REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL JUDICIAL REGION RTC BRANCH 22

MANILA, PHILIPPINES

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Criminal Case No. 17289

Plaintiff,

- versus -

DOMINIC CABUAG,
Accused.

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM

Accused, thru counsel, submits this memorandum in compliance with

the order of this Honorable Court.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

On November 9, 2013 at about 10:00 pm, the accused Dominic Cabuag

together with the victim Cayetano Ramos and two (2) other auditing partners
had a drinking spree at the accused’s residence to celebrate a rather victorious
event for their accounting firm. The victim, according to the testimonies of the
witnesses, was able to close a deal with one of their firm’s most sought for
clients. At some point during the drinking spree, Jalim Gania commended the
victim for a job well done and made an emphasis on how the victim could be
such an asset to their firm. This exclusive commendation of the victim by
Jalim was alleged to have infuriated the accused causing the latter to run
amok and repeatedly stab the victim which led to the victim’s instantaneous
death.

When the police responded to the incident, it was alleged that the
accused remain in the scene of the crime and invited the police officers to join
their celebration as if no killing has just taken place. The accused was also
alleged to be talking to the cold body of the victim lying at the ground as if the
latter was still alive. Due to this peculiar behavior of the accused, SPO1 Jose
Santos, one of the officers who conducted the arrest, ordered the confinement
of the accused to the psychiatric institution of the Bureau of Jail Management
and Penology where the accused remains until now.

ISSUE

The issue is whether the accused Dominic Cabuag is exempt from

liability for the killing of victim Cayetano Ramos by reason of insanity.

BRIEF ANSWER

Yes, the accused is exempt from criminal liability for the crime was
committed during the period of his insanity.

1
 DISCUSSION

The Revised Penal Code and Jurisprudence

Provide for the Exemption of an Insane Person
From Liability for a Crime Unless Committed
During a Lucid Interval

1. Under the Revised Penal Code1, an insane person is exempt from

criminal liability unless he acted during a lucid interval. In order for
exempting circumstance of insanity to be taken into account, it is necessary
that there be a complete deprivation of intelligence while committing the act;
that is the accused be deprived of reason, that he acts without the least
discernment or that there be a total deprivation of freedom of the will.2

2. Applied to this case, the accused was found to be suffering from a

madness illness commonly termed in psychology as "schizophrenia" or
"psychosis". The defense in handling its case presented Dr. Joan Reyes whose
evaluation is herewith attached as Exhibit 1. The testimony of Dr. Reyes has
been very significant to the case for she is the psychiatrist who has periodically
treated the accused since the time that the latter was first diagnosed to be
suffering from madness illness. The prosecution, on the other hand, was not
able to destroy the competence of the doctor nor presented any other
psychiatrists, as competent and as qualified as Dr. Reyes to prove the contrary.

3. In order to ascertain a person’s mental condition at the time of the

act, it is permissible to receive evidence of the condition of his mind during a
reasonable period both before and after the commission of the crime 3. During
the trial, testimonies from the witnesses were adduced to prove that ever since
the accused was five (5) years old, he already manifested signs of insanity
which later developed to a serious condition and posed great risk of harm not
only toward the accused himself but also to others.

4. For instance, a childhood playmate of the accused testified that

during their early years, while they were playing, he had a simple
misunderstanding with the accused that quickly annoyed him causing the
accused to punch and kick the playmate to the point of the latter sustaining
near-death injuries. The peculiar strength and will of the accused even at such
a young age, to cause harm toward another whenever he is agitated or
aggrieved were inconceivable acts of a normal person which can only lead one
to believe that the accused is not normal.

Admission to Hospital or Asylum

Has the Presumption of Continuance of Insanity

5. In People vs. Bonoan4, if the insanity is only occasional or intermittent

in its nature, the presumption of its continuance does not arise. But a person
who has been adjudged insane, or who has been committed to a hospital or to
an asylum for the insane, is presumed to continue to be insane. Admittedly,

1
Article 12 Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability – (1) An imbecile or an insane person, unless the
latter has acted during lucid interval. When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the law
defines as 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.“
2
People vs. Formigones, 87 Phil 658; People vs. Puno, 105 SCRA 151; People vs. Magallano, 100 SCRA 570.
3
People vs. Bonoan, 64 Phil 93.
4
People vs. Bonoan, 64 Phil 93

2
the insanity of the accused is only occasional and intermittent in its nature,
thus, citing the case of Bonoan, the presumption of its continuance does not
arise.

6. However, in that same case, the court also ruled that a person who
has been committed to a hospital or asylum for the insane, is presumed to
continue to be insane. Therefore, the fact that the accused was immediately
placed under the penal psychiatric institution, as evidence by the certificate of
admission herewith attached as Exhibit 2 executed by the police officer in
charge, right after the accused’s arrest for the killing of the victim raises the
presumption that the accused continues to be insane.

Procedural Aspect Governing

The Confinement of the Accused

7. In Chin Ah Foo vs Concepcion5, the court ruled that the court should
order the confinement of an insane-accused in one of the hospitals or asylums
established for persons thus afflicted with insanity, which he shall not be
permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of the same court. In
this case, the Police Officer who conducted the arrest of the accused and the
investigation of the crime ordered the confinement of the accused to the penal
psychiatric institution right after their team responded to the reported killing.

8. The prosecution tried to attack the authority of the Police Officer

alleging that as a Police Officer 1, he does not have the authority to order such
confinement because his official duty is limited to investigation. Granting for
the sake of argument that the Police Officer who ordered the confinement of the
accused, was without authority to do so, such procedural defect was cured by
the subsequent order of the court dated November 11, 2013 attached here as
Exhibit 3 granting the petition for the affirmation of confinement filed by the
counsel for the accused, such petition was designated as such since the
accused was already in confinement.

PRAYER

From the foregoing, accused Dominic Cabuag prays that he be exempt

from liability for the killing of the victim Cayetano Ramos and be ordered to
remain in the penal psychiatric institution where he can be best treated with
his illness.

PEREZ & CASITA LAW OFFICE

200 C.M. Recto Ave., Sampaloc, Manila

Counsels for the Accused:

ATTY. JOANNA MAY CASITA

PTR No. 038967/05-03-13/Manila
IBP No. 21542685/05-04-13/Manila
Roll No. 20100169082
MCLE No. IV-0004858

5
Chin Ah Foo vs. Concepcion, 54 Phil 775

3
ATTY. BERNALYN PEREZ
PTR No. 0169612/03-07-13/Manila
IBP No. 20002305/03-04-13/Manila
Roll No. 20090169612
MCLE No. IV-0003626