12 years of
the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. age as rape of a woman deprived of reason. As the
8353 because a mental retardate is not capable of Court aptly stated in People v. Manlapaz, 88 SCRA 704
giving her consent to a sexual act.—Carnal knowledge of (1979), where the victim was a 13-year old girl with the
a mental retardate is rape under paragraph 1 of Article mentality of a five-year-old, that ability to give rational
266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by consent was not present.

PEOPLE VS BAYRANTE, G.R.NO. 188978, JUNE 13, 2012

|ARTICLE 12, PAR. 1 | IMBECILITY AAA also testified, among others, that the Accused-
Appellant took her away from their house in one (1)
FACTS: evening of February 2002 when her parents were then
already asleep. They walked the streets and later rode a
That on or about 8:00 o’clock in the evening of February Palces bus in which no other passengers were on board
19, 2002 at Brgy. Old San Roque, Pili, Camarines Sur, as it was already nighttime.
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused with lewd design using BBB, mother of AAA, stated in open court that the
force, threats and intimidation, did then and there Accused-Appellant, who had been staying in their house,
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal is AAA’s uncle because the Accused-Appellant and her
knowledge with his niece [AAA], a 20[-]year[-]old mental husband, CCC, are first cousins. Preliminarily, BBB
retardate whose mental age is 9 to 10 years of age, testified that AAA, who was born on April 16, 1982,
against her will, to her damage and prejudice. attained an educational level of Grade 6 only because of
her low comprehension and that she cannot even be
The Version of the Prosecution: relied upon to run errands as she can only follow simple
instructions or tasks if well-explained to her. AAA is
AAA testified that at about 8:00 o’clock in the evening of unlike any normal child because she cries and scampers
February 19, 2002, the Accused-Appellant brought her away when there are visitors around; she has never
to Poblacion, Pili, Camarines Sur, particularly to a house, attended any party, dance events, or any social
which she described to have many rooms. Thereat, the gathering; and had poor grades in school.
Accused-Appellant undressed her and himself, laid on
top of her, and inserted his penis inside her vagina, BBB also testified that the Accused-Appellant
during which she felt pain in her organ. She resisted the disappeared in the evening of February 14, 2002,
Accused-Appellant’s ravage acts by kicking him several together with her daughter, AAA. She and CCC looked
times, but was overcome with fear because he had a for their whereabouts, but located them only on
knife about five (5) inches long. After an hour or so, or at February 20, 2002, in Poblacion, Pili, Camarines Sur.
about 9:00 or 10:00 o’clock in the same evening, the When they saw AAA and the Accused-Appellant
Accused-Appellant again raped her by undressing her standing near a market, waiting for a ride going to
and inserting his penis into her vagina. Again, she felt Manapao, Minalabac, Camarines Sur, they immediately
pain in her vagina. Thereafter, the Accused-Appellant approached and embraced AAA and took her away from
threatened to kill her if she told anyone about the the latter. Forthwith, they reported the matter to the
incident. Barangay Tanod of the place whereupon the Accused-
Appellant was brought to the police station for suggested that they should leave the place since her
questioning. parents will not approve of their relationship.

