Case Summary (G.R. No. 19605)
Factual Background
The accused, Donato Bascos, was charged with the murder of Victoriano Romero. The prosecution's proof established that Bascos killed Romero while Romero was sleeping. At arraignment the accused pleaded not guilty and interposed the defense of insanity. The record indicated no apparent motive for the killing.
Trial Court Proceedings
The Court of First Instance of Pangasinan found the accused guilty of homicide and sentenced him to seventeen years, four months, and one day of reclusion temporal, imposed the accessory penalties, directed indemnity of P1,000 to the heirs of Victoriano Romero, and assessed costs. The trial court, however, suspended execution of the sentence under Article 100, Penal Code, and ordered the accused placed in a hospital for the insane until his mental condition should be determined.
Issues Presented on Appeal
The accused assigned errors contending that the trial court erred in applying Article 100, Penal Code, rather than Article 8, paragraph 1, Penal Code, and in failing to enter an acquittal under the statutory exemption for lunatics and imbeciles. The Attorney-General adopted substantially the same position as counsel for the appellant.
The Parties' Contentions
The appellant contended that his insanity at the time of the killing rendered him exempt from criminal responsibility under Article 8, paragraph 1, Penal Code, so that the proper disposition was acquittal coupled with commitment to an asylum. The prosecution maintained the conviction but agreed that the case should be governed by Article 8 rather than Article 100.
Evidence and Trial Findings Relevant to Insanity
Testimony by the accused's wife and cousin indicated that Bascos had been "more or less continuously out of his mind for many years." By order of the trial judge, Doctor Gonzalo Montemayor, acting as assistant district health officer, examined the accused. Doctor Montemayor reported that the accused was a "violent maniac" and that this mental state had persisted for many years, posing danger to himself and the community. The physician opined that the accused was probably insane at the time of the killing.
Legal Context and Burden of Proof
The Court reviewed the longstanding dispute as to the burden of proof when insanity is pleaded. It reiterated two universally accepted propositions: the prosecution must prove the defendant committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and the law presumes every person to be sane. The Court noted conflicting authorities as to how much evidence sufficed to overcome the presumption of sanity and to satisfy the prosecution's burden. It observed prior decisions of the Court holding that the defendant bears the burden of establishing mental incapacity, citing U. S. vs. Martinez (1916), 34 Phil. 305, and U. S. vs. Hontiveros Carmona (1910), 18 Phil. 62. The Court declined further doctrinal elaboration and elected to resolve the appeal on the factual record.
Court's Analysis and Reasoning
Applying the evidence to the statutory exemption, the Court examined the language of Article 8, paragraph 1, Penal Code, which provided that "An imbecile or lunatic, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval," is exempt from criminal liability, and that when such a person committed a grave felony the court shall order confinement in an asylum. The Court found the testimonial and medical evidence convincing. It emphasized the long continuance of the accused's unsoundness, the medical officer's formal declaration that the accused was a violent maniac whose condition had continued through many years, and the absence of motive for the killing. On those facts the Court concluded that t
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 19605)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS prosecuted the case below.
- DONATO BASCOS was the accused, arraigned, and pleaded not guilty.
- The prosecution filed an information in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan charging the accused with murder.
- The accused appealed the conviction to the Supreme Court after the trial court rendered judgment.
Key Factual Allegations
- Victoriano Romero was the victim who was killed while sleeping.
- Eyewitness and forensic proof at trial established that the accused inflicted the fatal act.
- The record contained testimony that the accused had been mentally disturbed for many years.
- The accused's wife and cousin testified that the accused had been "more or less continuously out of his mind" for many years.
- Doctor Gonzalo Montemayor examined the accused and found him to be a violent maniac and a danger to himself and the community.
- The physician expressed the opinion that the accused was probably insane at the time of the killing.
- The prosecution produced no motive for the killing, which the Court found consistent with insanity.
Procedural History
- The trial court found the accused guilty of homicide and imposed a sentence of seventeen years, four months, and one day of reclusion temporal with accessory penalties.
- The trial court ordered indemnity of P1,000 to the heirs and imposed court costs.
- The trial court suspended execution of the sentence under article 100 of the Penal Code and ordered the accused placed in a hospital for the insane pending determination of his mental condition.
- The accused assigned errors challenging the application of article 100 and urging application of article 8 of the Penal Code.
- The Attorney-General agreed with the accused's contention that article 8, paragraph 1, of the Penal Code should have applied.
Issues Presented
- Whether the plea of insanity was sustainable under article 8, paragraph 1, of the Penal Code.
- Whether the trial court erred in applying article 100 of the Penal Code instead of article 8.
- What party bore the burden of proof as to the accused's mental capacity at the time of the offense.
Contentions of the Parties
- The appellant contended that the accused was exempt from criminal liability under article 8, paragraph 1, of the Penal Code because he was a lunatic at the time of the act.
- The trial court contended that article 100 of the Penal Code applied because it ordered confinement after