Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Formigones Doctrine
Formigones Doctrine
Formigones doctrine is a doctrine adopted by the Supreme Court in 1950. The doctrine has been used in
the determination whether insanity is exempting under Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code. The case
happened in Libmanan, Camarines Sur, involved Formigones, a dedicated family man. He was the
breadwinner of the family. He was a hardworking husband who was always thinking of the welfare of his
family. One time, his wife was sitting in the stairways. Without any provocation, he took his bolo and
stabbed his wife in the back that penetrated her right lung causing severe hemorrhage. The wife fell on
the ground with blood oozing from her body. Formigones picked up the lifeless body of his wife, brought
her upstairs and laid her in the floor. He laid beside her. Prosecuted for parricide, the trial court
convicted formigones for the crime charged. On appeal, he interposed the defense of insanity. His lawyer
cited the testimonies of 2 guards of the provincial jail stating that they saw him acting strangely while
detained therein; that he would remove his clothing and go started naked in the presence of other
prisoners; that he refused to take a bath and wash his clothes; and would sing by himself without being
asked.
The SC rejected the plea of insanity. It was learned that the motive of the killing was jealousy.
Formigones became jealous of his brother whom he suspected of having an affair with his wife. Jealousy
is not a form of insanity. His acts of picking her dead body, taking her upstairs, and laying beside her
show his feeling of remorse at killing his loved one.
In order that this exempting circumstance may be taken into account, It is necessary that there be a
complete deprivation of intelligence in commmitting the act, that is, that the accused be deprived of
reason; that there be no responsibility for his own acts; that he acts without discernment; that there be
a complete absence of power to discern, or that there be a total deprivation of freedom of the will. For
this reason, it was held the the imbecility or insanity at the time of the commision of the act should
absolutely deprive a person of intelligence or freedom of will, becuase mere abnormality of his mental
faculties does not exclude imputability.
Insanity must relate to the time immediately preceding or simultaneous with the commission of the
offense with the accused is charged.
b) such complete deprivation of intelligence must be manifest at the time or immediately before the
commission of the offense