At home, BBB interviewed her daughter as to where the The Accused-Appellant further testified that on or about
Accused-Appellant brought her, to which AAA replied February 9, 2002, he and AAA left the house, stopped by
that she was brought to a certain place in Pili, Camarines at Baao and proceeded to Pili, Camarines Sur at about
Sur, where the Accused-Appellant raped her twice and 5:00 or 6:00 o’clock the following morning. They first
threatened to kill her if she told anyone about the went to his friend’s house where AAA changed her
incident. Upon learning the same, she brought AAA to clothes and, later, to his uncle’s house in Minalabac,
Dr. Pablo B. Filio, Jr. (Dr. Filio) on the following day for a Camarines Sur, where he left AAA because he had to go
physical examination and, thereafter, to Dr. Imelda back to Baao to get his own clothes. He returned to his
Escuadra (Dr. Escuadra) for further check-up. uncle’s house in the afternoon of the same day and
stayed there with AAA for five (5) more days. While in
Dr. Escuadra, a Medical Specialist II at the Bicol Medical Manapao, AAA suggested that they go to the office of
Center and in charge of the Women and Children the Barangay Captain to execute an affidavit to the
Protection Unit, particularly in the psychiatric evaluation effect that AAA’s act of going with him was voluntary.
and management of patients, is the one who conducted
psychiatric and psychological tests on AAA. Dr. Escuadra The Accused-Appellant further testified that he and AAA
testified that AAA suffers from post-traumatic stress went to Old San Roque when they learned that the
disorder (PTSD). She also diagnosed AAA with mild latter’s parents were looking for them. They checked in
mental retardation because of her intellectual quotient at El Alma Hotel in Pili, Camarines Sur, where they spent
(IQ) of only 55, which meant that her mental age is the night and checked out of the following morning on
equivalent to that of nine (9) to ten (10) – year old child. February 20, 2002. In the said morning, however, when
Dr. Escuadra elaborated that the psychiatric tests and they went to the house of his cousin, William Rañon
psychological tests performed on AAA are different from (Rañon), to pick up their personal belongings, AAA’s
each other because the former refers to the parents were there.
examination of the patient’s mental capacity while the
latter refers to the evaluation of the patient’s Marilyn Mendoza (Mendoza) testified that she
intelligence quotient. She also averred that AAA was personally knows AAA as she (Mendoza) was previously
poor in arithmetic and economics; that it took her some introduced to her by the Accused-Appellant. The next
time to answer even simple questions; that her answers time that she met AAA was sometime on February 12 or
were short and monosyllabic; and that AAA cooperated 13, 2002 when the Accused-Appellant requested if they
during the sessions only when BBB is present. Finally, Dr. could stay at her (Mendoza) parent’s house. She,
Escuadra testified that AAA disclosed to her the events however, refused to entertain them because her
that transpired during the rape incident in February parents will not approve of it. Thus, AAA and the
2002. Accused-Appellant stayed there only for a while.

Dr. Filio, an Assistant City Health Officer in Iriga City who Rañon, a Barangay Tanod in Old San Roque, Pili,
conducted a physical examination on AAA, testified in Camarines Sur, testified that at about 6:30 in the
fine that he did not find any laceration on the victim’s morning of February 19, 2002, he was in front of the
vagina or seminal fluid inside it. store of his relative in Old San Roque, Pili, Camarines
Sur, when the Accused-Appellant arrived together with
Finally, Carlos Bayrante, an uncle of the Accused- a woman (referring to AAA). He noticed that when the
Appellant, corroborated BBB’s testimony that at about Accused-Appellant left some things in the store, the
7:00 o’clock in the morning of February 20, 2002, they latter’s right arm was placed on AAA’s shoulder. When
saw AAA and the Accused-Appellant together. He he saw them again at about 5:00 o’clock in the morning
wondered why the two (2) were together, but he did of the following day, in front of the public market, the
not bother to ask anyway.” Accused-Appellant’s right arm was lazing on the
woman’s shoulder while the latter were leaning on the
The Version of the Defense: Accused-Appellant’s shoulder. At around 7:00 o’clock in
the morning of even date, BBB and her husband CCC
The Accused-Appellant testified that he and CCC are approached him and sought his help in apprehending
cousins and that he stayed in the house of the latter and the Accused-Appellant on the allegation that the latter
his [CCC’s] family since October 2001 to help in lumber- raped their daughter. As the Accused-Appellant was
cutting. He denied forcing AAA into a relationship with only about ten (10) to fifteen (15) meters away from
him and added that during his stay with CCC’s family, he him, he called the former and told him to place his
courted a female neighbor with whom AAA later hands on his head. He then conducted a body search,
quarreled because [AAA] had feelings for him. He and thereafter, brought him to the police station in Pili,
dissuaded her at first, but AAA threatened to commit Camarines Sur, for an investigation. The woman, who
suicide if they do not become sweethearts. He even was with the Accused-Appellant at the time, said that
consulted a friend for he entertained the idea that AAA she will go with him at the police station because they
might actually carry out her threat to commit suicide. love each other.
Also, on one occasion, AAA went inside his bedroom and
Barangay Captain Zenaida Regis (Brgy. Capt. Regis) of 12, 2000)
Barangay Manapao, Minalabac, Camarines Sur, testified
that on February 19, 2002, the Accused-Appellant, To ascertain a person’s mental condition at the time of
together with AAA, came to her office requesting the the act, it is permissible to receive evidence of the
preparation of an affidavit to the effect that AAA condition of his mind within a reasonable period before
voluntarily went with the Accused-Appellant. While and after
interviewing AAA, Brgy. Capt. Regis noticed that it took
the incident. Direct testimony is not required. Neither are
some time for AAA to answer the question of whether
specific acts of derangement essential to establish
or not she was forced to go with the Accused-Appellant.
insanity as a defense. Circumstantial evidence, if clear
She qualified, however, that AAA finally answered in the and convincing suffices. (People v Estrada G.R. No.
negative. 130487 June 19, 2000)

