Title
People vs. Macalindong y Andallon
Case
G.R. No. 248202
Decision Date
Oct 13, 2021
Appellant convicted of homicide, not murder, after stabbing live-in partner; insanity defense rejected due to insufficient evidence; qualifying circumstances unproven.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 5889)

Key Dates

• February 10, 2007 – Commission of the killing
• February 12, 2007 – Filing of the Information
• December 10, 2015 – Decision of the Regional Trial Court (Branch 40, Calapan City)
• April 4, 2019 – Decision of the Court of Appeals
• October 13, 2021 – Decision of the Supreme Court

Charge of Murder

Respondent was charged with murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code for allegedly stabbing his live-in partner while she was unarmed and defenseless, with attendant circumstances of treachery, abuse of superior strength, and evident premeditation. The Information alleged multiple stab wounds inflicted with a bladed instrument, resulting in instantaneous death.

Trial Court Proceedings

• Arraignment: Respondent pleaded not guilty.
• Prosecution evidence: Seven-year-old daughter Lyn Joy positively identified her father as the assailant who stabbed her mother twenty-two times. Police officers corroborated the crime-scene investigation and appellant’s arrest. A municipal health officer testified as to the autopsy findings and cause of death.
• Defense evidence: Respondent claimed a blackout and submitted certificates indicating schizophrenia from the National Center for Mental Health and Dr. Florecita Lindo.
• RTC ruling (Dec. 10, 2015): Found respondent guilty of murder by direct participation, appreciating only treachery (not premeditation). Imposed reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole and awarded civil and moral damages.

Court of Appeals Decision

• Affirmed the murder conviction and added “abuse of superior strength” as a qualifying circumstance.
• Increased moral and exemplary damages to ₱100,000 each.
• Ordered six percent legal interest on all awards from the date of the Information’s filing until finality, and another six percent thereafter until full payment.

Issues on Appeal

  1. Whether respondent’s plea of insanity exempts him from criminal liability.
  2. Whether the killing qualifies as murder or should be reclassified as homicide.

Insanity Defense Analysis

• Exempting Insanity (RPC Art. 12(1)): Requires complete deprivation of reason or discernment at the time of the act.
• Respondent’s proof: Uncorroborated blackout claim; certificates without expert testimony on the timing or extent of mental incapacity.
• Jurisprudential standard: Insanity must be proved by expert or intimate-witness opinion relating to the time of the offense.
• Conclusion: The defense of insanity failed; respondent remained criminally liable.

Qualifying Circumstances Analysis

• Treachery requires means that ensure the perpetrator’s safety and preclude victim defense through a deliberate plan. A sudden, impulsive attack does not establish treachery.
• Abuse of superior strength demands a notorious inequality of forces consciously exploited by the aggressor; mere adult strength and a knife do not suffice.
• Here, the attack was impulsive and unplanned, with no clear evidence of deliberate exploitation of incapacitation.
• Conclusion: Neither treachery nor abuse of superior strength attended the killing.

Reclassification as Homicide

• Elements of






...continue reading

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