12/15/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186

VOL. 186, JUNE 27, 1990 851

People vs. Aquino
*
G.R. No. 87084. June 27, 1990.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JUANITO

Q. AQUINO, accused-appellant.

Criminal Law; Criminal Procedure; Evidence; Burden of proof in

insanity plea is upon the defense.—Sanity being the normal condition of the
human mind, the prosecution may proceed in the first instance upon the
presumption that the defendant was sane and responsible when the act was
committed. The presumption is always in favor of sanity and the burden of
proof of insanity is on the defense. The basis for the presumption of sanity is
well explained by the United States Supreme Court in the leading case of
Davis vs. United States, in this wise: “If that presumption were not indulged,
the government would always be under the necessity of adducing
affirmative evidence of the

________________

2 G.R. No. 81415.

* SECOND DIVISION.

852

852 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Aquino

sanity of an accused. But a requirement of that character would seriously

delay and embarrass the enforcement of the laws against crime and in most
cases be unnecessary. Consequently, the law presumes that everyone
charged with crime is sane and thus, supplies in the first instance the
required proof of capacity to commit crime.”

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000176657f4d4b4ffd4739003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/13
12/15/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186

Same; Same; Same; The purposes of requiring presence of counsel in

custodial interrogations.—We do not agree with this submission. The
extrajudicial confession is admissible in evidence. Atty. Liliosa Rosario, a
lawyer from the then Citizen’s Legal Assistance Office (CLAO), assisted
appellant when he was placed under custodial investigation. The same
lawyer represented him during the early part of the trial. In People vs.
Layuso, we strongly denounced the widespread misconception that the
presence of a lawyer under the right to counsel provision of the Constitution
is intended to stop an accused from saying anything which might
incriminate him. The right to counsel is intended to preclude the slightest
coercion as would lead the accused to admit something false. The lawyer,
however, should never prevent an accused from freely and voluntarily
telling the truth. Whether it is an extrajudicial statement or testimony in
open court, the purpose is always the ascertainment of truth. As explained in
Gamboa vs. Cruz, etc., the person being interrogated must be assisted by
counsel to avoid the pernicious practice of extorting false or coerced
admissions or confessions from the lips of persons undergoing investigation
for the commission of an offense.

Same; Same; Same; The insanity pleas, same must be established to

exist immediately before or during the commission of the alleged crime.—
Now, it has long been settled that the period to which an inquiry into the
mental state of the accused should be directed is that transpiring
immediately before and/or at the very moment of the act or acts under
prosecution. In the eyes of the law, insanity exists when there is a complete
deprivation of intelligence in committing the act, that is, the accused is
deprived of reason, he acts without the least discernment because there is
complete absence of the power to discern, or there is total deprivation of the
freedom of the will. Mere abnormality of the mental faculties will not
exclude imputability. The onus probandi rests upon whoever invokes
insanity as an exempting circumstance and must prove it by clear and
positive evidence.

Same; Defense of insanity in case at bar is not convincing.—The

records indubitably disclose that appellant sexually abused the victim. After
consummating his lustful desire, he violently struck the victim on the head
with a stone for fear that the victim would report

853

VOL. 186, JUNE 27, 1990 853

People vs. Aquino

him, and thereafter he left her in the belief that she was already dead. The
victim did not immediately die. In the clinic of Dr. Serafin Padlan in the

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000176657f4d4b4ffd4739003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/13
12/15/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186

poblacion, Pat. Armando Frias saw the victim with her head bleeding. He
took the statement of the victim in the local dialect. Thereafter, he translated
the statement to English and reduced it into writing. The statement disclosed
the identity of appellant. That same evening, the victim was still brought to
the Virgen Milagrosa Medical Center where she was treated. She was
serious but still conscious, and was able to narrate to Dr. Saturnino Posadas
what happened to her. She died the following morning.

Same; Same.—The evidence adduced for appellant that he was insane

immediately before or at the very moment the crime was committed is too
nebulous and conjectural to be convincing. While Dr. Nicanor L. Echavez of
the National Center for Mental Health described the mental illness of the
accused as “organic mental disorder with psychosis,” he admitted that a
person suffering from insanity may know that what he is doing is wrong.
The same witness also testified that there is no possibility of appellant
having lucid intervals, but he, however, also observed that the mental illness
of appellant came on and off.