PEOPLE v. PAMBID PEOPLE v. DOMINGO

G.R. No. 124453.  March 15, 2000 March 2, 2009 (G.R. No. 184343)
Defense of Insanity
Facts:

A man diagnosed of schizophrenia and mild mental PARTIES:

retardation raped a six-year old girl.  Accused pleaded Plaintiff-Appellee: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
not guilty on the ground of insanity.
Accused-Appellant: JESUS DOMINGO
Held:

Accused-appellant’s plea of insanity is unacceptable. FACTS:

While Art. 12(1) of the Revised Penal Code provides that The Court of Appeals found appellant Jesus
an imbecile or insane person is exempt from criminal
Domingo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
liability, unless he has acted during a lucid interval, the
presumption under Art. 800 of the Civil Code is that murder, attempted murder, frustrated murder,
every man is sane. Anyone who pleads the exempting and frustrated homicide.
circumstance of insanity bears the burden of proving it.
On or about the 29th day of March 2000,
He must show that he was completely deprived of reason
when he committed the crime charged, for mere complainant and her children were sleeping
abnormality of his mental faculties does not exclude inside their house when Domingo when she
imputability.
was awakened when the accused entered their
kitchen armed with a screwdriver and a kitchen
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES knife. He stabbed the complainant and her
children. Raquel Indon, complainant, pleaded
Insanity
the appellant to spare her daughter but teh
Insanity, under Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code, appellant answered “Ngayon pa, nagawa ko
connotes that the accused must have been deprived na”. Two of her children died.
completely of reason and freedom of the will at the time
of the commission of the crime, or that he must have Five years passed, the defense counsel said
acted without the least discernment. Mere abnormality of that nine days prior the commission of the
the accused's mental faculties does not exclude crime, appellant suffered sleeplessness, lack of
imputability. (People v. Aquino G.R. No. 128887
January 20, 2000) appetite, and nervousness. Occasionally, a
voice would tell him to kill. Appellant averred
The totality of the acts will show whether the accused that when he regained his memory, one week
was fully conscious of what he was doing. (People v.
Pambid G.R. No. 124453, March 15, 2000) had already passed since the incidents, and he
was already detained. They submitted a
An accused invoking the insanity defense pleads not psychiatric evaluation, and psychological
guilty by reason thereof. He admits committing the crime
but claims that he is not guilty because he was insane at examination as evidence that appellant
the time of its commission. Hence, the accused is tried on suffered from Schizophrenia, a mental disorder
the issue of sanity alone and if found to be sane, a characterized by the presence of delusions and
judgment of conviction is rendered without any trial on
the issue of guilt as he had already admitted committing or hallucinations, disorganized speech and
the crime. (People v. Madarang G.R. No. 132319 May behavior, poor impulse control and low
frustration tolerance. The doctor could not find
People vs. Tibon Case Digest G.R. No. 188320,
out when the appellant started to suffer this
June 29, 2010
illness, but the symptoms of Schizophrenia
which were manifested by the patient indicated Facts:
Honorio Tibon (accused-appellant) and his
that he suffered from the illness six months
common-law wife Gina Sumingot (Gina) lived
before the Center examined the appellant. The together as husband and wife. They had two
counsel of the appellant raised the defense of children, Keen Gist (KenKen) and Reguel Albert
(Reguel). They lived together with Tibon’s parents
insanity of the appellant.
and siblings on the third floor of a rented house.
Gina went to Hongkong to work as a domestic
ISSUE: WON the appellant is exempt from helper, leaving their children to Tibon’s custody.
After some time, Tibon heard from her sister who
criminal liability on the ground of insanity.
was also working abroad that Gina was having an
affair with another man. After the revelation, he was
spotted drinking a lot and was seen hitting his two
HELD: children.
No, the defense of insanity is unmeritorious.
On the night of December 12, 1998, at around
Insanity exempts the accused only when the 11:30 p.m., accused-appellant’s mother and his
finding of mental disorder refers to appellant’s siblings (Zernan and Leilani), went to Tibon’s room.
They saw him with the two children who appeared
state of mind immediately before or at the very
to be lifeless and bore wounds on their bodies.
moment of the commission of the crime. This When Tibon realized that his mother and siblings
was not the case in the issue at bar, what was had seen the children lying on the floor he stabbed
himself on the chest with a kitchen knife and
presented was proof of appellant’s mental
jumped out of the window of their house. At the
disorder that existed five years after the hospital, accused-appellant survived and was
incident, but not at the time the crimes were treated however, the children could no longer be
revived.
committed. The RTC also considered it crucial
that appellant had the presence of mind to When Gina heard about the incident, she went
respond to Raquel Indon’s pleas that her home immediately and confronted Tibon at the
hospital where he was confined. He confessed to
daughters be spared by saying, “Ngayon pa, stabbing their children and begged her for
nagawa ko na.” forgiveness.
Even assuming that nine days prior the crime
In court, Tibon denied the charges against him and
the appellant was hearing voices ordering him raised insanity as defense. He said that he could
to kill people, while suggestive of an abnormal not recall what happened on the night he allegedly
mental condition, cannot be equated with a stabbed his two children. He also could not
remember being taken to the hospital. He said that
total deprivation of will or an absence of the he was only informed by his siblings that he had
power to discern. Mere abnormality of mental killed his two children, causing him to jump off the
faculties will not exclude imputability. window of their house.
The law presumes every man to be of sound Issue:
mind. Otherwise stated, the law presumes that Whether or not the exempting circumstance of
all acts are voluntary, and that it is improper to insanity applies to the accused-appellant’s case?
presume that acts are done unconsciously. Ruling:
Thus, a person accused of a crime who pleads No.  Under Article 12 of the RPC “An imbecile or an
the exempting circumstance of insanity has the insane person, unless the latter has acted during a
lucid interval” is exempted from criminal liability.
burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt Anyone who pleads the exempting circumstance of
that he or she was insane immediately before insanity bears the burden of proving it with clear
or at the moment the crime was committed. and convincing evidence. Testimony or proof of
insanity must relate to the time immediately
preceding or coetaneous with the commission of
the offense.

