G.R. No.

227312 On June 22, 2008, an Information was filed charging

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. accused-appellant of Attempted Murder in Criminal
JESSIE HALOC y CODON, Accused-Appellant Case No. 2780 as follows:
BERSAMIN, J.:
That on or about 12:00 o'clock noon of June 22, 2008 at
To be exempting from criminal responsibility, insanity is Barangay Union, municipality of Gubat, province of
the complete deprivation of intelligence in committing Sorsogon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
the criminal act. Mere abnormality of the mental Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with
faculties does not exempt from criminal responsibility. treachery and taking advantage of his superior strength,
armed with a bolo, did then and there, wilfully,
The Case unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill, and acting
The accused-appellant assails the decision promulgated with discernment, attack, assault and hack one ALLAN
on August 19, 2015, 1 whereby the Court of Appeals DE LA CRUZ, a 9 year old minor, hitting the victim on his
(CA) affirmed with modifications his conviction for right arm, thus accused commences (sic) the
murder and attempted murder under the judgment commission of Murder directly by overt acts but was
rendered on March 20, 2014 by the Regional Trial Court not able to perform all the acts of execution which
(RTC), Branch 54, in Gubat, Sorsogon in Criminal Case would have produce (sic) the crime of Murder by reason
No. 2780 and Criminal Case No. 2781.2 of causes or accident other than his own spontaneous
desistance, that is, the said Allan de la Cruz was brought
Antecedents to a hospital and was given medical assistance which
As summarized by the CA, the factual and procedural prevented his death, to his damage and prejudice.
antecedents are as follows:
Accused-appellant Jessie Haloc y Codon, then fifty-one CONTRARY TO LAW. (Records, Criminal Case No. 2780,
(51) years old, was apprehended by barangay officials p. 1)
after he hacked Allan de la Cruz, nine (9) years and his
brother Amel, four ( 4) years old, inside the de la Cruz's Another Information was filed against accused-
yard at Barangay Union, Gubat, Sorsogon on June 22, appellant for Murder in Criminal Case No. 2781:
2008 at around 12 noon. Amel died as a result of the
hacking blow to his neck, while Allan sustained injuries That on or about 12:00 o'clock noon of June 22, 2008 at
on his upper arm. (Records, Criminal Case No. 2780, p. Barangay Union, municipality of Gubat, province of
5, 9) Sorsogon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, with
According to the Joint Inquest Memorandum, the treachery and taking advantage of his superior strength,
accused, who was armed with a 24-inch bolo, went to armed with a bolo, did then and there, wilfully,
the dela Cruzes' and attempted to strike the victims' unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill, and acting
father, Ambrosio who was able to escape. with discernment, attack, assault and hack one ARNEL
Unfortunately, Ambrosio's five (5) sons were following DE LA CRUZ, a 4 year old minor, inflicting upon him
him. Jessie took his ire on Ambrosio's children, hacking mortal wounds which caused his death, to the damage
Allan on the arm and taking Amel and cutting his neck, and prejudice of his legal heirs.
severing the jugular veins and nearly decapitating his
head resulting to Amel's immediate death. (Records, CONTRARY TO LAW. (Records, Criminal Case No. 2781,
Criminal Case No. 2780, p. 5) p. 1)

