Case Summary (G.R. No. 166309-10)
Procedural History
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 76, San Mateo, Rizal convicted the accused of Murder (Criminal Case No. 7522) and Destructive Arson (Criminal Case No. 7523) and imposed reclusion perpetua for both offenses; the accused appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision. The Supreme Court reviewed the case on automatic review and affirmed with modifications.
Charged Offenses and Formal Allegations
Criminal Case No. 7522: Information charged Murder, alleging the killing (beheading) of Mario Balbao on or about January 1, 2004 in Rodriguez, Rizal, with attendant qualifying circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation and nighttime.
Criminal Case No. 7523: Information charged Destructive Arson for allegedly setting fire to and burning the victim’s house (also on January 1, 2004) to conceal or destroy evidence of the murder, with special aggravating circumstance of spite or hatred.
Facts Found by the Lower Courts (Undisputed)
Police and Bureau of Fire Protection personnel arrived at the scene after a report of a fire; they discovered a burned house and a burned, headless body beneath an iron sheet. A relative (Willy Cacho) identified the accused as the perpetrator and informed police. At the accused’s residence, officers found a shallow pit with ash and a human skull fragment and then encountered the accused exhibiting strange behavior consistent with mental illness; officers reported that the accused admitted killing “Boy” and burning the house. The accused was brought to inquest and later to the National Center for Mental Health (NCMH).
Plea, Trial Focus, and Legal Effect of Insanity Plea
The accused pleaded not guilty at arraignment but later invoked the defense of insanity. As recognized by the courts, when an accused pleads insanity he is treated as having admitted commission of the criminal act and the trial focuses on the issue of sanity alone; if sanity is established the court may proceed to convict without further trial on guilt. The accused therefore bore the burden to prove insanity by clear and convincing evidence.
Medical Evidence and Expert Testimony on Mental Condition
The defense relied on medical records from NCMH and testimony of Dr. Sagun. The record showed prior psychiatric treatment: diagnosis in 1996 of Major Depression with Psychosis, admission and discharge after remission; a subsequent admission on January 7, 2004 where a diagnosis of schizophrenia was recorded; later forensic pavilion consultations and admissions in 2006–2007. Dr. Sagun recounted the history of treatment and noted relapse is possible when psychotropic medications are not maintained (including mention of cost and compliance concerns). The accused’s wife and police reported observable abnormal behavior at the time of arrest.
Legal Standard for Insanity and Burden of Proof
The decision restated the governing legal principles: Article 12 (RPC) exempts from criminal liability persons who are imbecile or insane unless acting in a lucid interval. Insanity is an exceptional defense and the presumption of sanity must be overcome by clear and convincing evidence. To succeed the accused must show (1) complete deprivation of intelligence, and (2) such deprivation must have been manifest at the time or immediately before the commission of the offense. Evidence of mental condition may be circumstantial and may include psychiatric records and expert testimony within a reasonable period before and after the act.
Supreme Court’s Finding on the Insanity Defense
The Supreme Court concluded that the accused failed to prove insanity at the time of the offense. Although the NCMH records and Dr. Sagun’s testimony established a history of mental illness and prior admissions (major depression with psychosis in 1996; later diagnosis of schizophrenia), the evidence did not demonstrate complete deprivation of reason (insanity) immediately prior to or at the commission of the crimes. Prior confinement alone is insufficient to exonerate an accused in the absence of proof that the mental disease produced total loss of intelligence at the relevant time. Consequently, the defense of insanity did not meet the required standard, and the accused could not evade criminal liability on that ground.
Findings on the Murder Charge and Downgrade to Homicide
Although the accused admitted the criminal act by invoking insanity, the Supreme Court examined whether the prosecution proved the qualifying circumstances alleged in the Information (treachery, evident premeditation and nighttime) that would elevate the killing to murder under Article 248. The Court reiterated the elements required to establish murder and the specific legal meanings of treachery and evident premeditation. The Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to prove any of the alleged qualifying circumstances with the requisite certainty. Because the aggravating circumstances alleged in the Information were not established at trial, the killing could not be sustained as murder and was therefore reclassified as homicide under Article 249. The reclassification reflects the rule that qualifying circumstances must be specifically alleged and proven with the same certainty as the crime itself.
Findings on Destructive Arson and Its Relation to the Homicide
The Court determined that Destructive Arson was sufficiently proven. The records indicated that the accused beheaded the victim and then set fire to the victim’s house; evidence supported the prosecution’s theory that the burning was undertaken to conceal or destroy evidence of the killing. The Court applied the established framework to determine whether arson would be the primary crime, or whether arson would be absorbed into a homicide/murder charge, or whether separate crimes would exist. Because the accused had already killed the victim and then burned the house to cover up the killing, the Court concluded that two distinct offenses occurred: homicide and destructive arson.
Sentencing and Application of Pen
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 166309-10)
Procedural Posture and Rolling History
- Case comes to the Supreme Court by automatic review of the Court of Appeals Decision dated July 1, 2014 in CA‑G.R. CR‑HC No. 06123, which affirmed the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Mateo, Rizal, Branch 76 Decision dated October 8, 2012 in Criminal Case Nos. 7522 and 7523.
- The RTC found the accused-appellant, Wilson Cacho y Songco, guilty of Murder (Criminal Case No. 7522) and Destructive Arson (Criminal Case No. 7523).
