Title
People vs. Fer Calines y Magastino
Case
G.R. No. 260944
Decision Date
Apr 3, 2024
Calines was found guilty of murder and attempted homicide, with the court affirming the conviction amidst insanity claims and penality modifications for damages.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 30460)

Charges and Court Proceedings

Calines was charged with two counts: Criminal Case No. 16-CR-11674 (frustrated homicide) and Criminal Case No. 17-CR-11741 (murder). It was alleged that Calines attempted to kill Nida Calasiao Sabado and succeeded in killing her three-year-old son, Sky, through violent attacks with a piece of wood. During the arraignment, there was an intention to plead guilty, but this was later rescinded and a trial ensued.

Prosecution's Evidence

The prosecution presented several witnesses to establish the guilt of Calines, concentrating on the testimonies of Nida, who recounted the brutal assault, and Dr. Paolo Angelo R. Igama, who provided medical documentation regarding Sky's death and Nida's injuries. The evidence indicated that Sky died from severe traumatic brain injury due to the assault, while Nida suffered significant injuries but did not incur fatal wounds.

Defense's Argument

The defense invoked insanity as a ground for exculpation, asserting that Calines suffered from paranoid schizophrenia, which affected his mental state during the commission of the crimes. Psychiatrists testified regarding his condition but the defense faced challenges in proving that Calines was insane at the time of the crime. Historical medical records were introduced, but the temporal disconnect from the crime to the present diagnosis raised questions about their relevance.

RTC Ruling

In a consolidated judgment dated November 15, 2019, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Calines guilty beyond reasonable doubt of both charges. He was sentenced to reclusion perpetua for murder and given a penalty of imprisonment from four years to eight years for frustrated homicide. The RTC rejected the insanity defense for lacking sufficient evidence, citing that no corroborating witnesses confirmed Calines's impaired state during the commission of offenses.

CA Ruling

The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's ruling, modifying the guilty verdict for frustrated homicide to attempted homicide but largely agreeing on the conviction for murder. The CA held that the psychiatric evaluation was inadequate to substantiate a claim of insanity, especially considering Calines’s behaviors following the incident, which suggested awareness of the wrongfulness of his actions.

Legal Principles Applied

The Court reaffirmed the principles under Articles 248 and 249 of the Revised Penal Code concerning murder and attempted homicide, emphasizing that the elements were met, including intent to kill and the presence of qualifying circumstances such as treachery and the abuse of superior strength. The Court stipulated that the defense of insanity must be deeply substantiated by clear evidence demonstrating the accused's mental state at the time of the crime.

Finding on Insanity Defense

Ultimately, the Court found the defense of insanity unsubstantiated, highlighting that evidence presented failed to prove that Calines was insane when he committed the acts in question. The Court required medical proof of insanity existing at the time of the offense under Article 12 of the R

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.