The accused-appellant, assisted by the Public Attorney's On September 3, 2008, the original date for the
Office (PAO) did not submit any counter-affidavit. accused's arraignment, the PAO manifested that he
(Records, Criminal Case No. 2780,p. 5) 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 medicines given him. In 2008, her husband's mental
No. 2780, p. 20) disorder recurred as he was drinking liquor again. In the
last week of April 2008, the accused was brought to a
On July 7, 2010, the Head of the Department of certain Dr. Gregorio who prescribed four (4) tablets to
Psychiatry of Bicol Medical Center, Cadlan, Pili, him which made her husband well. After a month, her
Camarines Sur submitted a report stating that the husband again suffered a mental disorder. She noticed
accused is already fit for trial. (Records, Criminal Case that his eyes were "glazing", he could not work in the
No. 2780, p. 37) farm normally and he could not recognize her. Thus she
left the house two (2) days before the incident and
On July 22, 2010, the accused was arraigned and he went to Juban, Sorsogon to her siblings. (Rollo, p. 42;
pleaded "not guilty" to both charges. (Records, Criminal TSN, March 14, 2013, pp. 3-7)
Case No. 2780, p. 42; Criminal Case No. 2781, p. 21)
Dr. Imelda Escuadra (Dr. Escuadra), a psychiatrist,
Invoking insanity, the (order of) trial was reversed and testified that the accused was brought to Don Susano
the accused-appellant was first to present evidence. Memorial Mental Hospital in Cadlan on August 22, 2003
and on July 16, 2007. Although she was not the one who
Araceli Haloc-Ayo (Araceli) older sister of the accused treated the accused, she confirmed that the accused
testified that the victims Arnel and Allan were the was a patient of the hospital based on their records. Dr.
accused's neighbours. The accused got angry at them Benedicto Aguirre, now deceased, was the one who
since as they were noisy and he could not sleep. (Rollo, personally treated the accused. Another doctor, Dr.
p. 42; TSN, July 11, 2013, pp. 5-6). Chona Belmonte also saw the accused on October 8,
2008, November 5, 2008 and December 2008. (Rollo,
Although she was not present during the actual hacking pp. 40-41; TSN, May 2, 2012, pp. 2-8)
incident, she went near the accused right after and
found him standing by the trail. He recognized her and The prosecution did not present evidence. 3
voluntarily gave the bolo to her. Araceli said that she
noticed that her brother's eyes were "blazing" but she As stated, the RTC rejected the defense of insanity, and
just came near him to prevent his brother from inflicting convicted the accused-appellant as charged.4 It opined
further injury. She said that her brother was acting that there was no evidence to show that he had been
differently and was very fierce. (Rollo, p. 41; TSN, July totally deprived of reason; 5 that, therefore, he had
11, 2013, pp. 3-6) presented no competent witness to establish his
insanity; and that his witnesses had even declared that
Days before the incident, Araceli visited the accused in he had been treated in 2003 and on April 18, 2008,6
his place and she learned that he has been drinking which, when taken together with the presumption of
alcohol since he could not sleep, thinking about his child law in favor of sanity, doomed his defense of insanity.
who was about to get married. (Rollo, p. 41; TSN, July The RTC disposed thusly:
11, 2013, pp. 4-5)
WHEREFORE, all premises considered, this court finds
Araceli also admitted that prior to the incident, she accused JESSIE HALOC y CODON guilty beyond
brought her brother to the hospital where he was reasonable doubt of the crimes of Attempted Murder
treated. He got well and was not violent. He also and Murder.
recognized members of his family. (Rollo, p. 42; TSN,
July 11, 2013, p. 6) For Crim. Case No. 2780: Accused Jessie Haloc y Codon
is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate sentence of six
Suson Haloc (Susan), the accused's wife, testified that (6) years of prision correccional, maximum as minimum
she has been married with him for thirty (30) years. She to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor
claimed that her husband was a kind person. In 2003, medium as maximum and to indemnify Allan de la Cruz
Jessie was brought to the Mental Hospital in Cadlan the amount of PS,000 for medical expenses, and.
because of a mental disorder. He was cured with the
For Crim. Case No. 2781: Accused Jessie Haloc y Codon briefs, and that their briefs filed in the CA be
is sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua considered.
and to indemnify the heirs of Arnel de la Cruz the
amount of PS0,000 and another ₱50,000 as moral Hence, the accused-appellant submits that his defense
damages of insanity should have been appreciated; that the
records contained sufficient evidence proving his having
SO ORDERED. 7 been deprived of reason at the time he hacked the
victims; and that even assuming that he was liable for
On appeal, the CA affirmed the convictions, observing killing Arnel and injuring Allan, he should be favored
that even Dr. Imelda Escuadra, the psychiatrist of the with the mitigating circumstance.
Don Susano Memorial Mental Hospital in Cadlan, Pili,
Camarines Sur,. had testified that the mental condition Ruling of the Court
of the accused-appellant had improved; that during the
last time that he had consulted with her, he had no The appeal lacks merit.
longer shown psychotic signs and symptoms; that his
mental condition could not be a mitigating circumstance Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
because no evidence had been presented showing that Republic Act No. 7659, provides as follows:
his mental condition had diminished his will power;8