The medical records of Tibon with the National

Center for Mental Health (NCMH) is inapplicable for
such refers to his condition to stand trial and not to
his mental state immediately before or during the
commission of the crimes.
 from criminal liability. Dr. Francisco Gomez
Tibon’s behavior was triggered by jealousy
told that Abelardo was suffering only from
because of the revelation that his wife was having
an affair overseas. Uncontrolled jealousy and anger feeblemindedness and not imbecility and that
are not equivalent to insanity. he could distinguish right from wrong. An
imbecile so as to be exempt from criminal
The court considered Parricide as the applicable
law in this case. Under Article 264 Parricide is liability, he must be deprived completely of
committed when: (i) a person is killed; (ii) the reason or discernment and freedom of the will
deceased is killed by the accused; (iii) the
at the time of committing the crime.
deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether
legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate other
ascendant or other descendant, or the legitimate ISSUE: WON the defendant who is suffering
spouse of the accused. Tibon was found guilty by
from feeblemindedness is exempt from
this Court with the punishment of reclusion
perpetua. criminal liability.

HELD:
No. In order that an exempting circumstance
may be taken into account, it is necessary that
PEOPLE v. FORMIGONES
there be a complete deprivation of intelligence
November 29, 1950 (G.R. No. L-3246)
in committing the act, that is, that the accused
be deprived of reason; that there be no

PARTIES: responsibility for his own acts; that he acts

plaintiff-appellee: THE PEOPLE OF THE without the least discernment; that there be a

PHILIPPINES complete absence of the power to discern, or

defendant-appellant: ABELARDO FORMIGONES that there be a total deprivation of freedom of

the will. As to the strange behaviour of the
accused during his confinement, assuming that
FACTS: it was not feigned to stimulate insanity, it may
From November to December 1946, defendant be attributed either to his being feebleminded
Abelardo Formigones together with his wife or eccentric, or to a morbid mental condition
Julia Agricola, and his five children lived in the produced by remorse at having killed his wife.
house of his half-brother, Zacarias Formigones He could distinguish right from wrong.
to find employment as harvesters. One
afternoon, the accused, without any previous
quarrel or provocation whatsoever, took his
bolo from the wall of the house and stabbed
his wife at the back, the blade penetrating the
right lung which latter caused her death. When
she fall ont he ground the defendant carried
her up the house, laid her on the floor of the
living room and then lay down beside her. He
was convicted of parricide and was sentenced
to prison. The defendant entered a plea of not
guilty. His counsel presented testimonies of
two guards of the provincial jail where
defendant was confined. They said that he
behaved like an insane person, that sometimes
he would remove his clothes in front of others,
would not take a bath, and remained silent and
indifferent to his surroundings. His counsel
claimed that e is an imbecile therefore exempt
 We are not convinced.

G.R. No. 185285               October 5, 2009 The moral and legal presumption is always in favor
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff- of soundness of mind; that freedom and intelligence
Appellee,  constitute the normal condition of a person.25 It is
vs. improper to assume the contrary.26 This
PAUL ALIPIO, Accused-Appellant. presumption, however, may be overcome by
evidence of insanity, which, under Art. 12(1) of the
DECISION RPC, exempts a person from criminal liability.