APPEAL from the judgment of the Regional Trial Court of San

Carlos City, Br. 57.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

REGALADO, J.:

In the criminal justice systems of modern civilized nations, insanity

is invariably recognized as a valid defense against punishment for
crime. The proverbial bone of contention, however, is in the
ascertainment of the veracity of the claimed affliction and the
determination of the degree of mental aberration, as a ground for
acquittal or a basis for extenuation of criminal liability. We have
such a situation before us in the present appeal.
Appellant Juanito Q. Aquino was charged with rape with
homicide before the Regional Trial Court, First Judicial Region,
Branch 57 in San Carlos City, Pangasinan, under the following
information, to wit:

854

854 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Aquino

“That on or about the**

13th day of February, 1987, in the evening in
barangay Poblacion, province of Pangasinan, New Republic of the
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there,
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with one
Carmelita Morado alias ‘Carmen’, against her will, and on the occasion

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000176657f4d4b4ffd4739003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/13
12/15/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186

thereof the said accused did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously strike her with the use of stone which directly cause (sic) the
death of Carmelita Morado alias ‘Carmen’ to the damage and prejudice of
her heirs. 1
“Contrary to Art. 335 in relation to Art. 249 of the Revised Penal Code.”

In a motion dated June 26, 1987, counsel for appellant moved for the
indefinite suspension of the trial and asked 2for the commitment of
the accused to the National Mental Hospital. In its order dated July
1, 1987, the trial court granted the motion and held3 in abeyance the
arraignment of the accused and the trial of the case. On January 26,
1988, the National Center for Mental Health submitted the clinical
4
case report on the mental and physical condition of appellant. He
was later returned to the custody
5
of the court for trial and was
arraigned on April 27, 1988.
The material and established facts of this case, as well as the
points in dispute between the parties, having been succinctly but
thoroughly summarized by the Solicitor General, we are minded to
quote at length therefrom.

“On the night of February 13, 1987, Armando Frias, while on duty as
member of the Integrated National Police of Urbiztondo, Pangasinan,
received a report that there was a victim of a crime in the clinic of

_______________

** The Municipality of Urbiztondo, as the locus of the crime, was inadvertently

omitted in the information filed and in the decision rendered by the trial court in this
case, but is established as such by the evidence.
1 Rollo, 5.
2 Original Record, 50-51.
3 Ibid., 58.
4 Ibid., 61.
5 Ibid., 73.

855

VOL. 186, JUNE 27, 1990 855

People vs. Aquino

Dr. Padlan in the poblacion. He proceeded to the clinic and found the victim
lying down with her head bleeding. He asked her how she felt and when she
replied that she was weak, he took her ante-mortem statement (TSN,
November 4, 1988, pp. 3-5). The victim, Carmelita Morado, 18 years old,
told Frias that she was raped and struck with a stone by Juanito Aquino,
appellant herein. Frias took down her statement which was duly witnessed
by attending physician Dr. Padlan and Capt. Eddie Ramos. The written
statement was also thumbmarked by Carmelita Morado (TSN, pp. 3-5, 8,

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000176657f4d4b4ffd4739003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/13
12/15/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186

10, November 4, 1988, Armando Frias). Pat. Jaime Datuin and Pat. Renato
Solomon were also among the people who were present when Frias took the
statement of the victim. After the victim gave her statement she shouted that
she be taken to the hospital because she was weak. (Id., p. 9). Carmelita
Morado was taken to the Virgen Milagrosa Medical Center in San Carlos
City and admitted at 11:35 p.m. of that same evening in serious condition.
Dr. Saturnino Posadas, director of said Medical Center, testified that
Carmelita Morado sustained the following injuries;

1. lacerated wound about 10 cm. at the front of the head;

2. skull fracture located on the front portion of the skull;
3. hemorrhage or bleeding on the left eye;
4. laceration of the brain;
5. laceration perineum; (sic)
6. laceration of the urethal (sic)
(TSN pp. 2-3. November 18, 1988; Dr. Saturnino Posadas; Medico
Legal Certificate, Exhibit ‘C’)

