Exempting Circumstances
Exempting Circumstances
FACTS: Jacqueline & her 3 younger sisters Janet, Jinky & jewel lived under the
sole care of their father after their mother died August 28, 1991.
March 28, 1992, around 10pm, Jacqueline (12yrs 3mos at the time, b.
December 27, 1979)
March 5, 1982)
Jinky was cleaning some articles in their house when Tabugoca aproached
her and took off his clothes. Tabugoca ordered her to lie down and removed her
shorts and underwear then inserted his penis into her vagina. Jinky cried out &
complained to Tabugoca that she was in pain.
Appellant explained that it is ordinary to feel pain because it was her first time to
do it. After a while, he did not continue, and told Jinky that they would continue
the following day.
ISSUES:
1.
such character as could not be resisted. What is necessary is that the intimidation
be sufficient to consummate the purpose the accused had in mind.
In the case at bar, with the previous beatings Jinky had gotten from Tabugoca,
resistance could not have been expected from her. Tabugocas contention of
consensual sex is ridiculous! No showing that Jinky is a sexual pervert or a
woman of loose morals.Consent obtained by fear of personal violence is not
consent! Therefore, Tabugoca is guilty of two (2) counts of rape.
2.
Yes. Tabugocas position that the the RTCs jurisdiction to punish him is limited
only to the Jinkys criminal complaint of frustrated rape & cannot cover
consummated rape is a meritless argument.When it is said that the filing of the
complaint by the offended party in cases of rape is jurisdictional, what is meant is
that it is the complaint that starts the prosecutory proceeding, but it is not the
complaint which confers jurisdiction on the court to try the case. The courts
jurisdiction is vested in it by the Judiciary Law. (People v. Leoparte)
Since the penalty for rape in the complaint filed by Jacqueline is properly within
the jurisdiction of the RTC, the lower court involved in this case may hear and try
the offense charged in the information and may impose the punishment for it.The
right and power of a court to try the accused for the crime of rape attaches upon
the fifing of the complaint, and a charge in the allegations thereof as to the
manner of committing the crime should not operate to divest the court of
jurisdiction already acquired. (People v. Bangalao, et.al.)
Therefore, the RTC had jurisdiction.
Yes. The only possible basis of the penalty under the rules of graduating
penalties under the RPC is the presence of a privileged mitigating circumstance.
There was none shown to exist. Therefore, the death penalty should be imposed.
4.
No. Tabugocas feeble excuse of having been under the influence of liquor in
order to disclaim knowledge of his actions is unbelievable.He did not comply with
the evidentiary requirements whereby he could claim intoxication as a mitigating
circumstance.
The attendance of intoxication is affirmed as an aggravating circumstance on the
additional finding that it was habitual. Therefore, drunkenness was not a valid
defense. It was an aggravating circumstance.
RTC
5.
SUPREME COURT
(same)
( same)
People v Madarang
Gr. No. 132319 May 12,2000
Appellant was convicted of parricide for stabbing his wife, causing her death.
Appellant alleges he was in a state of insanity and claims he had no recollection
of the stabbing incident.He insists that he was deprived of intelligence , making
his act involuntary.His psychiatric evaluation revealed he was suffering from
schizophrenia but after two years in the National Center for Mental Health his
condition improved thus, he was released.
Held:
In the Philippines, the courts have established a more stringent criterion for
insanity to be exempting as it is required that there must be a complete
deprivation of intelligence in committing the act,i.e., the accused is deprived of
reason; he acted without the least discernment because there is a complete
absence of the power to discern, or that there is total deprivation of the will.Mere
abnormality of the mental faculties will not exclude imputability.The issue of
insanity is a question of fact.The state or condition of a mans mind can only be
measured and judged by his behavior.Establishing ones insanity requires
testimony of an expert witness, such as a psychiatrist.The proof must relate to
the time preceding or coetaneous with the commisssion of the offense with which
he is charged.None of the witnesses declared that he exhibited any of the
symptoms associated with schizophrenia immediately before or simultaneous
with the stabbing incident.Also schizophrenics have lucid intervals during which
they are capable of distinguishing right from wrong.
People vs. Madarang
G.R. No. 132319. May 12, 2000
Ponente: Puno, J.
Topic: Insanity/Imbecility: Basis of Exception
FACTS:
Fernando Madarang was charged with parricide for killing his wife Lillia
Madarang. He refused to enter a plea during arraignment, and so was entered as
not guilty in accordance to the rules of court. Counsel for the accused
manifested that his client had been observed exhibiting abnormal behavior. Court
decided to transfer accused to the National Center for Mental Health, after refusal
to
answer
any
question.
Initial examination at NCMH revealed Fernando as suffering from
schizophrenia. He was detained and medicated at the hospital. He was discharged
after 2 years, and recommitted at the provincial jail after being found fit to face
charges.
At the trial, it was established that the accused was legally married to
the victim, and their union resulted in 7 children. He worked as a seaman for 16
years, and thereafter started a hardware store business. His venture failed, and
he lost his entire fortune to cockfighting. Fernando, his wife, and the children,
were forced to move in with his mother-in-law ( Avelina Mirador), because he
could no longer support his family. Lillia was also heavily pregnant with their 8 th
child, and was about to give birth.
On Sept. 3, 1993, Fernando and Lillia had because of jealousy. He was
accusing her of infidelity, and in the heat of the fight, stabbed her in front of the
children. The children were heard shouting and crying, and were brought out of
the house by Avelina Miradors nephew. She mentions seeing the accused
emerge from the house, with a bolo. She declares no observation of anything
peculiar about accused before the event, nor does she know of any reason why
he killed Lillia, because she never saw the two engage in any argument while
living with her. Accused declares no recollection of any relevant events. He was
sentenced with penalty of reclusion perpetua. Accused appealed, insisting his
criminal act was involuntary.
ISSUE: Whether or not evidence adduced by the defense is sufficient to establish
appellants insanity, which would be a basis for being free from criminal liability.
HELD: No. Philippine Courts have established a stringent criterion for insanity. To
be exempting, it is required that: (1) there must be a complete deprivation of
intelligence in committing the act; (2) he acted without the least discernment
because there is complete absence of power to discern; (3) or that there is total
deprivation of will.
Appellant was diagnosed to be suffering from schizophrenia AFTER he
killed his wife. Record is also bereft of even a single account of abnormal or
bizarre behavior prior to event.
Evidence of insanity after the fact may be accorded weight only if there is also
proof of abnormal behavior immediately before or simultaneous to commission of
crime. Appellant failed to establish convincing evidence of alleged insanity at the
time of killing his wife.