Aquino, JPB People vs. Antonio GR No. 144266, November 27, 2002 Ponente: Bellosillo, J.

Topic: Mental capacity at perpetration of the offense

Criminal Law 1

Wilson Antonio, Jr. alias Instik was having a drinking bout in Sitio Durog, San Remegio, Antique, when he was boxed by Sergio Bobby Mella. At around three o'clock the following morning he and Bobby arrived home from their drinking session. Just when they parted for their respective homes, two (2) shots were heard. Accused-appellant did not know who it was who fired the shots but he heard the voice of Bobby, so he assumed that it was Bobby who fired the shots. When accused-appellant heard the shots, he fired his gun into the air twice and shouted, "Bobby, I will kill you within two days." As he heard no response to his gunfire, he went home and lay in bed and at around seven o'clock, got up and carried a gun towards the home of Bobby. His sister Wilfe followed him and pleaded him to stop, but was ignored. At around 7:30am, gunshots were heard. Kevin Paul, Bobbys 7 year old son witnessed the incident. He heard a window being opened, and the sound of feet stepping on floor. Then someone kicked open the door, and he saw Wilson carrying a shotgun. The accused aimed at Bobby who was asleep, and fired hitting the latter on the chest, shoulder, back and thigh. Immediately after, Wilson hurriedly left the room. He eluded arrest for more than one year until he surrendered to the police. He admitted to killing the victim, which was also clearly proven in the trial. Accused raised the defense of insanity during the commission of the crime. According to appellants mother, the latter had long exhibited unusual behavior since childhood. Accused confirmed having submitted for psychiatric treatments from 1994-1996. He was prescribed medicine to treat his illness but that he did not take these medications all the time. He also admitted to a drinking alcohol, which seemed to interfere with the medicine. Dr. Cosca examined Wilson in 1998, and diagnosed him with Schizo-affective disorder. In Dr. Coscas view. A [erspm suffering from psychosis does not know what he is doing and is deprived of his faculty to distinguish right from wrong. ISSUE: Whether or not the accused had sound evidence to prove that he was insane at the time he committed the crime, exempting him of criminal liability. HELD: No. What mitilates heavily against the defense of insanity is the testimony of the accused when he admitted that he killed the victim out of anger and desire for revenge, because he felt wronged Also, after killing Bobby, he fled and hid from the authorities because of fear of being punished. This is contrary to the thesis of Dr. Cosca that one suffering from psychosis does not kjnow what he is doing. As admitted by the accused, he was fully conscious of his acts before, during, and after the event of what is right and wrong, and of the consequences of his deeds. His admission is inconsistent with the defense of insanity. Evidence shows that he had a chronic mental ailment, but this it is not complete. Though credited with mitigating circumstance, he is not exempt from criminal liability. Mere

Facts:

abnormality does not excuse him of imputability. Complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act is crucial in Philippine law for defense of insanity.