“She died the following morning before surgical operations could be

performed (TSN, p. 4 November 18, 1988, Dr. Saturnino Posadas).
“A team of police officers was sent out to arrest Juanito Aquino. He was
found and arrested inside the town auditorium at around 11:00 that same
evening of February 13, 1987 attending a Valentine dance (TSN, pp. 7-8,
September 15, 1988).
“Appellant was detained at the municipal jail in Urbiztondo, Pangasinan.
However, it was only on February 17, 1987 that the statement of appellant
was taken as the police officers waited for the parents of appellant (TSN, pp.
3, 13-14, August 24, 1988).
“Before appellant’s interrogation begun, he was asked if he had a lawyer.
As he had none, Armando Frias and the Station Commander Captain Ramos
fetched Atty. Liliosa Rosario of the Citizens Legal Assistance Office to
assist appellant during the investigation. Atty. Rosario, upon arrival at the
office of Frias where the investigation was to take place, interviewed
appellant (supra at pp. 14-16).
“At the start of the investigation, Armando Frias informed appellant of
his constitutional rights, of his right to remain silent and to

856

856 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Aquino

counsel. Appellant was assisted by Atty. Rosario throughout the

investigation (TSN, p. 10, August 23, 1988; p. 18, August 24, 1988). After
appellant signed his statement, Frias took appellant and his counsel to the
office of Judge Juan C. Austria, of the 5th Municipal Circuit Trial Court,
who called the Interpreter and the Clerk of Court to read the statement and

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000176657f4d4b4ffd4739003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/13
12/15/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186

translate the same to appellant to ensure that appellant understood what was
written. Judge Austria made appellant sign the statement in his presence
(TSN, pp. 21-23, August 24, 1988).
“However, after the complaint was filed but before appellant could be
arraigned, a Motion to Commit appellant to the National Center for Mental
Health, as earlier mentioned, was filed by appellant’s counsel as appellant
was allegedly manifesting unstable behavior with fits of violence. Appellant
was duly committed sometime in July, 1987. He was released in 1988
whereupon he was duly arraigned. Appellant pleaded ‘not guilty’ and put up
the defense of insanity.
“To prove insanity, appellant presented Dr. Nicanor L. Echavez, a
psychiatrist at the National Center for Mental Health who was in charge of
the pavilion where appellant was committed. After Juanito Aquino was
admitted to the mental hospital in July 1987, he conducted physical, mental
and psychological examinations and found him to be suffering from mental
disorder classified under organic mental disorder with psychosis (TSN, pp.
4-5, 7, May 23, 1988). Dr. Echavez was of the opinion that when appellant
Juanito Aquino committed the heinous act, the latter was totally deprived of
mind (supra at pp. 15-16).
“Patricio Aquino, appellant’s father, also testified that his son was
already mentally ill even when he was still young. Appellant was suspended
from school because he was very playful, overactive and naughty especially
with his classmates (TSN, p. 4, May 24, 1988); that appellant was cruel to
his brothers and sisters, stole his mother’s jewelry which he sold for a low
sum, wandered sometimes naked, and oftentimes not coming home for
extended periods of time (supra at pp. 5, 8). Appellant was previously
confined at the Mental Hospital in 1985 when he was caught wandering
around naked (supra at p. 10).
“Sgt. Raymundo Lomboy, the police officer charged with appellant’s
custody and who transferred appellant for commitment to the National
Center for Mental Health, recalled that while appellant was in his custody,
appellant acted abnormally by singing, shouting, dancing and generally
disturbing the other inmates (TSN, p. 7, July 21, 1988). After appellant was
treated and released from the National Center for Mental Health, he acted
queerly by singing and shouting whenever he failed to drink his medicine
(supra at p. 15).

857

VOL. 186, JUNE 27, 1990 857

People vs. Aquino

“Appellant himself was also presented as witness, the doctor having

certified that he could withstand trial. However, the gist of appellants’
testimony was to deny any knowledge of the crime, the persons, things and
events connected with it. He admitted he knew that he has some mental
illness and had undergone treatment like electric shock (TSN, pp. 5-7, 18-
19, July 14, 1988).
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000176657f4d4b4ffd4739003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/13
12/15/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186

