INSANITY - The defense
of insanity is in the nature of a confession or avoidance because an accused
invoking it admits to have committed the crime but claims that he should not be
criminally liable therefore because of insanity, which is an exempting
circumstance. An accused invoking the exempting circumstance of insanity bears
the burden of proving it with clear and convincing evidence because every
person is presumed sane. (People vs. Mirana, G.R. No. 219113, April 25, 2018)
There are two tests (People
v. Formigones, G.R. No. L-3246, November 29, 1950) to determine whether the
mental condition of the accused is exempting or mitigating, to wit: the test of
cognition and test of volition.
1. Test of Cognition — Under
the test of cognition, the mental condition of the accused is an exempting
circumstance of insanity if there was a complete deprivation of intelligence in
committing the criminal act (People v. Bulagao, G.R. No. 184757, October 5,
2011; People v. Bacolot, G.R. No. 233193, October 10, 2018, Caguioa); or
mitigating circumstance of mental illness if there was only a partial
deprivation of intelligence. (People v. Puno, G.R. No. L-33211, June 29, 1981)
After satisfying his
lust, the accused threatened the victim. This implies that the accused knew
what he was doing, that it was wrong, and wanted to keep it a secret. It also
indicated that the crime was committed during one of his lucid intervals.
Accused is not exempt from liability for failure to pass the cognition test. (People
v. Alipio, G.R. No. 185285, October 5, 2009)
The accused's voluntary
surrender the following day when he killed the deceased belies his claim of
insanity. This act tends to establish that he was well aware of what he had
just committed. (People v. Bacolot, G.R. No. 233193, October 10, 2018, Caguioa)
2. Test of Volition — Under
the test of volition, the mental condition of the accused is a mitigating
circumstance of mental illness if there is deprivation of freedom. In sum, if a
sex maniac or homicidal maniac had merely passed the volition test but not the
cognition test, he will only be given the benefit of mitigating circumstance of
illness. Diminution of freedom is enough to mitigate the liability of the
offender suffering from illness. (People v. Rafanan, Jr., G.R. No. 54135,
November 21, 1991) Thus, kleptomania is a mitigating circumstance of mental
illness.
In People v. Bonoan, G.R.
No. 45130, February 17, 1937, a schizophrenic accused, who acted under an
irresistible homicidal impulse to kill, was acquitted due to insanity. In sum,
the Supreme Court merely considered the test of volition in declaring the
accused exempt from criminal liability. This is not a good rule anymore.
The basis of the
exempting circumstance of insanity is lack of intelligence and not lack of
freedom. Thus, even if the mental condition of the accused had passed the
volition test (deprivation of freedom), the plea of insanity will not prosper
unless it also passed the cognition test (deprivation of intelligence). The controlling
rule is the cognition test for purposes of the exempting circumstance of
insanity. (People v. Opuran, G.R. Nos. 147674-75, March 17, 2004)
In several Supreme
Court cases, the pleas of insanity of accused who are suffering from
schizophrenia or psychosis were rejected because of failure to pass the cognition
test. In absence of evidence that the schizophrenic or psychotic accused was
deprived completely of intelligence at the time of the commission of the crime,
it is presumed that he is sane when he committed the crime. (People v. Medina,
G.R. No. 113691, February 6, 1998; People v. Pascual, G.R. No. 95029, March 24,
1993; 1991 Bar Exam) In People v. Marzan, G.R. No. 207397, September 24, 2018,
schizophrenia does not fall within the stringent standard contemplated by law
as an exempting circumstance of insanity.
Time of insanity - In
order for the accused to be exempted from criminal liability under a plea of
insanity, he must successfully show that: (1) he was completely deprived of
intelligence; and (2) such complete deprivation of intelligence must be
manifest at the time or immediately before the commission of the offense. (People
v. Bacolot, G.R. No. 233193, October 10, 2018, Caguioa);
People vs. Mirana, G.R.
No. 219113, April 25, 2018) It is permissible to receive evidence of his mental
condition for a reasonable period both before and after the time of the act in
question. Direct testimony is not required nor are the specific acts of
derangement essential to establish insanity as a defense. (People v. Haloc, G.R.
