Title
People vs. Puno y Filomeno
Case
G.R. No. L-33211
Decision Date
Jun 29, 1981
Jeepney driver with schizophrenia kills elderly widow, claiming she was a witch; ruled sane, sentenced to life imprisonment despite mental illness.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 57883)

Facts of the Case

On the afternoon of September 8, 1970, Puno entered the bedroom of Aling Kikay and verbally insulted her before physically assaulting her with a hammer, resulting in her death. The attack was witnessed by Hilaria de la Cruz and Lina Pajes, who testified about Puno’s aggressive demeanor and threats to them afterward. Puno fled the scene but later was apprehended after his father turned him in to the police.

Evidence and Medical Examination

A medico-legal officer confirmed Aling Kikay's cause of death as intracranial traumatic hemorrhage due to blunt force. Puno had a history of psychiatric issues, being treated intermittently for schizophrenia from 1962 until shortly before the incident. During his psychiatric evaluations, three psychiatrists testified that while Puno had mental health issues, he was not insane at the time of the killing, indicating he understood his actions.

The Trial and Its Rulings

The trial court found Puno guilty of murder, applying the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superiority due to the disparity in physical strength between Puno and the unarmed victim. Puno's claims of insanity were dismissed as insufficient, as the court demonstrated that he had not lost the capacity to appreciate the nature of his actions.

Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances

The court recognized the abuse of superiority in Puno's actions but ruled out evident premeditation due to a lack of evidence showing prior intent. Disregard of the victim's age was considered an aggravating circumstance, while Puno's voluntary surrender and mental state were acknowledged as mitigating factors. Ultimately, the trial court sentenced Puno to death and ordered indemnity for the victim's heirs.

Supreme Court Decision

Upon review, the Supreme Court overturned the death sentence, concluding that Puno should be sentenced to reclusion perpetua instead. The ruling emphasized that Puno, although mentally ill, was not entirely devoid of reason during the commission of the crime. The court notably clarified that "social recovery" does not equate to full mental recovery. The indemnity imposed by the trial court was upheld, ensuring the victim’s heirs received compensation.

Dissenting Opinion

Justice Makasiar dissented, arguing that Puno was indeed mentally ill at the time of the crime, suffering from chronic schizophrenia, which impaired his c

...continue reading

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