“On the other hand, the prosecution presented an array of witnesses to

prove that appellant was lucid before and after the crime was committed and
that he acted with discernment.
“Armando Frias testified that from the time of appellant’s arrest and
during the investigation, appellant acted normally, and gave responsive
answers to all the questions propounded to him (TSN, pp. 5, 9, 13-15
August 23, 1988). Frias knew appellant even prior to the incident because
he worked as a laborer in the construction of the theatre in the town proper.
He believed appellant to be normal.
“Angel Baysic, another member of the Integrated National Police in
Urbiztondo, Pangasinan whose house is located near the theatre being
constructed, also knew appellant who worked there as a laborer and
sometimes cooked the laborer’s meals. Baysic became closely acquainted
with appellant and sometimes they drank together with other laborers after
work. During these times, he observed appellant to act normally and was
responsive to conversation (TSN, pp. 4-7, September 6, 1988).
“Carlos Sabangon, one of the police officers who arrested appellant at
the town auditorium, testified that when appellant was arrested during the
valentine dance, he was appropriately dressed and behaved normally and in
fact was just about to sit down after dancing when they arrived to arrest him
(TSN, pp. 8-9, 17 September 15, 1988).
“Eduardo Fernandez, a jail guard, was one on duty when appellant
escaped from prison on May 3, 1987. While appellant was confined in the
provincial jail, Fernandez did not observe any queer
6
behavior from appellant
(TSN, pp. 34-35, 41, 43, September 15, 1988).”

After trial on the merits, the court a quo rendered its verdict
convicting appellant of the crime of rape with homicide and
sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment and to indemnify7
the heirs
of the deceased in the amount of P35,000.00 as damages.
Appellant, through counsel, manifested his intention to ap-

_________________

6 Brief for Appellee, 4-10.

7 Judge Victor T. Llamas, Jr., presiding; Rollo, 42.

858

858 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Aquino
8
peal the judgment of conviction to the Court of Appeals. The case
was, however, brought to us for review, with appellant taking the
court below to task on the following assignment of errors:

1. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING THE

ACCUSED-APPELLANT INSANE AT THE TIME OF

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000176657f4d4b4ffd4739003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/13
12/15/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186

THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME;

2. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT GIVING WEIGHT
AND CREDENCE TO THE MEDICAL FINDINGS OF
THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH AS
TO THE INSANITY OF ACCUSED-APPELLANT;
3. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING IN
EVIDENCE THE EXTRAJUDICIAL
9
CONFESSION OF
ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

The controversy boils down into one issue, that is, whether or not
appellant, who has invoked insanity as his defense, has overcome
the presumption of sanity.
Sanity being the normal condition of the human mind, the
prosecution may proceed in the first instance upon the presumption
that the defendant was sane and responsible when the act was
committed. The presumption is always in favor 10
of sanity and the
burden of proof of insanity is on the defense. The basis for the
presumption of sanity is well explained by the United States 11
Supreme Court in the leading case of Davis vs. United States, in
this wise: “If that presumption were not indulged, the government
would always be under the necessity of adducing affirmative
evidence of the sanity of an accused. But a requirement of that
character would seriously delay and embarrass the enforcement of
the laws against crime and in most cases be unnecessary.
Consequently, the law presumes that everyone charged with crime is
sane and thus, supplies in the first instance the required proof of
capacity to commit crime.”

________________

8 Original Record, 458.

9 Brief for Accused-Appellant, 1.
10 People vs. Aldemita, 145 SCRA 451 (1986); People vs. Morales, 121 SCRA
426 (1983); People vs. Bascos, 44 Phil. 204 (1922).
11 160 U.S. 469.

859

VOL. 186, JUNE 27, 1990 859

People vs. Aquino

As we have done in a prior case, for purposes of disposing of

appellant’s defense it is well to restate and keep in mind certain
basic principles in law, viz: that a person is criminally liable for a
felony committed by him; that a felonious or criminal act (delito
doloso) is presumed to have been done with deliberate intent, that is,
with freedom, intelligence and malice because the moral and legal

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000176657f4d4b4ffd4739003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/13
12/15/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186

presumption is that freedom and intelligence constitute the normal

condition of a person in the absence of evidence to the contrary; that
one of the causes which will overthrow this presumption of
voluntariness and intelligence is insanity in which event the actor is
exempt from criminal liability as provided12
for in Article 12,
Paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code.
It will readily be observed that the extrajudicial confession
executed by appellant clearly reveals how the crime charged against
him was perpetrated. This confession is, however, being assailed as
inadmissible in evidence on the ground that it was executed without
the assistance of counsel engaged by appellant himself, and that he 13
did not understand nor was he informed of his constitutional rights.
We do not agree with this submission. The extrajudicial
confession is admissible in evidence. Atty. Liliosa Rosario, a lawyer
from the then Citizen’s Legal Assistance Office (CLAO), assisted
appellant when he was placed under custodial investigation. The
same lawyer represented
14
him during the early part of the trial. In
People vs. Layuso, we strongly denounced the widespread
misconception that the presence of a lawyer under the right to
counsel provision of the Constitution is intended to stop an accused
from saying anything which might incriminate him. The right to
counsel is intended to preclude the slightest coercion as would lead
the accused to admit something false. The lawyer, however, should
never prevent an accused from freely and voluntarily telling the
truth. Whether it is an extrajudicial statement or testimony in open
court, the purpose is always the ascertainment of truth. As explained
in Gamboa vs.

