Case Digest (G.R. No. 260944)
Facts:
The People of the Philippines charged Fernan Calines y Magastino with frustrated homicide (Crim. Case No. 16-CR-11674) and murder (Crim. Case No. 17-CR-11741) for attacks on Nida and her three-year-old son Sky on December 19, 2016 at Sitio Pasanan, Tublay, Benguet. The Regional Trial Court convicted Calines on November 15, 2019; the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification on June 7, 2021, prompting this appeal.
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in upholding Calines’s conviction for murder?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in upholding Calines’s conviction for attempted homicide?
- Was the defense of insanity proven to exempt Calines from criminal liability?
Ruling:
The Appeal was dismissed and the CA Decision was affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed Calines’s conviction for murder and the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and affirmed his conviction for attempted homicide with the indeterminate penalty imposed by the CA, together with the awarded damages and 6% legal interest.
The Court also rejected the defense of insanity and held that Calines was criminally liable.
Ratio:
Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the killing of a child of tender years is ipso facto attended by treachery, and abuse of superior strength is absorbed by treachery, justifying the murder conviction for Sky. For Nida, the prosecution failed to prove that her wounds were fatal absent medical testimony or certificate, so doubts as to the character of the wound were resolved for the accused, supporting attempted homicide under Article 6. The claimed insanity exemption under Article 12 failed the three-way test from People v. Pana because (a) the psychiatric report dated 2018 did not establish insanity at the time of the offenses in 2016, (b) the 2014 diagnosis was hearsay before the trial court, and (c) Calines’s conduct (including fleeing) showed awareness of wrongfulness.
Doctrine:
- Treachery attends the killing of a child of tender years ipso facto, and it absorbs abuse of superior strength under Article 248.
- Where the fatality of a wound is doubtful and unsupported by medical proof, such doubt is resolved in favor of the accused, reducing liability to attempted homicide under Article 6.
- The defense of insanity must satisfy the three-way test of People v. Pana: presence at the time of the offense, medical proof, and inability to appreciate wrongfulness.
- Prior confinement or past psychiatric diagnosis is not dispositive; contemporaneous, medically substantiated evidence is required to establish legal insanity.