No. 227312, September 5, 2018)
The accused underwent
out-patient consultation for his diagnosed condition of schizophrenia from
August 2006 until 13 June 2009. However, there is no proof of his abnormal
psychological behavior immediately before or simultaneous with the commission
of the crime (on November 9, 2009). Thus, insanity is not exempting. (People
vs. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 227997, October 16, 2019)
Proof of the insanity
of the accused after the commission of the crime, especially during trial, is
immaterial, unless submitted to prove that the insanity is continuous or
recurring. (People vs. Toledo, G.R. No. 229508, March 24, 2021)
The mental condition of
the accused is neither an exempting circumstance nor a mitigating circumstance
if the accused was already treated for a schizophrenic condition several years
before the commission of rape. (People v. Arevalo, Jr., G.R. Nos. 150542-87,
February 3, 2004, En Banc)
IMBECILITY AND MINORITY
– Mental retardation includes (a) idiot, whose mental age is two-year old; (b)
imbecile, whose mental age is seven-year old; (c) moron or feebleminded, whose
mental age is twelve-year old and (d) borderline intelligence. (People vs.
Butiong, G.R. No. 168932, October 19, 2011; People vs. Bayrante, G.R. No.
188978, June 13, 2012; People vs. Gilles, G.R. No. 229860, March 21, 2018) For
purpose of statutory rape, there is no difference between actual age and mental
age.
Having sexual
intercourse with the offended party, who is under 16 years of age, is statutory
rape under Article 266-A (d) of RPC as amended by RA No. 11648. The word “age”
in this provision includes chronological age and mental age. Hence, having
sexual intercourse with idiot, imbecile, or feebleminded is statutory rape
under Article 266-A (d) (People vs. Daniega, G.R. No. 212201, June 28, 2017;
People vs. Labordo, G.R. No. 239033, February 13, 2019; People vs. XXX, G.R.
No. 243988, August 27, 2020). Having sexual intercourse with a person with
borderline intelligence with a mental age of under 16 is also statutory rape.
The word “age” in the
phrase “person below 18 years of age” in Section 3 of RA No. 7610 is either
chronological or mental. A person who has a cognitive disability would be
considered a child under RA No. 7610 based on his or her mental age, not
chronological age. For purpose of Section 3 of RA No. 7610, there is no
difference between actual age and mental age. Thus, a mentally-retarded adult
(24 years of age), who had a mental age of an 8-year-old, is a child protected by
RA No. 7610. (Versoza vs. People, G.R. No. 184535, September 03, 2019)
Since the concept of a
child in RA No. 7610 is adopted by RA No. 9208, a mentally-retarded adult is a
child within the context of qualified trafficking in person. (People vs.
Ybanez, G.R. No. 220461, August 24, 2016)
Under Section 5 (b) of
RA No 7610 as amended by RA No. 10648, when the child subjected to sexual abuse
is under 16 years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted for rape and
acts of lasciviousness under RPC. The word “age” in the phrase “when the victim
is under sixteen (16) years of age” in Section 5 (b) of RA No. 7610 is either
chronological or mental. For purpose of Section 5 (b) of RA No. 7610, there is
no difference between actual age and mental age. Hence, the victim whose actual
age is 16 years old but her mental age is 9 years old, is considered as a
victim under 16 years of age within the contemplation of Section 5 (b). (People
vs. Pusing, G.R. No. 208009, July 11, 2016) In exempting circumstance, there is
a difference between actual age and mental age. In exempting circumstance of
imbecility, what is important is the mental age of the accused. An idiot, whose
mental age is 2 years, and an imbecile, whose mental age is 7 years old (People
vs. Butiong, G.R. No. 168932, October 19, 2011, Bersamin) are exempt from
criminal liability. A feebleminded, whose mental age is 12 years old, is not
exempt from criminal liability since he is not an imbecile (People vs. Nunez,
G.R. No. 112429-30, July 23, 1997) but he is entitled to mitigating
circumstance of mental illness (People vs. Formigones, G.R. No. L-3246,
November 29, 1950). In exempting circumstance of minority under Section 6 of RA
No. 9344, what is important is the chronological or actual age of the accused.
If the actual age of
the accused is 18 years old and mental age is 9 years old, the exempting
circumstance of minority and imbecility shall not be appreciated because he is
neither a minor nor an imbecile (People vs. Roxas, G.R. No. 200793, June 04,
2014).
Excerpts from 2022 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER WITH CASES PENNED BY
J. CAQUIOA BY JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA.
No comments:
Post a Comment