________________

12 People vs. Renegado, 57 SCRA 275 (1974).

13 Rollo, 79-81.
14 G.R. No. 69210, July 5, 1989.

860

860 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Aquino
15
Cruz, etc., the person being interrogated must be assisted by
counsel to avoid the pernicious practice of extorting false or coerced
admissions or confessions from the lips of persons undergoing
investigation for the commission of an offense.
The presence and assistance of Atty. Liliosa Rosario adequately
precluded the possibility of extracting from appellant any false or
coerced confession or admission. Furthermore, it was shown that the
extrajudicial confession executed by appellant was explained to him
in his dialect when he was brought before Judge Juan C. Austria
16
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000176657f4d4b4ffd4739003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/13
12/15/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186
16
where such confession was subscribed and sworn to by appellant.
The records also show that the validity of the extrajudicial
confession is not being questioned. Only the reliability of its
contents is being placed in doubt, ostensibly because of the main
submission of the 17
defense that appellant was insane when the crime
was committed. Moreover, the CLAO attorney would not have
affixed her signature in the extrajudicial confession had she known
of any legal infirmity in its execution.
Coming now to his principal submission, appellant relies heavily
on the clinical case report regarding his mental and physical
condition. He stresses in his brief that the testimony of Dr. Nicanor
L. Echavez, Physician-In-Charge, Male Court Case Pavilion of the
National Center for Mental Health, has explicitly shown that
appellant was supposedly insane immediately before, during and
after the commission of the crime and that the evidence adduced
explicate that the mental18
illness of appellant is incurable and that he
has no lucid intervals. He explains that the normal appearance and
behavior of appellant while testifying in court is not suprising. He
says that it is due to the fact that, during that time, he was
undergoing medical treatment and his mental condition during the
trial of the case where he had been regularly taking medicine should
not be confused 19
with his mental status at the time of the commission
of the offense.

__________________

15 162 SCRA 642 (1988).

16 TSN, Aug. 24, 1988, 165.
17 TSN, July 6, 1988, 75-78.
18 Rollo, 67-68.
19 Ibid., 74, 76.

861

VOL. 186, JUNE 27, 1990 861

People vs. Aquino

Appellant is clutching at straws of argument, a clear indicium of a

dearth in plausible explanations. Nor was the trial judge, who had
the opportunity to observe and evaluate his demeanor on the witness
stand, including his manner of testifying and the answers he also
gave in his extrajudicial confession, the least bit impressed by
appellant’s defense of insanity as vividly explained in his decision.
And well must it be so, for the rule is that insanity must be
positively proven. The presumption, we repeat, is in favor of sanity.
The rule has consistently been that when a defendant in a criminal
case interposes the defense of mental 20
incapacity, the burden of
establishing that fact rests upon him.
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000176657f4d4b4ffd4739003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/13
12/15/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186

Now, it has long been settled that the period to which an inquiry
into the mental state of the accused should be directed is that
transpiring immediately before
21
and/or at the very moment of the act
or acts under prosecution. In the eyes of the law, insanity exists
when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing
the act, that is, the accused is deprived of reason, he acts without the
least discernment because there is complete absence of the power to
discern, or there is total deprivation of the freedom of the will. Mere
abnormality of the mental faculties will not exclude imputability.
The onus probandi rests upon whoever invokes insanity as an
exempting22 circumstance and must prove it by clear and positive
evidence.
Insanity itself is a condition, not a thing. It is not susceptible of
the usual means of proof and to this fact is due the unusual difficulty
of making proof of its existence and measuring its effect, when once
proven to exist. As no man can look into the mind of another, the
state of such mind can only be measured as the same is reflected in
the actions of the body it is created to govern. Thus, we have held
that mind can only be known by outward acts. Thereby we read the
thoughts, the motives and emotions of a person and come to
determine whether his acts

__________________

20 People vs. Cruz, 109 Phil. 288 (1960); People vs. Bonoan, 64 Phil. 87 (1937);
U.S. vs. Guevarra, 27 Phil. 547 (1914).
21 People vs. Aldemita, ante.
22 People vs. Cruz, G.R. No. 69251, Sept. 13, 1989; People vs. Ambal, 100 SCRA
325 (1980); People vs. Renegado, supra.

