Title
People vs. Estrada
Case
G.R. No. 130487
Decision Date
Jun 19, 2000
Roberto Estrada, accused of murdering a security guard during a religious ceremony, claimed insanity due to prior mental illness. The trial court denied psychiatric evaluation, violating due process. Supreme Court remanded for proper mental examination and fair proceedings.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 130487)

Pre-trial Motions and Mental Competence

At arraignment, defense counsel filed an urgent motion to suspend proceedings and commit Estrada for psychiatric evaluation at Baguio General Hospital, citing prior confinement for mental defect. The trial court questioned the accused, deemed his answers “intelligent,” and denied the motion on January 6, 1995, proceeding to arraignment and entering a not guilty plea on his behalf.

Trial Evidence

The prosecution presented four witnesses: the city autopsy physician, an eyewitness assistant to the Bishop, a responding police officer, and the victim’s sister. Evidence established that Estrada inexplicably ascended to the Bishop’s chair during confirmation, ignored requests to desist, and repeatedly stabbed Mararac with a knife. He was subdued by police and later found with a scabbard. The victim died of massive intrathoracic hemorrhage. Autopsy reports confirmed two stab wounds.

Demurrer to Evidence

After resting its case, the prosecution faced a demurrer to evidence asserting lack of treachery, presence of unlawful aggression, and Estrada’s insanity. The trial court denied the demurrer on August 21, 1995, and later denied reconsideration, compelling Estrada to present evidence.

Findings and Sentence by the Trial Court

On June 23, 1997, the RTC found Estrada guilty of murder with cruelty as aggravating circumstance and sentenced him to death, indemnification of heirs, actual expenses, and moral damages.

Issues on Appeal

Estrada appealed, contending that:

  1. He proved insanity by clear and convincing evidence, exempting him from liability under Article 12(1) RPC.
  2. The homicide lacked qualifying treachery and the cruelty finding was unwarranted if insanity were recognized.

Insanity as an Exempting Circumstance

Under Article 12(1) RPC, an insane person is exempt from criminal liability unless acting during a lucid interval. Insanity requires proof of total deprivation of reason at the time of the act by clear and positive evidence. Partial abnormalities do not suffice.

Competency to Stand Trial

Rule 116, Section 12 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure mandates suspension of arraignment if the accused appears unable to understand charges or plead intelligently due to mental condition. Competency involves capacity to consult counsel, understand proceedings, and make rational decisions. Denial of a fair trial by trying an incompetent accused offends due process.

Duty to Order Mental Examination

Given Estrada’s history of psychiatric confinement, lay observations of bizarre conduct, and requests by jail wardens for psychiatric evaluation, the trial court should have ordered a formal mental examination. A judge’s casual questioning cannot substitute for expert assessment. Dual-purpose psychiatric evaluation could have determined both competency and sanity at the time of the offense.

Due Process Violation and Relief

The tri

    ...continue reading

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