VELASCO, JR., J.: In People v. Formigones,27 the Court has

established a more stringent standard for insanity to
The Case be an exempting circumstance. There, it was held
On appeal is the June 10, 2008 Decision1 of the that, for insanity to be appreciated in favor of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. accused, there must be a complete deprivation of
02354 that affirmed the April 21, 2006 Decision2 in intelligence in committing the act, that is, the
Criminal Case No. 01-427 of the Regional Trial accused is deprived of reason or there is a
Court (RTC), Branch 65 in Sorsogon City. The RTC complete absence of the power to discern or a total
found accused-appellant Paul Alipio guilty of rape deprivation of the will. Mere abnormality of the
and imposed upon him the penalty of reclusion mental faculties will not exclude
perpetua. imputability.281avvph!1
The Facts
An Information filed with the RTC charged Paul with
The evidence offered by the defense in this case
one count of rape allegedly committed as follows:
miserably failed to establish clearly and
That sometime in the month of June, 2000 at Sitio
convincingly the presence of the stringent criterion
Liman, Barangay San Francisco, Municipality of
for insanity. On the contrary, the evidence tended to
Bulan, Province of Sorsogon, Philippines and within
show, albeit impliedly, that accused-appellant was
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
not deprived of reason at all and can still distinguish
named accused, by means of force, threats and
right from wrong when, after satisfying his lust, he
intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
threatened AAA not to tell anybody about what he
and feloniously, have sexual intercourse with one
had done; otherwise, she would be killed. This
[AAA],3 a mentally retarded woman against her will
single episode irresistibly implies, for one, that
and without her consent, to her damage and
accused-appellant knew what he was doing, that it
prejudice.
was wrong, and wanted to keep it a secret. And for
Contrary to law.4
another, it indicated that the crime was committed
Arraigned on May 13, 2002 with the assistance of
during one of accused-appellant’s lucid intervals. In
his counsel de officio, Paul entered a plea of "not
this regard, no less than his father admitted in open
guilty."
court that there were times when his son was in his
During the pre-trial conference, the defense
proper senses.29
admitted Paul’s identity and of his being a resident
of Sitio Liman, San Francisco, Bulan, Sorsogon
sometime in 2000. Given the above perspective, the trial court
In the ensuing trial, the prosecution offered in correctly downplayed accused-appellant’s plea of
evidence the oral testimonies of the private insanity. The Court cites with approval the following
complainant, AAA, BBB, her mother, and Dr. Imelda excerpts from the RTC’s decision:
Escuadra, among others.
For its part, the defense presented in evidence the Dr. Belmonte, the psychiatrist who evaluated the
testimonies of Norma de Leon, Dr. Chona C. mental condition of the accused testified x x x that
Belmonte, Saul Alipio, and Jose Genagaling. the accused was given psychological testing to fully
assess his mental condition, and he was found to
have an average mental condition. In the intelligent
The Court’s Ruling quotient test accused has an average mental
function while in the projective test there were
The appeal is denied for lack of merit. several indicators noted, since at the time of the
testing accused showed a lot of immaturity,
stubbornness and irritability. That it would be
difficult for them to employ a mechanism that would
prevent selective responses on the part of the
Exempting Circumstance of Insanity Is Absent
accused. They just observed the patient and that is
also the reason why they give psychological testing,
In a bid to escape from criminal liability, accused- because in that way they can determine whether
appellant invokes insanity. He contends that the the subject is in conflict with his personality. That
psychiatrist who examined him consistently testified during those times the accused had his sessions
