People v.

CASE:
Rafanan 204
SCRA 65
(GOMEZ)
FACTS:
Rafanan appeals from his conviction of reclusion perpetua of his crime rape to Estelita Ronaya.

Rafanan raped Ronaya and threatens to kill her with a bolo if she was ever to reveal that she has been sexually
assaulted.

Rafanan then claims that he was suffering from mental aberration characterized as schizophrenia. The trial
court suspended the trial and ordered Rafanan to be confined at the National Mental Hospital in Mandaluyong
for observation and treatment until he is confirmed by the physician that he is in a mental condition to stand
court trial. (in accordance with Art. 12 (1), RPC)

Until a series of court reports by the attending physicians, spanning over a year, he was therefore confirmed to
stand on trial. Trial of the case resumed. Dr. Nerit stated that prior to the act he committed, Rafanan was
already suffering from schizophrenia for two years.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the defendant-appellants (Rafanan) reason/plea of insanity is sufficient to relieve himself of
criminal liability?

RULING:
No. The Court rejected the insanity defense of defendant-appellant (Rafanan)

RATIO:
According to People v Formigones, the required standards of legal insanity:
a. There must be a complete deprivation of intelligence
b. The accused be deprived of reason
c. There be no responsibility for his own acts
d. That he acts without the least discernment
e. There be a complete absence of power to discern; or,
f. There be a total deprivation of freedom of the will

N.B. It was held that the imbecility or insanity at the time of the commission of the act should absolutely
deprive a person of intelligence or freedom of will, because mere abnormality of his mental faculties does not
exclude imputability.

It shall be noted that the Philippines show common reliance on the test of cognition (complete deprivation of
intelligence) rather than the test of volition (total deprivation of the will).
*since a persons volition naturally reaches out only towards that which is presented as desirable by his intelligence, whether that
intelligence be diseased or healthy

Rafanan was not completely devoid of consciousness as stated by the Dr. Jovellano. Furthermore. The
testimonies given by the physicians consisted of broad statements based on general behavioral patterns of
people afflicted with schizophrenia.

The fact that Rafanan threatened Ronaya with death constitutes that Rafanan was aware of the reprehensible
moral quality of that assault or act. Whereas, the defense sought to suggest, that Rafanan was deprived from
power of self-control due to his illness. But the Court pointed out that the complete loss of intelligence which
must be shown if the exempting circumstance of insanity is to be found. (test of cognition)

The presumption is that every man is sane, if not, the person accused of the crime has the burden of
proving their affirmative allegation of insanity. Here, the appellant failed to present a clear and convincing
evidence regarding his state of mind before and during the act.
 NCC:

Article 38. Minority, insanity or imbecility, the state of being a deaf-mute, prodigality and civil
interdiction are mere restrictions on capacity to act, and do not exempt the incapacitated person from
certain obligations, as when the latter arise from his acts or from property relations, such as
easements.

Article 39. The following circumstances, among others, modify or limit capacity to act: age, insanity,
imbecility, the state of being a deaf-mute, penalty, prodigality, family relations, alienage, absence,
insolvency and trusteeship. The consequences of these circumstances are governed in this Code,
other codes, the Rules of Court, and in special laws. Capacity to act is not limited on account of
religious belief or political opinion.

RPC:

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.

When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the law defines as a felony (delito), the
court shall order his confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established for persons thus afflicted, which
he shall not be permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of the same court.

RULE 101
PROCEEDINGS FOR HOSPITALIZATION
OF INSANE PERSONS

Sec. 1. Venue; Petition for commitment. - A petition for the commitment of a person to a hospital or other
place for the insane may be filed with the Court of First Instance of the province where the person alleged to be
insane is found. The petition shall be filed by the Director of Health in the all cases where, in his opinion, such
commitment is for the public welfare, or for the welfare of said person who, in his judgment, is insane, and such
person or the one having charged of him is opposed to his being taken to a hospital or other place for the
insane.

Sec. 2. Order for hearing. - If the petition filed is sufficient in form and substance, the court, by an order
reciting the purpose of the petition, shall fix a date for the hearing thereof, and copy of such order shall be
served on the person alleged to be insane, and to the one having charge of him, or on such of his relatives
residing in the province or city as the judge may deem proper. The court shall furthermore order the sheriff to
produce the alleged insane person, if possible, on the date of the hearing.

Sec. 3. Hearing and judgment. - Upon satisfactory proof, in open court on the date fixed in the order, that the
commitment applied for is for the public welfare or for the welfare of the insane person, and that his relatives
are unable for any reason to take proper custody and care of him, the court shall order his commitment to such
hospital or other place for the insane as may be recommended by the Director of Health. The court shall make
proper provisions for the custody of property or money belonging to the insane until a guardian be properly
appointed.

Sec. 4. Discharge of insane. - When, in the opinion of the Director of Health, the person ordered to be
committed to a hospital or other place for the insane is temporarily or permanently cured, or may be released
without danger he may file the proper petition with the Court of First Instance which ordered the commitment.

Sec. 5. Assistance of fiscal in the proceeding. - It shall be the duty of the provincial fiscal or in the City of
Manila the fiscal of the city, to prepare the petition for the Director of Health and represent him in court in all
proceedings arising under the provisions of this rule.