Title
People vs. Bacolot y Idlisan
Case
G.R. No. 233193
Decision Date
Oct 10, 2018
Renato Bacolot, diagnosed with schizophrenia, hacked Rodolfo Jabayjabay to death during a drinking spree. Despite insanity claims, the Supreme Court convicted him of homicide, not murder, due to unproven treachery, modifying penalties and damages.
murder conviction
insanity defense
sufficient evidence
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 233193)

Factual Background

On June 12, 2008, an Information was filed charging Renato with murder for having attacked Rodolfo with a bladed weapon, allegedly with evident intent to kill, treachery, evident premeditation, and means to insure execution and afford impunity, resulting in Rodolfo’s death. At arraignment, Renato’s counsel manifested that he was suffering from a mental disorder and requested a psychiatric examination. The RTC granted the request and ordered assessment at the Eastern Visayas Regional Medical Center (EVRMC), Psychiatric Department, Tacloban City.

The EVRMC medical report, submitted by Dr. Lorelei Grace C. Genotiva (Dr. Genotiva), affirmed that Renato was mentally incompetent to stand for trial. Trial was suspended, and Renato was sent to the National Center for Mental Health (NCMH), Mandaluyong City, for further evaluation and treatment. On February 18, 2009, the RTC received a letter from Dr. Edison C. Galindez, Chief of the Forensic Psychiatry Section of the NCMH, stating that Renato had regained competency to stand trial and recommending discharge from the institution. Renato was arraigned on May 20, 2009, and he entered a plea of not guilty.

Prosecution’s Version

The prosecution relied primarily on the testimony of Arnulfo Jabayjabay, brother of the victim Rodolfo, together with expert testimony and testimony from Angeles Jabayjabay, Rodolfo’s mother.

Arnulfo testified that on May 14, 2008, during a drinking spree, Renato suddenly took a scythe (matabia) from Arnulfo’s waist and hacked Rodolfo three times, hitting Rodolfo on the neck, back, and fingers. Arnulfo stated that Rodolfo was singing with his face turned toward the television at the time of the attack. Arnulfo further testified that after hacking Rodolfo, Renato turned to Arnulfo and hacked him on the neck, head, and left shoulder. Arnulfo survived, while Rodolfo died.

Dr. Bella Profetana (Dr. Profetana) conducted the post-mortem examination and testified that Rodolfo’s cause of death was hypovolemic shock due to blood loss from hacking wounds. She identified four wounds: one on Rodolfo’s right neck, another at his back, an incised wound on his arm, and an incised wound on his right hand. She opined that the neck injury was fatal and that the neck wound might have been inflicted when Rodolfo was in a position lower than the assailant.

Angeles testified that she passed by the lifeless body of Rodolfo along the roadside in Brgy. Sta. Fe, Carigara, Leyte while she was on her way to attend to Arnulfo in the hospital. She informed barangay authorities, and through a text message, the matter was relayed to police authorities.

Defense’s Version: Insanity

Renato relied on the defense of insanity. He presented Dr. Genotiva as his lone witness. Dr. Genotiva testified that she had previously examined Renato in 2005, before his arrest, when Renato tried to burn himself and had suicidal tendencies. She diagnosed him then as having auditory hallucinations, a depressed mood with appropriate effect, and she described him as able to converse but not oriented to time and place, with poor memory recall and blank stares.

Dr. Genotiva again examined Renato after his arrest on August 15, 2008, September 12, 2008, and October 10, 2008. She testified that psychological tests led her to recommend against trial because Renato still had psychotic tendencies despite his calm behavior. She stated that Renato had poor memory recall regarding events related to the crime and that he did not know what he was doing at the time. She characterized his mental state as involving not only psychotic trends but a full-blown psychosis, and she opined that his schizophrenia had no chance of being completely healed.

Trial Court Proceedings

In its Decision dated September 22, 2014, the RTC convicted Renato of murder. The RTC gave credence to Arnulfo’s positive identification of Renato as the assailant. It treated the testimony of other witnesses and the documentary evidence as corroborative. It also noted that the defense did not deny that Renato killed Rodolfo, but it found that Renato failed to present evidence sufficient to support a plea of insanity.

