This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-11-21 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In the case of People vs. Rafanan, Jr., this Court has held that the defense of insanity may be accepted as an exempting circumstance on the test of cognition, which requires a complete deprivation of intelligence, not only of the will, in committing the criminal act. Thus, when the accused in said case, threatened the victim with death in case she reported her ravishment indicated that he was aware of the reprehensible moral depravity of that assault and that he was not deprived of intelligence.[16] | |||||
|
2004-03-17 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| to discern or a total deprivation of the will. In People v. Rafanan, Jr.,[41] we analyzed the Formigones standard into two distinguishable tests: (a) the test of cognition whether there was a "complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the criminal act" and (b) the test of | |||||