Title
People vs. Catanyag y Sta. Ana
Case
G.R. No. 103974
Decision Date
Sep 10, 1993
Ariel Catanyag, convicted of parricide, claimed insanity during the 1988 killing of his wife, Elizabeth. The Supreme Court upheld his conviction, ruling insufficient evidence proved complete insanity at the time of the crime.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 103974)

Case Background

Ariel Catanyag was convicted of parricide for the murder of his wife, Elizabeth, sentenced to reclusion perpetua, and ordered to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of P50,000.00 along with the payment of costs. The incident occurred on December 9, 1988, when Catanyag unlawfully entered the residence of Elizabeth's sister, Girlie Nery, searching for Elizabeth, who had distanced herself from him after their separation.

Incident Description

On the afternoon of December 9, 1988, Catanyag followed Elizabeth into a comfort room after a quarrel wherein he insisted she return to live with him. Despite Elizabeth's attempts to evade him, the situation escalated into a violent confrontation, resulting in Catanyag stabbing Elizabeth multiple times. Girlie Nery witnessed the stabbing after hearing Elizabeth's calls for help and intervened. Elizabeth was eventually taken to the hospital but died shortly after due to severe hemorrhage.

Defense Claim

During the trial, the defense sought to establish that Catanyag was suffering from insanity at the time of the crime. The only supporting evidence presented was from Dr. Edgardo Canlas, who conducted a psychiatric evaluation two years post-incident, diagnosing Catanyag with an “organic mental syndrome” characterized by irritability and poor impulse control. However, Dr. Canlas also stated that his intelligence was average and that his physical and neurological examinations showed normal results.

Trial Court Findings

On September 20, 1991, the trial court convicted Catanyag of parricide, stating that the medical findings did not convincingly establish that his mental condition at the time of the offense was as described in his later evaluation. The court highlighted that the burden of proof lies with the defendant to demonstrate that he was completely deprived of reason when committing the crime — a standard under Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code.

Legal Considerations

Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code specifies that a person who is insane or an imbecile is exempt from criminal liability, unless they acted during a lucid interval. To claim this exemption successfully, the accused must provide clear evidence of a complete deprivation of

...continue reading

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