that there was a high possibility that he was with the psychologist and some doctors accused
suffering from schizoaffective disorder when the was barely consistent and their evaluation shows
alleged rape incident happened. consistent result. Schizoaffective disorder is always
precipitated by certain traumatic experience. That
there is really a need for them to gather information
to know whether the accused was already afflicted
with that mental disorder sometime in 1987 or 2000.  PEOPLE vs RAFANAN Jr Insanity
That the schizoaffective disorder of Paul Alipio is
only temporary in character hence, it can be
treated. The duration of the treatment would FACTS:
depend on the progress of the patient. On February 27, 1976, complainant Estelita
Ronaya who was then only fourteen years old was
The doctor further stated during the clarificatory hired as a househelper by themother of the
questioning propounded by the Court, that there is accused. The accused Policarpio Rafanan and his
a high possibility that sometime in 2001 when the
family lived with his mother in the same.
alleged rape incident took place implicating the
accused as the rapist, accused was not in his Policarpio was then marriedand had two
normal mental condition. During that time this children.On March 16, 1976, in the evening, after
schizoaffective disorder was already in effect. THAT dinner, Estelita Ronaya was sent by the mother
SHE HAS NO CATEGORICAL FINDINGS YET of the accused to help in theirstore which was
INSOFAR AS THE SENSE OF DISCERNMENT OF
THE ACCUSED BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG located in front of their house. Attending to the
IS CONCERNED. x x x store at the time was the accused. At 11:00
o'clock in the evening,the accused called the
Prescinding from the foregoing testimony of the complainant to help him close the door of the
doctor, it is clear therefore that the mental disorder store and as the latter complied and went near
of accused Paul Alipio is only temporary in
him, hesuddenly pulled the complainant inside the
character and can be treated. Moreover, although
the probability is high that in year 2000 when the store and said that they should have intercourse,
rape incident took place accused was already Ronaya refused. The accused held abolo and
suffering from schizoaffective disorder, said doctor pointed it to the throat of the complainant
has not come up with any categorical findings yet threatening her with said bolo should she
relative to the sense of discernment of the accused
when it comes to what is RIGHT and what is resist. He then raped Ronaya in spiteof her
WRONG.30 resistance and struggle. After the sexual
intercourse, the accused cautioned the
With the view we take of this case, we find the complainant not to report the matter to
prosecution to have discharged its burden of hermother or anybody in the house, otherwise he
proving the guilt of accused-appellant beyond
would kill her. In the evening of March 17, 1976,
reasonable doubt. And needless to stress, guilt
beyond reasonable doubt only denotes moral the family of the accused learnedwhat happened
certainty, not absolute certainty. Moral certainty is that night.The principal submission of appellant
that degree of proof which, to an unprejudiced is that he was suffering from a metal aberration
mind, produces conviction.31 characterized as schizophrenia whenhe inflicted
his violent intentions upon Estelita. The trial
The crime committed being in the nature of simple
rape, the award by the trial court, as affirmed by the court suspended the trial and ordered appellant
CA, of PhP 50,000 as civil indemnity ex delicto for confined at the NationalMental Hospital in
the victim and the same amount as moral damages Mandaluyong for observation and treatment. In
is in line with prevailing case law and is accordingly the meantime, the case was archived. Appellant
affirmed. Accused-appellant must, however, pay
was admittedinto the hospital on 29 December
AAA PhP 30,000 by way of exemplary damages as
a measure to deter other individuals with aberrant 1976 and stayed there until 26 June 1978.On the
