Facts:
On November 26, 2002 at around 4 o'clock in the
afternoon, Vicente Ringor was staying with his two-year old
granddaughter, Maureen Joy Ringor, at the terrace of their house located
at Villanueva, San Manuel, Isabela. Suddenly, Roger Ringor Umawid
appeared and started attacking Vicente with a long bolo (panabas)
without any reason. While Vicente was able to escape Umawid's blows, the
latter nevertheless hit Maureen on her abdomen and back, causing her
instant death. Upon seeing Maureen bloodied, Umawid walked away.
Thereafter,
Umawid went to a nearby house which was only five meters away from
Vicente's house where his nephew, Jeffrey Mercado, was sleeping. Awaken
by the sudden noise, Jeffrey went outside only to see his uncle rushing
to attack him with his panabas.
Jeffrey, along with his
sister and cousin, rushed inside the house to seek for safety. However,
Umawid was able to prevent Jeffrey from closing the door and the former
barge into the house. Jeffrey crouched and covered his head with his
arms to shield him from Umawid's impending attacks.
Umawid
delivered fatal hacking blows to Jeffrey, causing the mutilation of the
latter's fingers. Umawid only stopped upon seing Jeffrey, who was then
pretending to be dead, leaning on the wall and blood-stained.
In
court, Umawid set up the defense of insanity, but did not, however,
take the witness stand to attest the same. Instead, he presented the
testimonies of Dr. Arthur M. Quincina and Dr. Leonor Andres Juliana to
support his claim. Dr. Quincina testifies that he evaluated Umawid's
psychiatric condition in May 2002, February 2003, and on March 2003 and
found that the latter was evident od psychotic symptoms. However, he
could not tell with certainty whether Umawid was psychotic at the time
of the commission of the crimes. On the other hand, Dr. Juliana failed
to testify on Umawid's mental stare since she merely referred the latter
to another doctor for further evaluation.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused is exempted from criminal liablity due to insanity?
Ruling:
No. Under Article 12 of the RPC:
Article 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liabity - The following are exempt from criminal liability:
1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval.
The
defense of insanity is in the nature of confession and avoidance
because an accused invoking the same admits to have committed the crime
but claims that he or she is not guilty because of insanity. The
presumption is in favor of sanity, anyone who pleads the said defense
bears the burden of proving it with clear and convincing evidence.
Considering the case, the evidence must relate to the time immediately
before or during the commission of the offense/s with which one is
charged. Also, to support the defense of insanity, it must be shown that
the accused had no full and clear understanding of the nature and
consequences of his or her acts.
In this case, Umawid
relied solely on the defense of Dr. Quincina and Dr. Juliana to support
his claim of insanity. However, Dr. Quincina only examined Umawid six
months before he committed the crime and three months and four months
thereafter. Her findings as she admitted did not include Umawid's mental
disposition immediately before or during the commission of the crimes.
Also, given that Dr. Juliana failed to testify in favor of the accused,
Umawid's defense of insanity remained unsubstiantiated, hence, he was
properly adjudged by the RTC and CA as criminally liable.
Wednesday, October 26, 2016
People vs. Tibon Case Digest G.R. No. 188320, June 29, 2010
Facts:
Honorio Tibon (accused-appellant) and his common-law wife Gina Sumingot (Gina) lived together as husband and wife. They had two children, Keen Gist (KenKen) and Reguel Albert (Reguel). They lived together with Tibon’s parents and siblings on the third floor of a rented house. Gina went to Hongkong to work as a domestic helper, leaving their children to Tibon’s custody. After some time, Tibon heard from her sister who 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 children.
On the night of December 12, 1998, at around 11:30 p.m., accused-appellant’s mother and his siblings (Zernan and Leilani), went to Tibon’s room. They saw him with the two children who appeared to be lifeless and bore wounds on their bodies. When Tibon realized that his mother and siblings had seen the children lying on the floor he stabbed himself on the chest with a kitchen knife and jumped out of the window of their house. At the hospital, accused-appellant survived and was treated however, the children could no longer be revived.
When Gina heard about the incident, she went home immediately and confronted Tibon at the hospital where he was confined. He confessed to stabbing their children and begged her for forgiveness.
In court, Tibon denied the charges against him and raised insanity as defense. He said that he could not recall what happened on the night he allegedly stabbed his two children. He also could not remember being taken to the hospital. He said that he was only informed by his siblings that he had killed his two children, causing him to jump off the window of their house.
Issue:
Whether or not the exempting circumstance of insanity applies to the accused-appellant’s case?
Ruling:
No. Under Article 12 of the RPC “An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval” is exempted from criminal liability. Anyone who pleads the exempting circumstance of insanity bears the burden of proving it with clear 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.
Tibon’s behavior was triggered by jealousy because of the revelation that his wife was having an affair overseas. Uncontrolled jealousy and anger are not equivalent to insanity.
The court considered Parricide as the applicable law in this case. Under Article 264 Parricide is committed when: (i) a person is killed; (ii) the deceased is killed by the accused; (iii) the deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate other ascendant or other descendant, or the legitimate spouse of the accused. Tibon was found guilty by this Court with the punishment of reclusion perpetua.
Honorio Tibon (accused-appellant) and his common-law wife Gina Sumingot (Gina) lived together as husband and wife. They had two children, Keen Gist (KenKen) and Reguel Albert (Reguel). They lived together with Tibon’s parents and siblings on the third floor of a rented house. Gina went to Hongkong to work as a domestic helper, leaving their children to Tibon’s custody. After some time, Tibon heard from her sister who 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 children.
On the night of December 12, 1998, at around 11:30 p.m., accused-appellant’s mother and his siblings (Zernan and Leilani), went to Tibon’s room. They saw him with the two children who appeared to be lifeless and bore wounds on their bodies. When Tibon realized that his mother and siblings had seen the children lying on the floor he stabbed himself on the chest with a kitchen knife and jumped out of the window of their house. At the hospital, accused-appellant survived and was treated however, the children could no longer be revived.
When Gina heard about the incident, she went home immediately and confronted Tibon at the hospital where he was confined. He confessed to stabbing their children and begged her for forgiveness.
In court, Tibon denied the charges against him and raised insanity as defense. He said that he could not recall what happened on the night he allegedly stabbed his two children. He also could not remember being taken to the hospital. He said that he was only informed by his siblings that he had killed his two children, causing him to jump off the window of their house.
Issue:
Whether or not the exempting circumstance of insanity applies to the accused-appellant’s case?
Ruling:
No. Under Article 12 of the RPC “An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval” is exempted from criminal liability. Anyone who pleads the exempting circumstance of insanity bears the burden of proving it with clear 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.
Tibon’s behavior was triggered by jealousy because of the revelation that his wife was having an affair overseas. Uncontrolled jealousy and anger are not equivalent to insanity.
The court considered Parricide as the applicable law in this case. Under Article 264 Parricide is committed when: (i) a person is killed; (ii) the deceased is killed by the accused; (iii) the deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate other ascendant or other descendant, or the legitimate spouse of the accused. Tibon was found guilty by this Court with the punishment of reclusion perpetua.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)