Dear PAO,
My daughter was charged for killing her live-in partner inside a rented condo unit. Although she admitted the killing, she interposed the exempting circumstance of insanity. Notwithstanding, the court found her guilty of the crime of homicide for failure to prove that she was insane at the very moment she killed the victim. The court claimed that her witnesses’ testimonies were irrelevant, arguing that they could not have known the mental condition of the accused when she killed the victim. Is that correct?
Akbar

Dear Akbar,
Article 12 (1) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), in part, provides:

“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.”

Relative thereto, in People vs. Dungo (G.R. No. 89420, July 31, 1991, Ponente: Honorable Associate Justice Edgardo L. Paras), the Supreme Court explained that “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 reasonable period both before and after the time of the act in question.”
Recently, however, in the case of Ruiz vs. People, G.R. No. 244692, October 9, 2024, the Supreme Court, through the words of Honorable Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, explained that proving the mental condition of the accused immediately before and after the crime serves no legitimate purpose, but only adds burden to the accused, viz.:

“To guide the bench, the Court, in People vs. Paña, has crafted a three-way test to determine whether the defense of legal insanity is meritorious. ‘First, insanity must be present at the time of the commission of the crime; second, insanity, which is the primary cause of the criminal act must be medically proven; and third; the effect of the insanity is the inability to appreciate the nature and quality or wrongfulness of the act.’
“In several cases, the Court ruled on insanity cases by determining if the accused were aware of the wrongfulness of their acts. Paña named a few such as, immediate surrender to the authorities, escaping arrest, display of remorse, and threatening the victim to avoid getting caught, which have been appreciated as proof that the accused understood the nature and consequence of the acts committed.

“xxx

“Our jurisdiction requires a deprivation of intelligence, hence, any sign of reason before, during or after the commission of the crime instantly overthrows the insanity defense. If this is the standard to overthrow a plea of insanity, on top of the established fact that ‘courts admit evidence or proof of insanity which relate to the time immediately before, during or after the commission of the offense, then there is no legal impediment to use proof of deprivation of intelligence either immediately before or immediately after the commission of the crime as sole basis to satisfy the first test of Paña.

“Therefore, as long as accused could proffer, thru clear and convincing evidence, proof of deprivation of intelligence either immediately before, during, or immediately after the commission of the crime, it shall be sufficient to meet the first test of Paña.
“It goes without saying that proof of deprivation of intelligence thru the accused’s demeanor or overt acts immediately before or immediately after the commission of the crime is already tantamount to proof of deprivation of intelligence at the precise moment of commission. This is more in line with the latest En Banc case of Paña without diminishing the requirement of clear and convincing evidence, considering that the accused still has two other tests to overcome.”

Applying the aforesaid decision to your case, it is clear that, in the absence of proof showing the mental condition of your daughter at the exact moment when she killed the victim, she could proffer clear and convincing evidence proving deprivation of her intelligence immediately before, or immediately after the offense.
We hope that we are able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Thank you for your continued trust and support.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]