sexual tendencies pursuant to current last report dated 26 June 1978, appellant was
jurisprudence.32 described as behaved, helpful in household
chores and no longertalking while alone. He was
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The CA said to be "fairly groomed" and "oriented" and as
Decision in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02354 finding
accused-appellant Paul Alipio guilty of the crime denying having hallucinations. The report
charged is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION concludedthat he was in a "much improved
that he is ordered to pay AAA exemplary condition" and "in a mental condition to stand
damages in the amount of PhP 30,000. court trial."Trial of the case thus resumed. The
defense first presented Dr. Arturo Nerit who
suggested that appellant was sick one ortwo
years before his admission into the hospital, in
effect implying that appellant was already
suffering from schizophrenia when heraped
complainant.
 she had been sexually assaulted by him,
ISSUE indicates, to the mind of the Court, that Rafanan
: Whether or not the reason of insanity in this was aware of the reprehensible moral quality of
case is sufficient to relieve himself of criminal that assault.
liability through exemptingcircumstance. In any case, as already pointed out, itis
complete loss of intelligence
HELD: which must be shown if the exempting
NO circumstance of insanity is to be found.The law
 RATIO: presumes every man to be sane. A person
The Supreme Court of Spain held that accused of a crime has the burden of proving his
in order that this exempting circumstance may affirmative allegation of insanity. Here, appellant
be taken into account, it is necessary that there failed to present clear and convincing evidence
be a complete deprivation of intelligence in regarding his state of mind immediately before
committing the act, and duringthe sexual assault on Estelita. It has
that is been held that inquiry into the mental state of
 , the accused should relate to the
that the periodimmediately before or at the very moment
accused be deprived of reason; the act is committed. Appellant rested his case
that therebe on the testimonies of two (2) physicianswhich,
no responsibility for his own acts; however, did not purport to characterize his
that the mental condition during that critical period of
acts without the least discernment; or that time. They did not specificallyrelate to
there be a total deprivation of freedom of the circumstances occurring on or immediately
will. F  before the day of the rape. Their testimonies
or this reason, it was held that the consisted of broad statementsbased on general
imbecility or insanity at the time of the behavioral patterns of people afflicted
commission of the act should absolutely deprivea with schizophrenia.
person of intelligence or freedom of will, because
mere abnormality of his mental faculties does
not exclude imputability.
 The allegation of insanity or imbecility must be
clearly proved. Without positive evidence that
the defendant hadpreviously
lost his reason
or was
demented, a few moments prior to or during the
perpetration of the crime, it will be presumed
that he was in a normal condition. Acts penalized
by law are always reputed to be voluntary,
and it is improper to conclude that a personacted
unconsciously, in order to relieve him from
liability, on the basis of his mental condition,
unless his insanity and absence of willare
proved.Schizophrenia pleaded by appellant has
been described as a chronic mental disorder
characterized by inability to distinguishbetween
fantasy and reality, and often accompanied by
hallucinations and delusionsIn the findings of the
case, testimonies negates complete destruction
of intelligence at the time of commission of the
actcharged which, in the current state of our
caselaw, is critical if the defense of insanity is
to be sustained.
The fact that appellant Rafanan threatened
complainant Estelita with death should she reveal
People of the Philippines vs. Anacito Opuran Held:
GR Nos. 147674-75
March 17, 2004

