Accused-appellant has a history of mental illness and was previously admitted to the National Center for Mental Health (NCMH) and to the psychiatric ward of the Philippine General Hospital (PGH). The attending physician in the PGH diagnosed him with paranoid schizophrenia.
On July 22, 2010, accused-appellant was found by his mother holding a knife with the bloodied victim sprawled on the floor. The victim was the 6-year old playmate of the former’s younger brother.
The Regional Trial Court found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the amount awarded as damages.
Issues:
1. Whether accused-appellant has clearly and convincingly proven his defense of insanity to exempt him from criminal liability; and
2. Whether his mental issues constitute diminished willpower as to mitigate his liability and to lower the penalty
Ruling:
The Court found the accused-appellant guilty as charged with modification to the amount of damages awarded.
1. The defense of insanity is in the nature of a confession and avoidance, requiring defendant to prove it with clear and convincing evidence. The accused-appellant did not present evidence controverting such findings. As held in People v. Madarang, two (2) elements must concur for the defense of insanity to prosper: (1) that defendant’s insanity constitutes a complete deprivation of intelligence, reason, or discernment; and (2) that such insanity existed at the time of, or immediately preceding, the commission of the crime.
2. The proof proffered by accused-appellant is insufficient to sustain his defense of insanity.
3. Since the victim was a child of tender years, treachery was properly appreciated against accused-appellant. The Court has held that the killing of a child is characterized by treachery even if the manner of the assault is not shown because the weakness of the victim due to his tender age results in the absence of any danger to the accused.
4. Even if the mitigating circumstance of diminished willpower were to be considered in accused-appellant’s favour, it cannot be a basis for changing the nature of the crime nor for imposing a penalty lower than that prescribed by law.
5. The amount of damages was modified. Present jurisprudence holds that when the circumstances surrounding the crime call for the imposition of reclusion perpetua only, there being no ordinary aggravating circumstances, the proper amounts for damages should be PHP 75,000 as civil indemnity, PHP 75,000 as moral damages, and PHP 75,000 as exemplary damages, regardless of the number of qualifying aggravating circumstances present.
