Title
Supreme Court
People vs. Florendo
Case
G.R. No. 136845
Decision Date
Oct 8, 2003
Guillermo Florendo, diagnosed with schizophrenia post-incident, killed his wife Erlinda, claiming insanity. The Supreme Court convicted him of parricide, rejecting insanity defense, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 136845)

Factual Background and Incident Description

On August 28, 1996, at approximately 2:30 p.m., Guillermo Florendo and his wife were engaged in a heated conversation inside their house. Without any apparent provocation, Florendo suddenly attacked his wife with a bolo, inflicting multiple wounds on her head and body. The victim cried out that she would be killed by her husband. Agustin Florendo, Guillermo’s father and a witness to the crime, fled the scene out of fear for his own safety and sought help from neighbor Ernesto Anical. Despite efforts to find assistance from the barangay captain and tanods, Erlinda was already dead by the time help arrived. The appellant was found at the barangay captain’s house holding a bloodied bolo; he was later taken into custody.

Appellant’s Mental Health History and Psychiatric Evaluation

Following his arrest, Florendo exhibited symptoms of mental illness, including difficulty sleeping, loss of appetite, and withdrawal from interaction, prompting psychiatric assessments. He was diagnosed with schizoprenic psychosis, paranoid type (schizophreniform disorder), at the Baguio General Hospital and Medical Center, where he was confined and medicated. After approximately six months, he was discharged as fit to stand trial. Subsequent evaluations confirmed the diagnosis and noted the persistence of symptoms despite medication, emphasizing the necessity for continued treatment.

Trial Proceedings and Testimony on Mental Condition

During trial, witnesses including the appellant’s father, barangay officials, and neighbors testified that Florendo exhibited abnormal behavior prior to the killing, such as singing, dancing, talking to himself, and showing signs of jealousy and suspicion toward his wife. However, these behaviors were qualified as mental abnormalities, not definitively amounting to legal insanity. Florendo himself, when examined and cross-examined, demonstrated awareness of his circumstances, memory of events surrounding the incident, and understanding of his relationship with his wife and children.

Issue of Insanity as a Defense and Legal Standards

The appellant raised the defense of insanity to evade criminal liability. Under Article 12, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, insanity exists if there is a total deprivation of reason such that the accused lacks the power to discern or control his actions at the time of the offense. The burden of proving insanity rests on the accused by clear and convincing evidence. The Court emphasized that mere unusual or aberrant behavior does not equate to insanity in legal terms. The testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses about Florendo’s erratic behavior were deemed insufficient to establish insanity, as they were largely speculative and did not demonstrate a complete lack of mental faculties.

Psychiatric Findings and Temporal Consideration of Insanity

The Court underscored that mental condition assessments must pertain to the time immediately before or during the commission of the crime. Although diagnosed with schizophrenia post-incident, no conclusive proof showed Florendo’s insanity at the relevant time. A neuro-psychiatric report indicated premonitory symptoms like fearfulness, irritability, suspiciousness, and jealousy could have been prodromal to psychosis, but these did not amount to total loss of intelligence or reason when the crime occurred. Hence, his mental illness did not exempt him from criminal responsibility.

Circumstances of the Killing and Cruelty Allegation

The Court examined the aggravating circumstance of cruelty claimed by the prosecution, considering the sixteen wounds inflicted on the victim. It clarified that the number of wounds alone does not establish cruelty; there must be proof of deliberate and sadistic acts causing unnecessary suffering. No such proof was shown; therefore, cruelty could not be appreciated. Furthermore, since cruelty was not alleged in the information, the procedural requirement under Section 9, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure prohibits its consideration to justify the death penalty.

Legitimacy of the Marital Relationship

Although no marriage certificate was presented, the Court upheld the legitimacy of the marriage based on testimonies, including an admission by Florendo himself. This established that the killing was parricide under Article 246, which requires the victim to be a legitimate relative or spouse.

Penalty Imposition and Modification

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.