The Court sustained the conviction of the appellant

FACTS: in view of the straightforward testimony of the victim
and the inconsistencies of the testimonies of the
defense witnesses.
On Nov. 19, 1998, 6:30 pm at Catbalogan, Samar,
Anacito Opuran, herein accused, stabbed Allan
Dacles, who was lying on a bench. At 7:45 pm of the
same day, Demetrio Patrimonio was walking on the The Court did not exempt accused of his criminal
national highway of Catbalogan, Samar. Thereafter, liability although he was only 17 during the
the accused emerged from where he was hiding and commission of the crime since, in view of the
stabbed Patrimonio.
circumstances to which accused committed the
felony, it was proved that he acted with
discernment. (Sec 6, RA 9344). There was showing
ISSUE: that the accused understood the consequences of
his action.

Whether or not accused can use the exempting

circumstance of insanity as a defense.
Applying,  the provision of RA 9346, the accused
was meted with reclusion perpetua instead of the
RULING: death penalty.

As to the civil liability of accused, his minority also

No. Insanity must exist immediately before or at the had no bearing to the decision of the Court,
précised moment of the commission of the act. The ordering accused to pay the victim for damages.
accused failed to prove that he was insane at the
precise moment of commission or immediately However, the Court afforded the accused the
before said act. Thus, insanity is not attendant in benefit of the suspension of his sentence provided
the case at bar. in Section38 of RA 9344, which made no distinction
to an accused found guilty of a capital offense. The
Court stated that what was important was the intent
of the Act to uphold the welfare of a child in conflict
with the law. What was to be considered was the
fact that accused committed the crime at a tender
PEOPLE VS JACINTO, G.R. NO. 182239, MARCH
age.
16, 2011
The Court held that accused may be confined in an
Facts:
agricultural camp or any training facility in
accordance with Sec 51 of RA 9344. The case was
remanded to the court of origin to take appropriate
Appellant Hermie Jacinto was found guilty beyond action in accordance to the said provision.
reasonable doubt for the rape of the then 5-year-old
victim. The crime was committed when appellant
was only 17; Judgment was rendered when
appellant was already 25.

Issue:

Whether or not, appellant may benefit from the

provisions of RA9344 regarding criminal liability of
an accused who was a minor during the
commission of the crime and the suspension of
sentence of one who is no longer a minor during the
pronouncement of verdict.