The RTC therefore concluded that Renato was sane at the time he killed Rodolfo and was criminally liable. The RTC sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and awarded damages to the heirs of the victim, including civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages, and temperate damages, as stated in its dispositive portion.

Appellate Proceedings

On April 27, 2017, the CA affirmed the conviction and held that: first, the prosecution sufficiently proved the elements of murder; second, treachery attended the killing; and third, Renato’s insanity defense was not proven. The CA denied the appeal for lack of merit and modified damages by increasing the award of exemplary damages. It also provided that monetary awards would earn 6% per annum interest from the date of finality until full payment.

Issues Before the Supreme Court

Renato raised two principal issues: whether the CA erred in convicting him of murder despite proof of insanity; and whether the CA erred in convicting him of murder despite the prosecution’s failure to establish the qualifying circumstances, particularly treachery and evident premeditation.

The Court’s Ruling on Insanity

The Supreme Court held that the defense of insanity was not proven. It began with the doctrinal rule that insanity under Article 12 of the RPC functions as an exempting circumstance and that it is not readily available to an accused. The Court reiterated that presumption of sanity exists under Article 800 of the Civil Code, and the accused must prove insanity with clear and convincing evidence because insanity is an affirmative defense in the nature of confession and avoidance. It further emphasized that the accused’s proof must relate to the time immediately preceding or simultaneous with the commission of the offense.

Applying these principles, the Court found the defense wanting. Although Dr. Genotiva diagnosed Renato with schizophrenia and psychosis, the Court noted that the testimony did not show that Renato exhibited schizophrenia-related symptoms immediately before or simultaneous with the hacking. The Court relied on Dr. Genotiva’s own cross-examination, where she admitted that she could not say whether Renato suffered psychosis at the precise time of the crime because she was unable to examine him immediately at that moment.

The Court acknowledged the evidence of diagnosis in 2005 and later examination shortly after the incident. However, it held that abnormal mental conditions could be given weight only if there was proof of abnormal behavior immediately before or during the commission of the crime. It stressed that the inquiry into mental state must focus on the period immediately before or at the precise moment of doing the act; mental condition after the crucial period or during trial was deemed inconsequential for criminal liability.

The Court also found additional circumstances inconsistent with the insanity claim. It held that Renato’s asserted lack of recollection amounted to a general denial that did not necessarily prove loss of grip on reality. It further held that Renato’s voluntary surrender the following day belied the claim of insanity, indicating awareness of what he had committed and the ability to discern. Lastly, it reiterated that Dr. Genotiva’s testimony fixed the relevant mental conditions in 2005 and in August 15, 2008 (three months after the crime), but did not bridge the gap to the precise time of the offense.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court ruled that Renato failed to overthrow the presumption of sanity and therefore could not be exempted from criminal liability on the ground of insanity.

The Court’s Ruling on Treachery and the Proper Crime

While affirming Renato’s conviction in substance, the Supreme Court modified the offense from murder to homicide. It ruled that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not established.

Treachery exists when the offender employs means or methods that directly and specially ensure execution without risk from the defense the offended party might mount, and where such means or forms of execution are deliberately or consciously adopted by the offender. The Court stressed that treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack on an unsuspecting victim that deprives the victim of any chance to defend or retaliate. It held that it is error to presume treachery merely because the attack was sudden or because the prosecution asserted impossibility of defense; there must be a showing of conscious and deliberate adoption of the manner of execution.

The Court found circumstances negating treachery. First, the attack occurred during a drinking spree where Renato was already present with the victim. The Court found no deliberate seeking of the victim’s presence, since Renato and Rodolfo were together at the time of the hacking. Second, the Court found that Renato did not even use his own weapon; he merely took the scythe from Arnulfo who was seated beside him. The Court treated these as indicative of a sudden impulse rather than a planned execution.

In light of these factors, the Supreme Court concluded that treachery was not proven, and thus murder could not stand. With treachery removed, the crime became homicide, punishable under Article 249 of the RPC.

Penalty and Damages

The Supreme Court imposed the corresponding penalty for homicide. It noted that Renato’s voluntary surrender operated as a mitigating circumstance. Under Article 64(2) of the RPC, when only a mitig

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms