FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 227312. September 5, 2018.]

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

HALOC y CODON, accused-appellant.

DECISION

BERSAMIN, J : p

To be exempting from criminal responsibility, insanity is the complete

deprivation of intelligence in committing the criminal act. Mere abnormality
of the mental faculties does not exempt from criminal responsibility. CAIHTE

The Case

The accused-appellant assails the decision promulgated on August 19,

2015, 1 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed with modifications his
conviction for murder and attempted murder under the judgment rendered
on March 20, 2014 by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 54, in Gubat,
Sorsogon in Criminal Case No. 2780 and Criminal Case No. 2781. 2

Antecedents

As summarized by the CA, the factual and procedural antecedents are

as follows:
Accused-appellant Jessie Haloc y Codon, then fifty-one (51)
years old, was apprehended by barangay officials after he hacked
Allan de la Cruz, nine (9) years and his brother Arnel, four (4) years
old, inside the de la Cruz's yard at Barangay Union, Gubat, Sorsogon
on June 22, 2008 at around 12 noon. Arnel died as a result of the
hacking blow to his neck, while Allan sustained injuries on his upper
arm. (Records, Criminal Case No. 2780, pp. 5, 9)
According to the Joint Inquest Memorandum, the accused, who
was armed with a 24-inch bolo, went to the dela Cruzes' and
attempted to strike the victims' father, Ambrosio who was able to
escape. Unfortunately, Ambrosio's five (5) sons were following him.
Jessie took his ire on Ambrosio's children, hacking Allan on the arm
and taking Arnel and cutting his neck, severing the jugular veins and
nearly decapitating his head resulting to Arnel's immediate death.
(Records, Criminal Case No. 2780, p. 5)
The accused-appellant, assisted by the Public Attorney's Office
(PAO) did not submit any counter-affidavit. (Records, Criminal Case
No. 2780, p. 5)
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 On June 22, 2008, an Information was filed charging accused-
appellant of Attempted Murder in Criminal Case No. 2780 as follows:
That on or about 12:00 o'clock noon of June 22, 2008 at
Barangay Union, municipality of Gubat, province of
Sorsogon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with
treachery and taking advantage of his superior strength,
armed with a bolo, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully
and feloniously, with intent to kill, and acting with
discernment, attack, assault and hack one ALLAN DE LA
CRUZ, a 9-year-old minor, hitting the victim on his right
arm, thus accused commences (sic) the commission of
Murder directly by overt acts but was not able to perform
all the acts of execution which would have produce (sic)
the crime of Murder by reason of causes or accident other
than his own spontaneous desistance, that is, the said
Allan de la Cruz was brought to a hospital and was given
medical assistance which prevented his death, to his
damage and prejudice.
CONTRARY TO LAW. (Records, Criminal Case No. 2780, p.
1)
Another Information was filed against accused-appellant for
Murder in Criminal Case No. 2781:
That on or about 12:00 o'clock noon of June 22, 2008 at
Barangay Union, municipality of Gubat, province of
Sorsogon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with
treachery and taking advantage of his superior strength,
armed with a bolo, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully
and feloniously, with intent to kill, and acting with
discernment, attack, assault and hack one ARNEL DE LA
CRUZ, a 4 year old minor, inflicting upon him mortal
wounds which caused his death, to the damage and
prejudice of his legal heirs.
CONTRARY TO LAW. (Records, Criminal Case No. 2781, p.
1)
On September 3, 2008, the original date for the accused's
arraignment, the PAO manifested that he could not effectively
interview the accused as he seemed to be mentally unfit. The PAO
asked that the accused be first subjected to psychiatric evaluation
which the trial court granted. (Records, Criminal Case No. 2780, p.
20)
On July 7, 2010, the Head of the Department of Psychiatry of
Bicol Medical Center, Cadlan, Pili, Camarines Sur submitted a report
stating that the accused is already fit for trial. (Records, Criminal
Case No. 2780, p. 37)
On July 22, 2010, the accused was arraigned and he pleaded
"not guilty" to both charges. (Records, Criminal Case No. 2780, p. 42;
Criminal Case No. 2781, p. 21)
Invoking insanity, the (order of) trial was reversed and the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 accused-appellant was first to present evidence.
Araceli Haloc-Ayo (Araceli) older sister of the accused testified
that the victims Arnel and Allan were the accused's neighbours. The
accused got angry at them since as they were noisy and he could not
sleep. (Rollo , p. 42; TSN, July 11, 2013, pp. 5-6). DETACa

Although she was not present during the actual hacking

incident, she went near the accused right after and found him
standing by the trail. He recognized her and voluntarily gave the bolo
to her. Araceli said that she noticed that her brother's eyes were
"blazing" but she just came near him to prevent his brother from
inflicting further injury. She said that her brother was acting
differently and was very fierce. (Rollo , p. 41; TSN, July 11, 2013, pp. 3-
6)
Days before the incident, Araceli visited the accused in his
place and she learned that he has been drinking alcohol since he
could not sleep, thinking about his child who was about to get
married. (Rollo , p. 41; TSN, July 11, 2013, pp. 4-5)
Araceli also admitted that prior to the incident, she brought her
brother to the hospital where he was treated. He got well and was not
violent. He also recognized members of his family. ( Rollo , p. 42; TSN,
July 11, 2013, p. 6)
Suson Haloc (Susan), the accused's wife, testified that she has
been married with him for thirty (30) years. She claimed that her
husband was a kind person. In 2003, Jessie was brought to the Mental
Hospital in Cadlan because of a mental disorder. He was cured with
the medicines given him. In 2008, her husband's mental disorder
recurred as he was drinking liquor again. In the last week of April
2008, the accused was brought to a certain Dr. Gregorio who
prescribed four (4) tablets to him which made her husband well. After
a month, her husband again suffered a mental disorder. She noticed
that his eyes were "glazing," he could not work in the farm normally
and he could not recognize her. Thus she left the house two (2) days
before the incident and went to Juban, Sorsogon to her siblings.
(Rollo , p. 42; TSN, March 14, 2013, pp. 3-7)
Dr. Imelda Escuadra (Dr. Escuadra), a psychiatrist, testified that
the accused was brought to Don Susano Memorial Mental Hospital in
Cadlan on August 22, 2003 and on July 16, 2007. Although she was
not the one who treated the accused, she confirmed that the accused
was a patient of the hospital based on their records. Dr. Benedicto
Aguirre, now deceased, was the one who personally treated the
accused. Another doctor, Dr. Chona Belmonte also saw the accused
on October 8, 2008, November 5, 2008 and December 2008. (Rollo ,
pp. 40-41; TSN, May 2, 2012, pp. 2-8)
The prosecution did not present evidence. 3

As stated, the RTC rejected the defense of insanity, and convicted the
accused-appellant as charged. 4 It opined that there was no evidence to
show that he had been totally deprived of reason; 5 that, therefore, he had
presented no competent witness to establish his insanity; and that his
witnesses had even declared that he had been treated in 2003 and on April
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 18, 2008, 6 which, when taken together with the presumption of law in favor
of sanity, doomed his defense of insanity. The RTC disposed thusly:
WHEREFORE, all premises considered, this court finds accused
JESSIE HALOC y CODON guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crimes of Attempted Murder and Murder.
For Crim. Case No. 2780: Accused Jessie Haloc y Codon is
sentenced to suffer the indeterminate sentence of six (6) years of
prision correccional, maximum as minimum to eight (8) years and
one (1) day of prision mayor medium as maximum and to
indemnify Allan de la Cruz the amount of P5,000 for medical
expenses, and
For Crim. Case No. 2781: Accused Jessie Haloc y Codon is
sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and to
indemnify the heirs of Arnel de la Cruz the amount of P50,000 and
another P50,000 as moral damages.
SO ORDERED. 7

On appeal, the CA affirmed the convictions, observing that even Dr.

Imelda Escuadra, the psychiatrist of the Don Susano Memorial Mental
Hospital in Cadlan, Pili, Camarines Sur, had testified that the mental
condition of the accused-appellant had improved; that during the last time
that he had consulted with her, he had no longer shown psychotic signs and
symptoms; that his mental condition could not be a mitigating circumstance
because no evidence had been presented showing that his mental condition
had diminished his will power; 8 and that, nonetheless, the award of actual
damages of P5,000.00 should be deleted, and interest at the rate of 6% per
annum on the civil indemnity and moral damages reckoned from the date of
finality of the judgment until full satisfaction should be imposed. The fallo
reads: aDSIHc

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED for lack of merit. The

Decision dated March 20, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 54
of Gubat, Sorsogon, in Criminal Case Nos. 2780 and 2781 is hereby
AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION in that the portion ordering
the accused-appellant JESSIE HALOC y CODON to indemnify Allan de
la Cruz in the amount of P5,000.00 for medical expenses, in Criminal
Case No. 2780, is deleted. The award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity
and P50,000.00 as moral damages in Criminal Case No. 2781,
meanwhile, shall earn interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum from
the date of finality of the judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED. 9

Hence, this appeal.

Issues

Both the Office of the Solicitor General, 10 representing the People, and
the Public Attorney's Office, 11 representing the accused-appellant,
manifested that in this appeal they were no longer filing supplemental briefs,
and that their briefs filed in the CA be considered.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Hence, the accused-appellant submits that his defense of insanity
should have been appreciated; that the records contained sufficient
evidence proving his having been deprived of reason at the time he hacked
the victims; and that even assuming that he was liable for killing Arnel and
injuring Allan, he should be favored with the mitigating circumstance.

Ruling of the Court

The appeal lacks merit.

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code , as amended by Republic Act No.
7659, provides as follows:
Article 248. Murder. — Any person who, not falling within
the provisions of article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of
murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death, if
committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:
1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength,
with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the
defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity.
2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise.
3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion,
shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a
railroad, fall of an airship, or by means of motor vehicles, or with the
use of any other means involving great waste and ruin.
4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the
preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano,
destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity.
5. With evident premeditation.
6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting
the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or
corpse.
The following are the elements of the felony of murder, namely: (1)
that a person was killed; (2) that the accused killed him or her; (3) that the
killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code ; and (4) that the killing was not
parricide or infanticide. 12
There is no denying that the crimes committed by the accused-
appellant were murder and attempted murder. Allan dela Cruz, the victim in
the attempted murder, declared that the accused-appellant had stormed into
their house in order to hack Ambrosio, the victims' father, but Ambrosio had
been able to escape the assault by running away. His escape prompted his
five sons, including Arnel and Allan, to run away after him. The accused-
appellant pursued them, and he first hacked the 9-years-old Allan, hitting
him in the arm, and then seized the 4-year old Arnel, hacking him in the neck
causing his instantaneous death.
The authorship of the crimes by the accused-appellant became
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 undisputed because he himself admitted assaulting the victims. Also
undisputed were that Arnel had died from the hacking assault by the
accused-appellant, as evidenced by his death certificate, and that both
victims were minors below 10 years old, as stipulated during the pre-trial. ETHIDa

The informations charged the accused-appellant with murder and

attempted murder, averring that the crimes were committed with treachery.
The convictions were warranted. The killing of or assault against a child by
an adult assailant is always treated as treacherous, 13 even if the
treacherous manner of the assault is not shown. Indeed, the weakness of the
minor victim because of his tender years results in the absence of any
danger or risk to the adult assailant. 14 The rationale for such treatment is
easy to discern — the minor victim cannot be expected to put up any form of
effective resistance because of his tender age, relatively small frame, and
inexperience in combat. Moreover, a deadly attack against a minor is easier
to execute inasmuch as the minor can offer little, if any, resistance, thereby
posing no peril to the attacker.
In his attempt to escape criminal responsibility, the accused-appellant
submits that he was entitled to the benefit of the exempting circumstance of
insanity. He alleges that he was insane at the time of his lethal assaults,
and, therefore, he should not be criminally responsible for the death and
injuries he had inflicted.
The submission of the accused-appellant is unwarranted.
Insanity is one of the recognized exempting circumstances under
Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code, thus:
Article 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal
liability. — The following are exempt from criminal liability:
1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has
acted during a lucid interval.
xxx xxx xxx
Strictly speaking, a person acting under any of the exempting
circumstances commits a crime but cannot be held criminally liable therefor.
The exemption from punishment stems from the complete absence of
intelligence or free will in performing the act. The defense of insanity is thus
in the nature of a confession or avoidance. The accused who asserts it is, in
effect, admitting to the commission of the crime. Hence, the burden of proof
shifts to him, and his side must then prove his insanity with clear and
convincing evidence. 15
The defense of insanity rests on the test of cognition on the part of the
accused. Insanity, to be exempting, requires the complete deprivation of
intelligence, not only of the will, in committing the criminal act. 16 Mere
abnormality of the mental faculties will not exclude imputability. The
accused must be so insane as to be incapable of entertaining a criminal
intent. He must be deprived of reason, and must be shown to have acted
without the least discernment because there is a complete absence of the
power to discern or a total deprivation of freedom of the will. 17
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Further discussion of insanity by the Court in People v. Dungo 18 is
relevant, thus:
One who suffers from insanity at the time of the commission of
the offense charged cannot in a legal sense entertain a criminal
intent and cannot be held criminally responsible for his acts. His
unlawful act is the product of a mental disease or a mental defect. In
order that insanity may relieve a person from criminal responsibility,
it is necessary that there be a complete deprivation of intelligence in
committing the act, that is, that the accused be deprived of cognition;
that he acts without the least discernment; that there be complete
absence or deprivation of the freedom of the will. (People v. Puno ,
105 SCRA 151)
It is difficult to distinguish sanity from insanity. There is no
definite defined border between sanity and insanity. Under foreign
jurisdiction, there are three major criteria in determining the
existence of insanity, namely: delusion test, irresistible impulse test,
and the right and wrong test. Insane delusion is manifested by a false
belief for which there is no reasonable basis and which would be
incredible under the given circumstances to the same person if he is
of compos mentis. Under the delusion test, an insane person believes
in a state of things, the existence of which no rational person would
believe. A person acts under an irresistible impulse when, by reason
of duress or mental disease, he has lost the power to choose between
right and wrong, to avoid the act in question, his free agency being at
the time destroyed. Under the right and wrong test, a person is
insane when he suffers from such perverted condition of the mental
and moral faculties as to render him incapable of distinguishing
between right and wrong. (See 44 C.J.S. 2) cSEDTC

