This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2010-06-29 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The aforementioned circumstances are not easily available to an accused as a successful defense. Insanity is the exception rather than the rule in the human condition.[19] While Art. 12(1) of the Revised Penal Code provides that an imbecile or insane person is exempt from criminal liability, unless that person has acted during a lucid interval, the presumption, under Art. 800 of the Civil Code, is that every human is sane. Anyone who pleads the exempting circumstance of insanity bears the burden of proving it[20] with clear and convincing evidence.[21] It is in the nature of confession and avoidance. An accused invoking insanity admits to have committed the crime but claims that he or she is not guilty because of insanity. The testimony or proof of an accused's insanity must, however, relate to the time immediately preceding or coetaneous with the commission of the offense with which he is charged.[22] We agree with the Solicitor General that the mental records Tibon wishes to support his defense with are inapplicable to the theory he espouses. The NCMH records of his mental health only pertain to his ability to stand trial and not to his mental state immediately before or during the commission of the crimes. | |||||
|
2009-07-03 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| While the defense, on appeal, raises a new ground - i.e., exemption from criminal liability under R.A. No. 9344 - that implies an admission of guilt, this consideration in no way swayed the conclusion we made above, as the defense is entitled to present all alternative defenses available to it, even inconsistent ones. We note, too, that the defense's claim of exemption from liability was made for the first time in its appeal to the CA. While this may initially imply an essential change of theory that is usually disallowed on appeal for reasons of fairness, [22] no essential change is really involved as the claim for exemption from liability is not incompatible with the evidence submitted below and with the lower courts' conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the crime charged. An exempting circumstance, by its nature, admits that criminal and civil liabilities exist, but the accused is freed from criminal liability; in other words, the accused committed a crime, but he cannot be held criminally liable therefor because of an exemption granted by law. In admitting this type of defense on appeal, we are not unmindful, too, that the appeal of a criminal case (even one made under Rule 45) opens the whole case for review, even on questions that the parties did not raise.[23] By mandate of the Constitution, no less, we are bound to look into every circumstance and resolve every doubt in favor of the accused.[24] It is with these considerations in mind and in obedience to the direct and more specific commands of R.A. No. 9344 on how the cases of children in conflict with the law should be handled that we rule in this Rule 45 petition. | |||||
|
2009-06-05 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| A change of Briones' defense from denial and alibi to self-defense or defense of a relative is effectively a change of theory of the case brought only during appeal. We cannot allow this move. Law and fairness to the adverse party demand that when a party adopts a particular theory and the case is tried and decided on the basis of that theory in the court below, neither party can change his or her theory on appeal.[22] While this rule is not absolute, no exceptional reasons in this case exist to justify a deviation.[23] | |||||
|
2006-06-27 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Time honored is the principle that an appeal in a criminal case opens the whole action for review on any question including those not raised by the parties.[16] After a careful and thorough review of the records, we are convinced that petitioner should be acquitted based on reasonable doubt. | |||||
|
2000-05-04 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, the penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death. Considering the absence of any other aggravating or modifying circumstance, the penalty imposable is reclusion perpetua, not death.[25] | |||||