This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2001-07-19 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In the determination of culpability of every criminal actor, voluntariness is an essential element. Without this, the imputation of criminal responsibility and the imposition of the corresponding penalty cannot be legally sanctioned. The human mind is an entity, and understanding it is not purely an intellectual process but depends to a large degree upon emotional and psychological appreciation. A man's acts is presumed voluntary,[11] for every person is presumed to be of sound mind.[12] It is based on the moral and legal presumption that freedom and intelligence constitutes the normal condition of a person.[13] The presumption, however, may be overthrown by factors such as insanity, which exempts a person from criminal liability.[14] Insanity exists when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act. Mere abnormality of the mental faculties will not exclude imputability.[15] The accused must be so insane as to be incapable of entertaining a criminal intent.[16] He must be deprived of reason and act without least discernment because there is a complete absence of the power to discern or a total deprivation of freedom of the will.[17] In determining a defendant's competency to stand trial, the test is whether he has the capacity to comprehend his position, to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him, to conduct his defense in a rational manner, and to cooperate, communicate with, and assist his counsel to the end that any available defense may be interposed.[18] | |||||
|
2000-10-25 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| insanity bears the burden of proving that he was completely deprived of reason when he committed the crime charged.[10] Mere abnormality of his mental faculties does not exclude imputability.[11] It is equally well-settled that proof of the accused-appellant's insanity must relate to the time preceding or coetaneous with the commission of the offense with which he is charged; the mental illness that could diminish his ill power should relate to the time immediately preceding or during the commission of the crime.[12] We reject accused-appellant's insistence that the trial court committed reversible error in denying his request to be subjected to psychiatric examination. To begin with, the defense of insanity was not raised at the earliest opportunity; it was raised only after the | |||||
|
2000-06-19 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| In the eyes of the law, insanity exists when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act. Mere abnormality of the mental faculties will not exclude imputability.[48] The accused must be "so insane as to be incapable of entertaining a criminal intent."[49] He must be deprived of reason and act without the least discernment because there is a complete absence of the power to discern or a total deprivation of freedom of the will.[50] | |||||
|
2000-04-27 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Examining the evidence on record, we are convinced that accused-appellant was sane at the time he perpetrated the killings. The following circumstances clearly and unmistakably negate a complete absence of intelligence on his part: (a) Immediately after he killed the victims he thought of surrendering to the PC Detachment in Olongapo City; (b) He showed remorse during his confinement at the Mental Hospital;[13] and, (c) He was able to give a Sworn Statement before the Prosecutor's Office in Olongapo City immediately after the commission of the crimes narrating his version of the incident.[14] These are hardly the acts of a person with a sick mind. In People v. Ambal[15] we held: "The fact that immediately after the incident (accused) thought of surrendering to the law-enforcement authorities is incontestable proof that he knew that what he had done was wrong and that he was going to be punished for it." Similarly, a feeling of remorse is inconsistent with insanity, as it is a clear indication that he was conscious of his acts, he acknowledged his guilt and was sorry for them. | |||||