Exempting CircumstancesA.

Insanity and Imbecility

NATURE: Automatic review of a March 15, 1996 joint decision Ilagan, Isabela
decision which found Tabugoca in two criminal cases guilty of 2 counts of rape
committed against his own daughters sentenced him to reclusion perpetue for the
first & death for the second.

Tabugoca made another attempt to molest Jinky. Jinky resisted, causing

Tabugoca to just lie down & leave her alone.

FACTS: Jacqueline & her 3 younger sisters Janet, Jinky & jewel lived under the
sole care of their father after their mother died August 28, 1991.

Jacqueline and Jinky were watching TV in their grandmothers (Perlita

Alejandro). Jinky told their lola about the sexual abuses of their father. This
prompted Jacqueline to reveal her similar experience 2 yrs past.

March 28, 1992, around 10pm, Jacqueline (12yrs 3mos at the time, b.
December 27, 1979)

Tabugoca woke up Jacqueline to scratch his back then he removed her

shorts and underwear and made her lie beside him, then inserted his penis in her
vagina. Accused told her not to tell anyone if she did not want to be harmed.

December 10, 1994, later on

December 9, 1994, early morning Jinky (12yrs 9mos at the time, b.

December 12, 1994

Their grandmother brought them to the Municipal Health Officer of Naguilian

for physical examination. Dr. Maryann M. Fontanares findings suggested that in
Jacquelines case, she was forcibly abused & the incident, the first 1 happened
long ago, based on the healed scars of the hymen, & in Jinkys case that full
penetration was unsuccessful although attempts were done based on the swollen
vulva of the victim.Tabugoca tried to claim exemption from criminal liability on
the ground of insanity brought about by intoxication.

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.

December 10, 1994, dawn Jinky

Jacqueline: Tabugoca allegedly only came to know of what happened to

Jacqueline when the police arrested him on December 10, 1994. Jacqueline
allegedly informed him on the date of his arrest that he was drunk on March 28,
1992, Tabugoca surmised that he was based on Jacquelines supposed statement.
Jacqueline testified that Tabugoca did smell of liquor and may have had had a few
drinks then

Exempting CircumstancesA. Insanity and Imbecility

Jinky: Tabugoca said that he had also been drinking then and could not
recall what had happened after he had finished drinking. Jinky testified that
Tabugoca had been drunk on the night of December 9, 1994.
Tabugoca claimed that he started drinking after his wife died, resorting to drink
when he remembered his wife and that before her death, he did not drink. He
also claims that his children filed the complaints in revenge for his castigating or
whipping them whenever they committed mistakes.

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.

WON the RTC had jurisdiction

WON Tabugoca is guilty of rape

Yes. Tabugocas guilt has been proven by the prosecution beyond

reasonable doubt. Tabugoca neither denied the charges against him nor raised
any absolutory cause in his defense. The categorical and untraversed testimonies
of Jacqueline and Jinky as to how Tabugoca committed the bestial outrage, and
their identification of the accused as their defiler remain uncontroverted and fully
establish the charges. Jacquelines failure to immediately report the crime does
not necessarily cast doubt on the credibility of her charge. We cannot expect
young Jacqueline to disregard the threat on her life and immediately cry rape in
the face of her fathers threats and his constant presence in her home. It is
highly inconceivable that Jacqueline would invent a charge that would only bring
shame and humiliation upon them and their family and be the object of gossip
among their classmates and friends in order to get even with their father or to
empathize with her sister, especially given our culture. It is axiomatic in criminal
law that in order to sustain a conviction for rape, full penetration is not required.
2 forms of intimidation under Art. 335 RPC (Matrimonio): (1) threats, (2)
overpowering moral influence.
Tabugoca exercised overpowering moral influence over the victims, being their
father. This is sufficient to intimidate and force them to submit to his desiresFor
rape to exist, it is not necessary that the intimidation employed be so great or of

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.

Exempting CircumstancesA. Insanity and Imbecility

3.