and that, nonetheless, the award of actual damages of Article 248. Murder. - Any person who, not falling within
₱5,000.00 should be deleted, and interest at the rate of the provisions of article 246 shall kill another, shall be
6% per annum on the civil indemnity and moral guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion
damages reckoned from the date of finality of the perpetua to death, if committed with any of the
judgment until full satisfaction should be imposed. The following attendant circumstances:
fallo reads:
1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED for lack of merit. The strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing
Decision dated March 20, 2014 of the Regional Trial means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to
Court, Branch 54 of Gubat, Sorsogon, in Criminal Case insure or afford impunity.
Nos. 2780 and 2781 is hereby AFFIRMED with the
MODIFICATION in that the portion ordering the 2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise.
accused-appellant JESSIE HALOC y CODON to indemnify
Allan de la Cruz in the amount of ₱5,000.00 for medical 3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion,
expenses, in Criminal Case No. 2780, is deleted. The shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault
award of ₱50,0.00.00 as civil indemnity and ₱50,000.00 upon a railroad, fall of an airship, or by means of motor
as moral damages in Criminal Case No. 2781, vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving
meanwhile, shall earn interest at the legal rate of 6% great waste and ruin.
per annum from the date of finality of the judgment
until fully paid. 4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in
the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption
SO ORDERED.9 of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other
public calamity.
Hence, this appeal.
5. With evident premeditation.
Issues
6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly
Both the Office of the Solicitor General, 10 representing augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or
the People, and the Public Attorney's Office, 11 scoffing at his person or corpse.
representing the accused-appellant, manifested that in
this appeal they were no longer filing supplemental
The following are the elements of the felony of murder, assaults, and, therefore, he should not be criminally
namely: (1) that a person was killed; (2) that the responsible for the death and injuries he had inflicted.
accused killed him or her; (3) that the killing was
attended by any of the qualifying circumstances The submission of the accused-appellant is
mentioned in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code; and unwarranted.
(4) that the killing was not parricide or infanticide. 12
Insanity is one of the recognized exempting
There is no denying that the crimes committed by the circumstances under Article 12 of the Revised Penal
accused-appellant were murder and attempted murder. Code, thus:
Allan dela Cruz, the victim in the attempted murder,
declared that the accused-appellant had stormed into Article 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal
their house in order to hack Ambrosio, the victims' liability. - The following are exempt from criminal
father, but Ambrosio had been able to escape the liability:
assault by running away. His escape prompted his five
sons, including Arnel and Allan, to run away after him. 1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has
The accusedappellant pursued them, and he first acted during a lucid interval.
hacked the 9-years old Allan, hitting him in the arm, and
then seized the 4-year old Arnel, hacking him in the xxxx
neck causing his instantaneous death.
Strictly speaking, a person acting under any of the
The authorship of the crimes by the accused-appellant exempting circumstances commits a crime but cannot
became undisputed because he himself admitted be held criminally liable therefore. The exemption from
assaulting the victims. Also undisputed were that Arnel punishment stems from the complete absence of
had died from the hacking assault by the accused- intelligence or free will in performing the act. The
appellant, as evidenced by his death certificate, and defense of insanity is thus in the nature of a confession
that both victims were minors below 10 years old, as or avoidance. The accused who asserts it is, in effect,
stipulated during the pre-trial. admitting to the commission of the crime. Hence, the
burden of proof shifts to him, and his side must then
The informations charged the accused-appellant with prove his insanity with clear and convincing evidence.
murder and attempted murder, averring that the crimes 15
were committed with treachery. The convictions were
warranted. The killing of or assault against a child by an The defense of insanity rests on the test of cognition on
adult assailant is always treated as treacherous, 13 even the part of the accused. Insanity, to be exempting,
if the treacherous manner of the assault is not shown. requires the complete deprivation of intelligence, not
Indeed, the weakness of the minor victim because of his only of the will, in committing the criminal act. 16 Mere
tender years results in the absence of any danger or risk abnormality of the mental faculties will not exclude
to the adult assailant. 14 The rationale for such imputability. The accused must be so insane as to be
treatment is easy to discern - the minor victim cannot incapable of entertaining a criminal intent. He must be
be expected to put up any form of effective resistance deprived of reason, and must be shown to have acted
because of his tender age, relatively small frame, and without the least discernment because there is a