862

862 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Aquino
23
conform to the practice of people of sound mind. In interpreting
these physical manifestations, scientific knowledge and experience
have been resorted to by our judicial agencies.
The records indubitably disclose that appellant sexually abused
the victim. After consummating his lustful desire, he violently struck
the victim on the head with a stone for fear that the victim would
report him, and
24
thereafter he left her in the belief that she was
already dead. The victim did not immediately die. In the clinic of
Dr. Serafin Padlan in the poblacion, Pat. Armando Frias saw the
victim with her head
25
bleeding. He took the statement of the victim in
the local dialect. Thereafter,26
he translated the statement to English
and reduced it into writing. The statement disclosed the identity of
appellant. That same evening, the victim was still brought to the
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000176657f4d4b4ffd4739003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/13
12/15/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186

Virgen Milagrosa Medical Center where she was treated. She was
serious but still conscious, and was able to narrate to Dr. Saturnino
27
Posadas what happened to her. She died the following morning.
The evidence adduced for appellant that he was insane
immediately before or at the very moment the crime was committed
is too nebulous and conjectural to be convincing. While Dr. Nicanor
L. Echavez of the National Center for Mental Health described the
mental illness28
of the accused as “organic mental disorder with
psychosis,” he admitted that a person suffering
29
from insanity may
know that what he is doing is wrong. The same witness also
testified 30that there is no possibility of appellant having lucid
intervals, but he, however,31
also observed that the mental illness of
appellant came on and off.
The clinical case report also shows that appellant, when
interviewed upon his admission to the mental institution, re-

_________________

23 People vs. Bonoan, supra.

24 Original Record, 11-12.
25 TSN, Nov. 4, 1988, 259.
26 Ibid., id., 263-264.
27 Ibid., Nov. 18, 1988, 271-272.
28 Ibid., May 23, 1988, 24.
29 Ibid., id., 34.
30 Ibid., id., 13.
31 Ibid., id., 28.

863

VOL. 186, JUNE 27, 1990 863

People vs. Aquino

called having taken 120 cubic centimeters of cough syrup and

consumed32
about 3 sticks of marijuana before the commission of the
crime. This admission substantially affirms his prior extrajudicial
confession that he was under the influence of marijuana when he33
sexually abused the victim and, on the occasion thereof, killed her.
It is, therefore, beyond cavil that assuming appellant had some form
of mental illness, it did not totally deprive him of intelligence. The
presence of his reasoning faculties, which enabled him to exercise
sound judgment and satisfactorily articulate the aforesaid matters,
sufficiently discounts any intimation of insanity of appellant when
he committed the dastardly felonies. The annals of crime are replete
with documented records, and we are not without our share in this
jurisdiction, where mental illness has been feigned and invoked to
provide a defense for the accused in a criminal prosecution.

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000176657f4d4b4ffd4739003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/13
12/15/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186

One more thing. The trial court imposed the penalty of life
imprisonment on appellant. In a judgment of conviction for a felony,
the court should specify the appropriate name of the penalty, which
in this case should be reclusion perpetua and not life imprisonment,
since under the scheme of penalties in the Revised Penal Code the
principal penalty for a felony has its own specific duration and
corresponding accessory penalties, unlike those generally provided
for crimes in special laws.
WHEREFORE, with the modification that the principal penalty
imposed on appellant is reclusion perpetua, and the reduction of the
civil indemnity to P30,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence,
the judgment of the trial court is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera (Chairman), Paras, Padilla and

Sarmiento, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed with modification.

Note.—There is insanity where there is a complete deprivation of

intelligence in committing the act. Mere abnormality of

________________

32 Original Record, 64.

33 Ibid., 11.

864

864 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. Sandiganbayan

mental faculties will not exclude imputability. (People vs. Renegado,

57 SCRA 275.)

——o0o——

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000176657f4d4b4ffd4739003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/13