This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2016-01-13 |
JARDELEZA, J. |
||||
| Aggrieved, oppositors Isagani, Perfecto, Jr., Pedrito, Vito and Alberto appealed the trial court's Decision to the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 25605. In a Decision[18] dated January 31, 1992, the CA, however, affirmed the trial court's findings. The CA's Decision in CA GR. CV No. 25605 was not appealed and became final and executory on February 26, 1992.[19] TCT No. 5033-R was issued that same year, reflecting Gepuela's ownership of the 36/72 pro indiviso share previously owned by Basilia.[20] | |||||
|
2016-01-13 |
JARDELEZA, J. |
||||
| The proceedings covering Basilia's estate were, per motion of her heirs, ordered closed on February 15, 1996.[21] The record also shows that Gepuela filed a case, docketed as SCA No. 302 with Branch 159 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, for the partition of the property covered by TCT No. 5033-R.[22] The lower court rendered a decision ordering the partition of the property. TCT No. 5033-R was cancelled and several titles were issued covering the respective shares of Gepuela, Isagani, Perfecto and Pedrito, and Vito Cruz in the property.[23] | |||||
|
2004-05-27 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The moral and legal presumption is that one acts with free will and intelligence, and that a felonious or criminal act has been done with deliberate intent, that is, with freedom and intelligence.[15] Whoever, therefore, invokes insanity as a defense has the burden of proving its existence. | |||||
|
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 | |||||
|
2000-05-12 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| In the Philippines, the courts have established a more stringent criterion for insanity to be exempting as it is required that there must be a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act, i.e., the accused is deprived of reason; he acted without the least discernment because there is a complete absence of the power to discern, or that there is a total deprivation of the will. Mere abnormality of the mental faculties will not exclude imputability.[30] | |||||