This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2004-03-17 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| understanding it is not purely an intellectual process but is dependent to a large degree upon emotional and psychological appreciation. A man's act is presumed voluntary.[23] It is improper to assume the contrary, i.e. that acts were done unconsciously,[24] for the moral and legal presumption is that every person is presumed to be of sound mind,[25] or that freedom and intelligence constitute the normal condition of a person.[26] Thus, the presumption under Article 800 of the Civil Code is that everyone is sane. This presumption, however, may be overthrown by evidence of insanity, which under Article 12(1) of the Revised Penal Code exempts a person from criminal liability.[27] He who pleads the exempting circumstance of insanity bears the burden of proving it,[28] for insanity as a defense is in the nature of confession and avoidance.[29] An accused invoking insanity admits to have committed the crime but | |||||
|
2000-01-20 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| Neither are we persuaded by EDGARDO's plea of "temporary insanity." As the OSG aptly stated, "temporary insanity" is not recognized in this jurisdiction. Insanity, under Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code, connotes that the accused must have been deprived completely of reason and freedom of the will at the time of the commission of the crime,[9] or that he must have acted without the least discernment. Mere abnormality of the accused' mental faculties does not exclude imputability.[10] Moreover, EDGARDO was unable to substantiate his claim. The law presumes every man to be sane. If the accused interposes the defense of mental incapacity, the burden of establishing such fact rests upon him.[11] Insanity must be proved by clear and positive evidence.[12] Finally, EDGARDO did not raise this argument below, but only now, obviously as a delayed afterthought. | |||||