inexperience in combat. Moreover, a deadly attack complete absence of the power to discern or a total
against a minor is easier to execute inasmuch as the deprivation of freedom of the will. 17
minor can offer little, if any, resistance, thereby posing
no peril to the attacker. Further discussion of insanity by the Court in People v.
Dungo 18 is relevant, thus:
In his attempt to escape criminal responsibility, the
accused-appellant submits that he was entitled to the One who suffers from insanity at the time of the
benefit of the exempting circumstance of insanity~ He commission of the offense charged cannot in a legal
alleges that he was insane at the time of his lethal sense entertain a criminal intent and cannot be held
criminally responsible for his acts. His unlawful act is the Thus, insanity may be shown by surrounding
product of a mental disease or a mental defect. In order circumstances fairly throwing light on the subject, such
that insanity may relieve a person from criminal as evidence of the alleged deranged person's general
responsibility, it is necessary that there be a complete conduct and appearance, his acts and conduct
deprivation of intelligence in committing the act, that is, inconsistent with his previous character and habits, his
that the accused be deprived of cognition; that he acts irrational acts and beliefs, and his improvident bargains.
without the least discernment; that there be complete
absence or deprivation of the freedom of the will. Evidence of insanity must have reference to the mental
(People v. Puno, 105 SCRA 151) condition of the person whose sanity is in issue, at the
very time of doing the act which is the subject of
It is difficult to distinguish sanity from insanity. There is inquiry. However, it is permissible to receive evidence
no definite defined border between sanity and insanity. of his mental condition for a reasonable period both
Under foreign jurisdiction, there are three major criteria before and after the time of the act in question. Direct
in determining the existence of insanity, namely: testimony is not required nor the specific acts of
delusion test, irresistible impulse test, and the right and derangement essential to establish insanity as a
wrong test. Insane delusion is manifested by a false defense. The vagaries of the mind can only be known by
belief for which there is no reasonable basis and which outward acts: thereby we read the thoughts, motives
would be incredible under the given circumstances to and emotions of a person; and through which we
the same person if he is of compos mentis. Under the determine whether his acts conform to the practice of
delusion test, an insane person believes in a state of people of sound mind. (People v. Bonoan, 64 Phil. 87)
things, the existence of which no rational person would
believe. A person acts under an irresistible impulse Based on the foregoing, the accused-appellant did not
when, by reason of duress or mental disease, he has lost establish the exempting circumstance of insanity. His
the power to choose between right and wrong, to avoid mental condition at the time of the commission of the
the act in question, his free agency being at the time felonies he was charged with and found guilty of was
destroyed. Under the right and wrong test, a person is not shown to be so severe that it had completely
insane when he suffers from such perverted condition deprived him of reason or intelligence when he
of the mental and moral faculties as to render him committed the felonies charged. Based on the records,
incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong. he had been administered medication to cure his
(See 44 C.J.S. 2) mental illness, but there was no showing that he
suffered from complete deprivation of intelligence. On
So far, under our jurisdiction, there has been no case the contrary, the medical professionals presented
that lays down a definite test or criterion for insanity. during the trial conceded that he had been treated only
However, We can apply as test or criterion the to control his mental condition.
definition of insanity under Section 1039 of the Revised
Administrative Code, which states that insanity is "a There was also no showing that the accused-appellant's
manifestation in language or conduct, of disease or actions manifested his insanity immediately after the
defect of the brain, or a more or less permanently hacking incidents.1âwphi1 His own sister, Araceli Haloc-
diseased or disordered condition of the mentality, Ayo, declared that he had recognized her and had
functional or organic, and characterized by perversion, surrendered the bolo to her after his deadly assault.
inhibition, or by disordered function of the sensory or of Clearly, he had not been totally deprived of the capacity
the intellective faculties, or by impaired or disordered of cognition.
volition." Insanity as defined above is evinced by a
deranged and perverted condition of the mental The accused-appellant was subjected to medical tests
faculties which is manifested in language or conduct. An after the hacking incidents. According to Dr. Imelda
insane person has no full and clear understanding of the Escuadra, the psychiatrist of the Don Susano Memorial
nature and consequence of his act. 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 (3) The accused-appellant shall pay interest at the rate
been psychotic. Nonetheless, even if we were to deduce of 6% per annum on all the amounts herein granted as
from her testimony that he had been suffering some civil liabilities reckoned from the finality of this decision
form of psychosis, there was still no testimony to the until full settlement, plus the costs of suit.
effect that such psychosis had totally deprived him of
intelligence or reason. SO ORDERED.

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 ₱75,000.00, and
exemplary damages of ₱75,000.00 are granted in
addition, the same to be paid to the heirs of the late
Arnel. In Criminal Case No. 2780, the sums of
₱25,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱25,000.00 as moral
damages, and ₱25,000.00 as exemplary damages are
granted to Allan. In both cases, all the amounts shall
earn interest of 6% per annum reckoned from the
finality 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:

(l) In Criminal Case No. 2781, the accused-appellant

shall pay to the heirs of the late Arnel de la Cruz civil
indemnity of ₱75,000.00, moral damages of ₱75,000.00
and exemplary damages of ₱75,000.00;

(2) In Criminal Case No. 2780, the accused-appellant

shall pay to Allan de la Cruz ₱25,000.00 as civil
indemnity, ₱25,000.00 as moral damages and
₱25,000.00 as exemplary damages; and
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. stab several times Bernardo Marzan with a bladed
CARPIO MARZAN Y LUTAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT weapon hitting him on the vital parts of his body, with
DEL CASTILLO, J.: the accused having performed all the acts or execution
which would [produce] the crime of Murder but did not
On appeal is the March 5, 2012 Decision[1] of the Court produce it by reason independent of his will.
of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04451 affirming
with modification the April 8, 2010 consolidated Contrary to law.[5]
Decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Camiling,
Tarlac, Branch 68 convicting herein accused-appellant
Carpio Marzan y Lutan (accused-appellant) of the crime When arraigned, accused-appellant entered a plea of
of murder in Criminal Case No. 04-36 and frustrated not guilty.
homicide in Criminal Case No. 04-37.
Version of the Prosecution
At the outset, it must be stated that accused-appellant
does not deny that he stabbed his brothers Apolonio[3] To prove accused-appellant's guilt, the prosecution
Marzan (Apolonio) and Bernardo Marzan (Bernardo) presented Bernardo, Erlinda Cabiltes (Erlinda), Lolita
with a bolo on May 22, 2003 at Camiling, Province of Rombaoa (Lolita), and Dr. Valentin Theodore Lumibao
Tarlac. Nonetheless, accused-appellant interposes the (Dr. Lumibao). Their testimonies can be summarized as
defense of insanity. follows:

Factual Antecedents On May 22, 2003, at around 1:30 p.m., Erlinda saw
accused-appellant enter the house of her bedridden
Accused-appellant was charged in two separate father, Apolonio, while uttering "agda kalaban ko" (I
Informations for murder and frustrated murder the have an enemy). Not long after, Erlinda heard her father
accusatory portions of which read: screaming "apay Aping?" (why Aping?) and "uston
Aping!" (enough Aping) Thereafter, Erlinda saw
Criminal Case No. 04-36 accused-appellant emerge from her father's house
wearing a blood-stained shirt and holding a bladed
instrument dripping with blood. Erlinda ran to the
That on or about [the] 22nd day of May, 2003 at around barangay captain's house to ask for help.
1:30 o'clock in the afternoon at Bonifacio St., Poblacion
1, Municipality of Camiling, Province of Tarlac, and Lolita also saw accused-appellant come out from
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said Apolonio's house holding a blood-stained weapon. Out
accused with treachery and evident [premeditation,] did of fear, however, Lolita hid herself in the comfort room.
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously with
the use of a bladed weapon, stab to death of [sic] Bernardo tried to placate accused-appellant but the
Apolonio Marzan. latter furiously said, "you are also one of them" and
stabbed Bernardo in the stomach.
Contrary to law.[4]
Dr. Lumibao conducted an autopsy of Apolonio's body.
Criminal Case No. 04-37 In an Autopsy Report,[6] Dr. Lumibao declared that the
cause of death was hypovolemic shock secondary to
massive internal bleeding due to multiple penetrating
That on or about [the] 22nd day of May, 2003 at around stab wounds.
1:30 o'clock in the afternoon [in] Municipality of
Camiling, Province of Tarlac, Philippines, and within the Version of the Accused-Appellant
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused,
with intent to kill, treachery and evident premeditation, The defense claimed that accused-appellant was insane
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously at the time of the incident. To prove accused-
appellant's insanity, the defense presented his wife As regards the private complainant [Bernardo], the
Isabel Marzan (Isabel). Isabel testified that her husband [accused-appellant] is ordered to pay him the amount
had behavioral problems and suffering from a mental of P20,000.00 as temperate damages and the amount
condition. She said that her husband would often of P10,000.00 as moral damages.
appear to be nervous and tulala. As regards the
stabbing incident, Isabel recounted that, on that fateful SO ORDERED.[7]
day, she saw her husband going back and forth
mumb1ing something. She, together with her mother-
in-law and brother-in-law Eduardo Marzan, tried to Ruling of the Court of Appeals
calm accused-appellant but the latter suddenly ran
towards Apolonio's house while holding a bolo and The CA sustained the RTC in finding accused-appellant
uttering the words, "kesa ako ang maunahan nila, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of murder
unahan ko na sila". According to Isabel, accused- and frustrated homicide. Nevertheless, the CA held that
appellant, after stabbing his brothers Apolonio and the RTC failed to consider the mitigating circumstance
Bernardo, just sat down and remained tulala until the of voluntary surrender. Thus, in the herein assailed
police arrived and handcuffed him. Decision,[8] the CA modified the RTC Decision, viz.:

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed
Decision dated April 8, 2010 of the Regional Trial Court
The RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond (RTC) of Camiling, Tarlac, Branch 68 in Criminal Case No.
reasonable doubt of the crime of murder with respect 04-36 is AFFIRMED and Criminal Case No. 04-37 is
to the killing of Apolonio. However, as to the stabbing of AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION as to the penalty
Bernardo, the RTC held that accused-appellant was imposed in that accused-appellant is hereby sentenced
guilty of frustrated homicide as the attack, albeit to suffer the indeterminate penalty of [four] 4 years,
without warning, was not deliberate. The dispositive [two] 2 months and [one] 1 day of Prision Correccional
portion of the RTC Decision reads: as minimum to eight (8) years or Prision Mayor as
maximum. The rest of the appealed judgment STANDS.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, [accused-appellant]
is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense SO ORDERED.[9]
of Murder (Criminal Case No. 04-36) and hereby
sentences him to a penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, there
being no attendant mitigating nor aggravating Hence, this appeal.
circumstances.
The Court required[10] both parties to file their
In Criminal Case No. 04-37 for Frustrated Murder respective supplementary briefs, but they merely opted
however, [accused-appellant] is only found guilty to adopt their briefs before the CA.
beyond reasonable doubt of the lesser offense of
Frustrated Homicide and hereby sentences him to an Issues
indeterminate prison term of five [5] years of prision
correccional as minimum to eight (8) years and one (1)
day of prision mayor as maximum, there being no In his Brief,[11] accused-appellant assigns the following
attendant mitigating nor aggravating circumstances. errors:

[Accused-appellant) is likewise ordered to pay the heirs I

of Apolonio Marzan the amount of P75,000.00 as moral THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN DISREGARDING
damages, the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT'S PLEA OF INSANITY.
the amount of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages and
the amount of P50,000.00 as temperate damages. II
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN TAKING INTO The testimony of the defense's lone witness, Isabel,
ACCOUNT THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF taken during the hearing before the RTC on September
TREACHERY. 3, 2009 is enlightening:

III. ATTY. ABELLERA [defense counsel]

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FAILING TO Q
APPRECIATE THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF And for how long did your husband stay inside the
VOLUNTARY SURRENDER.[12] house of your brother-in-law at that time?
A
Only for a while, sir, and then he came out
Ruling
The appeal is unmeritorious. Q
The Court upholds the ruling of the RTC, which was When he came out, what did your husband do at that
affirmed by the CA, that accused-appellant was not time?
completely deprived of intelligence immediately prior to A
or at the time of the commission of the crime and that He came out as if nothing happened. sir, and when one
treachery was present. It is settled that factual findings of my brothers-in-law approached to help. he slabbed
of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the him.
appellate court, are entitled to great respect and
generally should not be disturbed on appeal unless Q
certain substantial facts were overlooked which, if And who is that second brother-in-law who was stabbed
considered, may affect the outcome of the case. After a by your husband?
careful review of the records, the Court finds no cogent A
reason to overturn the findings of fact made by both the [Bernardo], sir.
RTC and the CA that led to their uniform conclusion that
accused-appellant was guilty of murder and frustrated Q
homicide. And after hitting [Bernardo], what happened next?
A
In rejecting the accused-appellant's argument that he [Bernardo] ran away and my mother-in-law ran to the
should be declared criminally exempt from the murder house of Apolonio and when she embraced my
charge, considering that he was suffering from husband, she fell down on the ground, sir.
psychosis when he stabbed his brothers, the RTC
correctly held that: Q
When your mother-in-law fell down on the ground,
Even assuming that the testimony of the wife of the what happened to [accused-appellant]
accused is true, [accused-appellant]'s abnormal A
behavior immediately prior [to] the stabbing incident He helped his mother get up and let her sit in front of
and at the time of the incident while suggestive of an the house, sir.[14]
aberrant behavior[,] can not be equated with a total
deprivation of will or an absence of the power to
discern. On the contrary, accused was even sane Moreover, Isabel herself testified that her husband had
enough to help his mother stand up after falling on the worked as a tricycle driver and possessed the necessary
ground and seated her in front of a house and surrender license therefor, viz.:
himself and his bolo to the responding policemen. x x
x[13] PROS. GUARDIANO [prosecution upon cross
examination]

Q
And as you said, x x x your husband [worked as] a reason or there is a complete absence of the power to
tricycle driver discern or a total deprivation of the will. Mere
A abnormality of the mental faculties will not exclude
Yes, sir. imputability. x x x

Q xxxx
So he possessed a license, am I correct?
A Clearly, schizophrenia does not fall within the stringent
Yes, sir. standard contemplated by law as an exempting
circumstance. In fact, even accused-appellant's
Q psychological report supports this conclusion. The
And am I correct that he was never involved in any salient portion of which provides:
accident?
A ASSESSMENT AND REMARKS:
Yes, sir.
Based on the history, mental status examinations,
Q observations and psychological test, the patient was
And he was never involved with any quarrel with found to be suffering from psychosis classified as
anybody? Schizophrenia. This mental disorder is characterized by
A the presence of delusions, hallucinations,
Yes, sir.[15] disorganized/irrelevant speech, disorganized/bizarre
behavior and disturbance in [e]ffect. Likewise, the
Like the RTC, the CA found the defense of insanity as patient's impulse control, frustration tolerance and
unavailing in this case, viz.: judgment are affected. In addition, there is a significant
impairment in functioning in areas of work, social
In questioning the propriety of the [RTC Decision], relations and self-care. This psychiatric disorder runs a
accused-appellant relied heavily on the findings of Dr. chronic course marked by periods of remissions and
Roxas of the NCMH that he was suffering from exacerbations.
psychosis classified as schizophrenia. x x x
The foregoing findings evidently show that accused-
We are not convinced. It is settled that the moral and appellant's alleged sickness is merely temporary and
legal presumption is always in favor of soundness of occurs only intermittently. x x x[16]
mind; that freedom and intelligence constitute the
normal condition of a person. Otherwise stated, the law
presumes all acts to be voluntary, and that it is As regards the presence of treachery, the RTC
improper to presume that acts were done pronounced that, at the time of the attack, the now
unconsciously. Therefore, whoever invokes insanity as a deceased Apolonio was lying in bed, recuperating from
defense has the burden of proving its existence. In illness, unprepared and hapless. Unquestionably,
short, to be entitled to this exempting circumstance Apolonio had no opportunity nor the strength to resist
under Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code, the defense the attack coming from accused-appellant and defend
must prove that the accused was deprived of himself.
intelligence immediately prior [to] or at the time of the
commission of the crime. Jurisprudence tells us that the assessment of the
credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter
A careful scrutiny of the applicable law and best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique
jurisprudential rule on the matter reveals that for opportunity to observe the witnesses first hand and
insanity to be appreciated in favor of the accused, there note their demeanor, conduct and attitude while under
must be complete deprivation of intelligence in examination. Such rule is binding and conclusive upon
committing the act, that is, the accused is deprived of
this Court especially when affirmed by the appellate the police force responded and handcuffed him. In any
court, as in this case. case, as the Court ruled in People v. Lota,[18] "the
consideration of any mitigating circumstance in
According to Article 14, paragraph 16 of the Revised [accused-appellant's] favor would be superfluous
Penal Code (RPC), "[t]here is treachery when the because, although the imposable penalty under Article
offender commits any of the crimes against person, 248 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion perpetua to
employing means, methods, or forms in the execution death, the prohibition to impose the death penalty
thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346 rendered reclusion
execution, without risk to himself arising from the perpetua as the only penalty for murder, which penalty,
defense which the offended party might make." Thus, being indivisible, could not be graduated in
two conditions must necessarily occur before treachery consideration of any modifying circumstances." In fine,
or alevosia may be properly appreciated, namely: "(1) there being no modifying circumstance, the proper
the employment of means, methods, or manner of penalty for the crime of murder is reclusion perpetua.
execution that would insure the offender's safety from
any retaliatory act on the part of the offended party, As regards the monetary awards, the RTC and the CA
who has, thus, no opportunity for self-defense or properly awarded P75,000.00 as moral damages,
retaliation; [and] (2) deliberate or conscious choice of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as