WON the death penalty should be imposed

offenses.His charade of amnesia is a desperate ploy for exculpation. In any

case, amnesia is not, in and of itself, a defense to a criminal charge unless it
is shown by competent proof that the accused did not know of the nature
and quality of his action and that it was wrong.Failure to remember is in
itself no proof of the mental condition of the accused when the crime was
committed. (Thomas v. State), Therefore, Tabugoca was sane at the time of
commission of the crimes.

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.

WON drunkenness in this case is a valid defense

RULING: Affirmed with modification.

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.

In accordance with Art. 83 of the RPC as amended by Sec. 25 of RA 7659

(reimposing the death penalty), upon finality of this decision, the records will be
forwarded immediately to the Office of the President for the possible exercise of
the pardoning power.

RTC
5.

WON Tabugoca was sane when he committed the crime

Yes. Tabugoca failed to overthrow the presumption of sanity. The law

presumes every man to be sane. The person accused of a crime who pleads
the exempting circumstance of insanity has necessarily the consequent
burden of proving it. (People v. Catanyag) In order for insanity to be taken
as an exempting circumstance, there must be complete depreciation of
intelligence in the commission of the act or that the accused acted without
the least discernment. Mere abnormality of his mental faculties does not
preclude imputability. (People v. So). The defense did not present any expert
witness, psychiatric evaluation report, psychological findings or evidence
regarding Tabugocas mental condition at the time of commission of the

SUPREME COURT

Crime: 2 counts of rape committed against his own daughters

Sentence: Reclusion perpetua (Jacqueline) Death (Jinky)
Damages: Jacqueline: exemplary & moral damages: 25K@
Jinky: exemplary damages: 25K

(same)
( same)

Exempting CircumstancesA. Insanity and Imbecility

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.

Exempting CircumstancesA. Insanity and Imbecility

Yes. The Court finds the accused demented at the time he perpetrated the crime,
which consequently exempts him from criminal liability, and orders for his
confinement in San Lazaro Hospital or other hospital for the insane. This ruling
was based on the following evidence:
People vs. Bonoan
Imbecility
Facts:
Celestino Bonoan is charged with the crime of murder for stabbing Carlos Guison
with a knife, which caused his death three days afterwards. An arraignment was
then called, but the defense objected on the ground that the defendant was
mentally deranged and was at the time confined at the Psychopatic Hospital.
After several months of summons for doctors, production of the defendants
complete record of mental condition from the hospital and defendants admission
to the hospital for personal observation, assistant alienist Dr. Jose Fernandez
finally reported to the court that Bonoan may be discharged for being a
recovered case. After trial, the lower court found Bonoan guilty and sentenced
him to life imprisonment.
The defense now appeals, claiming the lower court made errors in finding Bonoan
suffered dementia only occasionally and intermittently, did not show any kind of
abnormality, that the defense did not establish the defendants insanity and
finding accused guilty.
Issue:
W/N the lower court erred in finding the accused guilty
Held:

Uncontradicted evidence that accused was confined in the insane department of

San Lazaro Hospital and diagnosed with dementia praecox long before the
commission of the offense and recurrence of ailments were not entirely lacking of
scientific foundation
Persons with dementia praecox are disqualified from legal responsibility because
they have no control of their acts; dementia praecox symptoms similar to manic
depression psychosis
Accused had an insomnia attack, a symptom leading to dementia praecox, four
days prior to act according to Dr. Francisco
Accused was sent the Psychopatic hospital on the same day of crime and arrest,
indicating the polices doubt of his mental normalcy
Defendant suffered from manic depressive psychosis according to Dr. Joson

Dissenting (Justices Imperial, Diaz and Concepcion):

L
L
L
L

The dissenting opinions pose that the accused committed the

crime when he was sane, or at least, during a lucid interval.
The legal presumption is always in favor of sanity; no positive
evidence of accused mental state was established
Based on expert testimonies, accused was cured of dementia
praecox and later manic depressive psychosis
Based on observance of arresting officer Damaso Arnoco,
corrobating statement of Benjamin Cruz, and other witnesses, accused
appear sane at the time immediately after commission
There is a motive of aggression on part of accused is real and
positive fact: deceaseds failure to pay borrowed money