So far, under our jurisdiction, there has been no case that lays
down a definite test or criterion for insanity. However, We can apply
as test or criterion the definition of insanity under Section 1039 of the
Revised Administrative Code, which states that insanity is "a
manifestation in language or conduct, of disease or defect of the
brain, or a more or less permanently diseased or disordered condition
of the mentality, functional or organic, and characterized by
perversion, inhibition, or by disordered function of the sensory or of
the intellective faculties, or by impaired or disordered volition."
Insanity as defined above is evinced by a deranged and perverted
condition of the mental faculties which is manifested in language or
conduct. An insane person has no full and clear understanding of the
nature and consequence of his act.
T h u s , insanity may be shown by surrounding
circumstances fairly throwing light on the subject, such as
evidence of the alleged deranged person's general conduct
and appearance, his acts and conduct inconsistent with his
previous character and habits, his irrational acts and beliefs,
and his improvident bargains.
Evidence of insanity must have reference to the mental
condition of the person whose sanity is in issue, at the very time of
doing the act which is the subject of inquiry. However, it is
permissible to receive evidence of his mental condition for a
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 reasonable period both before and after the time of the act in
question. Direct testimony is not required nor the specific acts of
derangement essential to establish insanity as a defense. The
vagaries of the mind can only be known by outward acts: thereby we
read the thoughts, motives and emotions of a person; and through
which we determine whether his acts conform to the practice of
people of sound mind. (People v. Bonoan , 64 Phil. 87)
Based on the foregoing, the accused-appellant did not establish the
exempting circumstance of insanity. His mental condition at the time of the
commission of the felonies he was charged with and found guilty of was not
shown to be so severe that it had completely deprived him of reason or
intelligence when he committed the felonies charged. Based on the records,
he had been administered medication to cure his mental illness, but there
was no showing that he suffered from complete deprivation of intelligence.
On the contrary, the medical professionals presented during the trial
conceded that he had been treated only to control his mental condition.
There was also no showing that the accused-appellant's actions
manifested his insanity immediately after the hacking incidents. His own
sister, Araceli Haloc-Ayo, declared that he had recognized her and had
surrendered the bolo to her after his deadly assault. Clearly, he had not been
totally deprived of the capacity of cognition.
The accused-appellant was subjected to medical tests after the hacking
incidents. According to Dr. Imelda Escuadra, the psychiatrist of the Don
Susano Memorial Mental Hospital in Cadlan, Pili, Camarines Sur, the
medications previously prescribed to him were medicines administered to a
patient suffering psychosis. She did not categorically state, however, that he
had been psychotic. Nonetheless, even if we were to deduce from her
testimony that he had been suffering some form of psychosis, there was still
no testimony to the effect that such psychosis had totally deprived him of
intelligence or reason.
In view of all the foregoing, the accused-appellant's actions and
actuations prior to, simultaneously with and in the aftermath of the lethal
assaults did not support his defense of insanity. This, coupled with the
presumption of law in favor of sanity, now warrants the affirmance of his
convictions, for he had not been legally insane when he committed the
felonies.
Neither should his mental condition be considered as a mitigating
circumstance. As we have noted, the Defense presented no evidence to
show that his condition had diminished the exercise of his will power. 19
To conform to People v. Jugueta , 20 we modify the awards of civil
liabilities. In Criminal Case No. 2781, the awards of civil indemnity and moral
damages for the death of Arnel are each increased to P75,000.00, and
exemplary damages of P75,000.00 are granted in addition, the same to be
paid to the heirs of the late Arnel. In Criminal Case No. 2780, the sums of
P25,000.00 as civil indemnity, P25,000.00 as moral damages, and
P25,000.00 as exemplary damages are granted to Allan. In both cases, all
the amounts shall earn interest of 6% per annum reckoned from the finality
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 of this decision until full settlement.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS IN ALL RESPECTS the decision
promulgated on August 19, 2015 by the Court of Appeals, subject to the
following MODIFICATIONS, namely: SDAaTC

(1) In Criminal Case No. 2781, the accused-appellant shall pay to

the heirs of the late Arnel de la Cruz civil indemnity of
P75,000.00, moral damages of P75,000.00 and exemplary
damages of P75,000.00;
(2) In Criminal Case No. 2780, the accused-appellant shall pay to
Allan de la Cruz P25,000.00 as civil indemnity, P25,000.00 as
moral damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages; and
(3) The accused-appellant shall pay interest at the rate of 6% per
annum on all the amounts herein granted as civil liabilities
reckoned from the finality of this decision until full settlement,
plus the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.
Leonardo-de Castro, C.J., Jardeleza and Tijam, JJ., concur.
Del Castillo, * J., is on wellness leave.

Footnotes
* On wellness leave.
1. Rollo , pp. 2-10; penned by Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr. (now a Member of
the Court), and concurred in by Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz and
Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando.
2. CA rollo, pp. 39-45; penned by Presiding Judge Bernardo R. Jimenez, Jr.
3. Rollo , pp. 2-5.

4. CA rollo, p. 44.
5. Id.
6. Id. at 42-43.
7. Id. at 45.
8. Rollo , p. 9.

9. Id. at 10.
10. Id. at 19-21.
11. Id. at 24-26.
12. People v. Lagman, G.R. No. 197807, April 16, 2012, 669 SCRA 512, 522.
13. People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 188610, June 29, 2010, 622 SCRA 548, 560.

14. People v. Cabarrubias , G.R. Nos. L-94709-10, June 15, 1993, 223 SCRA 363,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 369.
15. People v. Pantoja , G.R. No. 223114, November 29, 2017.
16. People v. Isla, G.R. No. 199875, November 21, 2012, 686 SCRA 267, 278-279.
17. People v. Estrada , G.R. No. 130487, June 19, 2000, 333 SCRA 699, 713.

18. G.R. No. 89420, July 31, 1991, 199 SCRA 860, 866-868.
19. Article 14 (9), Revised Penal Code.
20. G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016, 788 SCRA 331, 382.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com