Title
People vs. Bascos
Case
G.R. No. 19605
Decision Date
Dec 19, 1922
Donato Bascos, acquitted of homicide due to proven insanity at the time of the crime, was ordered confined in a mental institution under Article 8 of the Penal Code.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 127759-60)

Petitioner

The People of the Philippine Islands

Respondent

Donato Bascos

Key Dates

  • Trial court proceedings: prior to December 1922
  • Supreme Court decision: December 19, 1922

Applicable Law

  • Philippine Organic Act of 1902 (fundamental law in force)
  • Spanish Penal Code as applied in the Philippine Islands
    • Article 8(1): immunity from criminal liability for “an imbecile or lunatic, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval,” with compulsory confinement for grave felonies
    • Article 100: post-conviction insanity resulting in possible confinement

Procedural History

  1. Information filed in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan charging Bascos with murder.
  2. Bascos pleads not guilty and interposes insanity defense.
  3. Trial court finds him guilty of homicide, imposes 17 years, 4 months, 1 day of reclusion temporal, orders indemnity of ₱1,000, and suspends execution under Article 100 with confinement in a mental hospital.
  4. Bascos appeals, assigning as error the application of Article 100 instead of Article 8(1).

Facts

  • Bascos killed Romero while Romero was asleep.
  • No discernible motive for the killing.
  • Lay testimony (wife and cousin) attests to Bascos’s prolonged “out of his mind” condition.
  • Dr. Montemayor’s examination and community inquiry conclude Bascos is a “violent maniac” who had been insane for years and “probably insane” at the time of the killing.

Issue

Whether the accused’s insanity at the time of the homicide exempts him from criminal liability under Article 8(1), making the trial court’s application of Article 100 improper.

Ruling

The Supreme Court holds that Bascos was a lunatic at the moment he committed the grave felony and therefore exempt from criminal liability under Article 8(1), rendering Article 100 inapplicable.

Reasoning

  • The law presumes every person to be sane; the burden of proof on insanity rests on the accused once the prosecution establishes the act.
  • Lay and expert evidence sufficiently rebutted the presumption of sanity and demonstrated Bascos’s mental incapacity at the time of the offense.
  • Article 100 addresses insanity developed after final judgment; it does not apply where the accused was insane when the crime was committed.
  • Legislative policy distinguishes bet

    ...continue reading

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