This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-10-05 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant, in his appeal, did not insist on the allegation in the trial court that he was suffering from mental retardation. Nevertheless, we agree with the finding of the trial court that there was no proof that the mental condition accused-appellant allegedly exhibited when he was examined by Yolanda Palma was already present at the time of the rape incidents. Anyone who pleads the exempting circumstance of insanity bears the burden of proving it with clear and convincing evidence.[32] Besides, this Court observes that neither the acts of the accused-appellant proven before the court, nor his answers in his testimony, show a complete deprivation of intelligence or free will. Insanity presupposes that the accused was completely deprived of reason or discernment and freedom of will at the time of the commission of the crime.[33] Only when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence at the time of the commission of the crime should the exempting circumstance of insanity be considered.[34] | |||||
|
2004-02-03 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| The law presumes everyone to be sane.[50] The accused who pleads the exempting circumstance of insanity incurs the burden of proving it.[51] To be adjudged insane under Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code, he or she must have been completely deprived of reason or discernment and freedom of the will at the time the crime was committed.[52] For such deprivation to be ascertained, it is but proper to receive evidence during a reasonable period before or after the commission of the crime, for the mind its thoughts, motives and emotions may be fathomed only by examining whether the external acts conform with those of people of sound minds.[53] | |||||
|
2002-05-29 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Insanity presupposes that the accused was completely deprived of reason or discernment and freedom of will at the time of the commission of the crime.[12] A defendant in a criminal case who relies on the defense of mental incapacity has the burden of establishing the fact of insanity at the very moment when the crime was committed.[13] Only when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence at the time of the commission of the crime should the exempting circumstance of insanity be considered.[14] | |||||