means, methods, or manner of execution.[17] The temperate damages. The amount awarded as
essence therefore of treachery is the suddenness and exemplary damages must, however, be increased from
unexpectedness of the attack on an unsuspecting victim P25,000.00 to P75,000.00.[19]
thereby depriving the latter of any chance to defend
himself and thereby ensuring its commission without Both the RTC and the CA also properly found accused-
risk to the aggressor. appellant guilty of the crime of frustrated homicide for
the stabbing of Bernardo. The following elements of
Here, as correctly found by the RTC and the CA, both frustrated homicide were proved during trial: (1) the
requisites were present. The sudden attack on the accused intended to kill Bernardo as manifested by his
victim who was then at home, bedridden, recuperating use of a deadly weapon in his assault; (2) the victim
from sickness, completely unaware of any danger and sustained fatal or mortal wound/s but did not die
unable to defend himself constituted treachery because because of timely medical assistance; and (3) none of
the accused-appellant was thereby ensured that the the qualifying circumstances for murder under Article
victim would not be in any position to ward off or evade 248 of the RPC exist. Records show that Bernardo was
his blows, or strike back at him. Evidently, the attack only trying to placate accused-appellant but was
was executed in a manner that the victim was rendered immediately stabbed. Bernardo sustained a stab wound
defenseless and unable to retaliate. There is thus no in his stomach caused by a sharp pointed object.
doubt that treachery attended the killing. Hence, the Accused-appellant even uttered the words "you are also
Court is in accord with the RTC and the CA in giving one of them" before stabbing Bernard. The nature,
credence to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses circumstances and location of the wound sustained by
and finding that the prosecution has aptly discharged its Bernardo demonstrated accused-appellant's intent to
burden of proving, with moral certainty, the guilt of kill. He would have succumbed to death due to the said
accused-appellant for the crime of murder. injury if he were not brought to the hospital
immediately thereafter.
Nevertheless, contrary to the ruling of the CA, voluntary
surrender should not be appreciated. In the case at bar, Under Article 249 of the RPC, the penalty for homicide
there was no showing that accused-appellant is reclusion temporal. For frustrated homicide, the
unconditionally and voluntarily surrendered himself to imposable penalty is one degree lower than that
the authorities either because he acknowledged his imposed in homicide[20] or prision mayor. There being
guilt or because he wished to save them the trouble and no modifying circumstance, the maximum imposable
expense in looking for and capturing him. Accused- penalty is within the range of prision mayor in its
appellant was just nonchalantly sitting at the curb when medium period or eight (8) years and one (1) day to ten
(10) years. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
the minimum term of the penalty is prision correccional
in any of its periods. Thus, as modified, accused-
appellant is hereby sentenced to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of two (2) years, four (4) months
and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to
eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as
maximum.

As regards the award of damages, the same must

likewise be modified. Pursuant to prevailing
jurisprudence,[21] Bernardo is entitled to moral
damages and civil indemnity in the amount of
P30,000.00 each. However, the award of temperate
damages in the amount of P20,000.00 is deleted.

Finally, all monetary awards shall earn interest at the

rate of 6% per annum from date of finality of this
Decision until full payment.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision of

the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04451
finding accused-appellant Carpio Marzan y Lutan
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of murder in Criminal
Case No. 04-36 and frustrated homicide in Criminal Case
No. 04-37 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS
that, in Criminal Case No. 04-36, the amount of
exemplary damages is increased to P75,000.00, while in
Criminal Case No. 04-37, accused-appellant is sentenced
to suffer the indeterminate penalty of two (2) years,
four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional,
as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of
prision mayor, as maximum and to pay civil indemnity
and moral damages each in the amount of P30,000.00.
The award of temperate damages is deleted. Finally, all
damages awarded shall earn interest at the rate of six
(6%) percent per annum from date of finality of this
Decision until full payment.

SO ORDERED.