G.R. No. L-34517 - People vs. Ganut

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-34517)

Facts of the Case

On the morning of April 9, 1930, after assisting Gregorio Diana in cleaning bamboo, the defendant returned home and found his wife, Crispina Diana, and a two-week-old child sleeping on the floor. Shortly thereafter Crispina cried for help. Gregorio went to the defendant’s house and found the defendant attacking Crispina with a bolo. With help from the defendant’s brother Teodulo, Gregorio disarmed and tied the defendant to a post. Authorities, including the justice of the peace, chief of police, a sanitary inspector and a policeman, were summoned. The defendant told the justice of the peace he attacked his wife because she had given P2.70 to Apolinar Sereno, whom the defendant suspected of illicit relations with his wife. Crispina died a few hours later; the subsequent examination disclosed ten wounds in different parts of her body.

Procedural History

The defendant was tried in the trial court and found guilty of the crime of parricide. Consideration was given to mitigating circumstances (obfuscation and lack of instruction). The defendant was sentenced and thereafter appealed to the higher court. During trial proceedings, the trial court ordered a medical observation of the defendant by Dr. Luis B. Gomez.

Charge and Sentence Imposed

The trial court convicted the defendant of parricide and, taking into account mitigating circumstances of obfuscation and lack of instruction, imposed a penalty of fourteen years, eight months, and one day of cadena temporal with the accessory penalties prescribed by law, and ordered payment of costs.

Defense Raised on Appeal

The principal ground advanced by the appellant on appeal was that he acted in a state of somnambulism (sleepwalking) when he attacked his wife — a claim presented as an exculpatory explanation for the criminal act.

Evidence on Somnambulism

The record shows that the trial court had the defendant observed by Dr. Luis B. Gomez for some time; the doctor did not find evidence of somnambulism. No affirmative proof establishing the existence of somnambulism at the time of the offense appears in the record. The court therefore treated the somnambulism claim as unproven.

Legal Standard Applied

The court recognized that a defense alleging commission of an offense during somnambulism has been acknowledged in legal literature; however, it observed prevailing judicial authority treats somnambulism as falling within the ambit of a plea of insanity. Thus, for somnambulism to operate as an exculpatory defense, it must be proven with the same cogency required for an insanity defense. The court quoted Wharton’s Criminal Law to the effect that somnambulism, as a defense, is subsumed under insanity defenses and must be established by proof.

Court’s Analysis and Reasoning

The court found no adequate proof supporting the appellant’s somnambulism claim. The limited expert observation by Dr. Gomez did not disclose somnambulistic behavior. Given the absence of proof, the somnambulism allegation could not negate criminal responsibility. The court further considered the defendant’s own statements to authorities — that he attacked his wife

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-34517)

Citation and Decision

Reported at 55 Phil. 604.
G.R. No. 33877.
Decision rendered on February 06, 1931.
Opinion authored by Justice Ostrand.
Justices Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Johns, Romiuildez, and Villa-Real concurred in the decision.

Parties and Roles

Plaintiff and appellee: The People of the Philippine Islands.
Defendant and appellant: Juan N. Gimena.
Victim: Crispina Diana, wife of the defendant.
Related persons identified in the record:
- Gregorio Diana: father-in-law of the defendant, assisted earlier in cleaning bamboo and later discovered the attack.
- Teodulo Gimena: brother of the defendant, assisted in disarming and restraining the defendant.
- Apolinar Sereno: person to whom the victim allegedly gave P2.70 and whom the defendant suspected of illicit relations with his wife.
- Dr. Luis B. Gomez: physician who observed the defendant pursuant to a trial court order.
- Officials who appeared at the scene: the justice of the peace, the chief of police, a sanitary inspector, and a policeman.

Relevant Chronology and Setting

Date of the material events: Morning of April 9, 1930.
Location: Municipality of Ronda, Province of Cebu.
Sequence:
- Defendant assisted his father-in-law, Gregorio Diana, with cleaning bamboo.
- After completing the cleaning, the defendant returned home.
- Upon arrival, he found his wife, Crispina, and a two-week-old child sleeping together on the floor.
- Shortly thereafter, Gregorio Diana heard his daughter cry for help and went to the defendant’s house.
- Gregorio found the defendant attacking Crispina with a bolo.
- With assistance from Teodulo Gimena, Gregorio disarmed the defendant and tied him to a post of the house.
- The incident was reported to authorities, who arrived at the scene.

Facts Established by the Record

The defendant attacked his wife with a bolo.
The victim, Crispina Diana, was found wounded; subsequent examination disclosed ten wounds located in different parts of her body.
The victim died a few hours after the attack on the same day.
When asked by the justice of the peace why he had attacked his wife, the defendant stated that it was because she had given P2.70 to Apolinar Sereno, whom he suspected of illicit relations with her.
The defendant was physically restrained at the scene by family members until authorities arrived.

Criminal Charge

The defendant was charged with the crime of parricide.

Trial Proceedings and Evidence Concerning Mental State

The trial court ordered that the defendant be placed under observation by Dr. Luis B. Gomez for some time.
Dr. Luis B. Gomez ap