- The Supreme Court considers two principal issues on appeal: (1) whether the accused-appellant sufficiently proved his defense of insanity; and (2) whether the crimes of Murder and Destructive Arson were sufficiently proved as charged.
- The Supreme Court rendered its Decision on September 27, 2017 (G.R. No. 218425), authored by Justice Tijam.
Informations / Charges (as alleged in the Informations)
- Criminal Case No. 7522 (Murder)
- Date alleged: on or about January 1, 2004, in the Municipality of Rodriguez, Province of Rizal.
- Accusation: That the accused, while armed with a bladed deadly weapon, with intent to kill and with qualifying circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation and nighttime, did attack, assault and hack with said weapon and behead one Mario Balbao y Adami, resulting in his death.
- Crime alleged to be a heinous crime of Murder by reason of the attendant qualifying circumstances.
- Criminal Case No. 7523 (Destructive Arson)
- Date alleged: on or about January 1, 2004, in the Municipality of Rodriguez, Province of Rizal.
- Accusation: That the accused, with deliberate intent to cause destruction to the house of Mario Balbao y Adami, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously set fire to and burned the said house causing its total destruction for the purpose of concealing or destroying evidence of the commission of the crime of Murder, with the special aggravating circumstance that the offender was motivated by spite or hatred.
- Upon arraignment, the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges. Trial ensued.
Undisputed Factual Summary (as summarized by the Court of Appeals)
- Report and police/fire response:
- On January 2, 2004, at around 8:10 a.m., PO2 Emelito Salen and SPO4 Onofre Tavas of Rodriguez Police Station received a report from Willy Cacho about a fire in Sitio Catmon, Brgy. San Rafael, Rodriguez, Rizal.
- PO2 Salen and SPO4 Tavas, accompanied by Bureau of Fire Protection members SFO1 Damasa Viscara and FO2 Casiple, went to verify the report.
- Discovery at scene:
- Upon arrival, officers saw a burned house owned by “Boy,” later identified as Mario Balbao.
- They discovered a burned, headless body underneath an iron sheet.
- Willy Cacho informed officers that his brother (the accused-appellant) killed “Boy.”
- The accused’s wife told officers that her husband was a patient of the National Center for Mental Health (NCMH) and had a recurring mental illness.
- Further investigation at accused’s residence:
- Officers found a shallow pit (1 foot in diameter, 5 inches deep) with a steel peg at the center, traces of ash, and a human skull atop a heap of charcoal; officers believed it was used to burn a head.
- Officers found the accused in his backyard; upon introduction as police officers, he acted strangely and exhibited signs of mental illness.
- SPO4 Tavas testified the accused admitted killing “Boy” and burning the house but did not state a motive; when they tried to arrest him, he became wild and had to be subdued by additional help.
- The accused was brought for inquest proceedings, then confined at the National Center for Mental Health.
Trial Evidence and Testimony (key evidentiary points)
- Police testimony and physical evidence:
- Testimony by PO2 Salen and SPO4 Tavas regarding the report, arrival at the burned house, discovery of the headless burned corpse under an iron sheet, and the shallow pit with ash and skull at accused’s house.
- Statements by Willy Cacho implicating his brother (the accused).
- Wife’s statement to police regarding accused’s status as a mental health patient.
- Accused’s conduct and admission:
- Accused acted strangely at his residence; reportedly admitted to killing and burning but did not explain why.
- Accused resisted arrest; officers had to call for help to subdue and transport him.
- Medical/psychiatric evidence:
- Testimony of Dr. Sagun (National Center for Mental Health) and medical records from NCMH were presented by the defense concerning the accused’s psychiatric history and diagnoses.
Defense of Insanity — Medical History, Testimony, and Records Offered
- Chronology and diagnoses according to Dr. Sagun’s testimony and NCMH records:
- First consult/admission: July 15, 1996 — admitted for two months and discharged September 1996; diagnosed with Major Depression with Psychosis in 1996.
- Lost to follow-up for eight years after 1996.
- Returned and was admitted on January 7, 2004 — diagnosed with schizophrenia during that admission and confined for five days.
- Subsequent consultations: November 24, 2006 and December 18, 2006 at the forensic pavilion; July 23 (year not specified in the summary) was a third consult and was examined by Dr. Sagun; Dr. Sagun admitted the patient on November 23, 2007.
- Medication and relapse evidence:
- Records show he was prescribed antipsychotic and antidepressant medication; Dr. Sagun testified such medications, if not taken, often result in relapse.
- Dr. Sagun provided approximate costs for haloperidol (P20–P50 per day) and antidepressants (P20–P100 per day) and suggested costs might be unaffordable to persons who even fail to eat three times a day.
- Presenting complaint on January 7, 2004 as per records: description in Filipino as “nagwawala, nanghahabol ng itak” (indicating violent/erratic behavior and pursuit with a bolo).
Legal Issues Framed for Resolution
- Whether the accused-appellant proved his defense of insanity so as to exculpate him from criminal liability.
- Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the crimes as charged: Murder (with alleged qualifying circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation and nighttime) and Destructive Arson (including allegation that it was committed to conceal the murder and with spite/hatred aggravation).
Trial Court (RTC) Findings and Judgment (October 8, 2012)
- The RTC confined its trial to the issue of insanity because the accused raised insanity as a defense; the RTC treated the plea of insanity as an admission of the act and tried the accused on the issue of sanity alone.
- The RTC found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of:
- Murder (Criminal Case No. 7522) — sentenced to reclusion perpetua and ordered to indemnify