Case Summary (G.R. No. L-33211)
Facts of the Killing
On the afternoon of September 8, 1970, Ernesto Puno entered the bedroom of Francisca Col and, after insulting her with references to witchcraft ("mangkukulam," "mambabarang," "bubuyog"), repeatedly slapped her and struck her several times on the head with a hammer, causing death. The assault was witnessed by Hilaria de la Cruz and Lina Pajes. After the killing Puno threatened the witnesses and fled, later being surrendered by his father and apprehended by police.
Witness Testimony and Immediate Aftermath
Hilaria and Lina testified that Puno’s eyes were reddish and his demeanor menacing. They recounted threats by Puno not to notify police and, notwithstanding those threats, the police were summoned. Corporal Daniel B. Cruz found the victim dead on her bed with bloodied head, blanket, and pillows. The witnesses identified Puno as the assailant.
Autopsy and Forensic Findings
A medico‑legal officer of the National Bureau of Investigation performed an autopsy and certified lacerated wounds on the right eyebrow, contusions on the head caused by a hard instrument, and extensive generalized intracranial hemorrhage as the cause of death.
Arrest, Indictment and Procedural History
Puno’s father surrendered him to police; he was brought to the National Mental Hospital on September 10, 1970. He was charged with murder, waived the second stage of preliminary investigation, was indicted on October 21, 1970 in the Circuit Criminal Court at Pasig, and was tried. The information alleged aggravating circumstances including evident premeditation, abuse of superiority, and disregard of sex. Pursuant to the trial court’s order and Rule 28, Puno underwent psychiatric examination at the National Mental Hospital.
Defendant’s Background and Conduct
Puno had a history of psychiatric treatment beginning in 1962 with subsequent follow‑ups up to July 24, 1970. Family and lay witnesses described recent behavior consistent with agitation: bloodshot eyes, headache, belief in being targeted by witchcraft, violent conduct toward a dog (boxing and tying), and unusual conduct (singing, moaning, and inappropriate dress) after fleeing to relatives’ house.
Psychiatric Evidence Presented at Trial
The defense presented three psychiatrists who had treated or examined Puno. The experts collectively acknowledged a history of schizophrenia or schizophrenic reaction beginning in 1962, but each testified that at or near the time of trial Puno acted with discernment. Dr. Araceli Maravilla described prior schizophrenic reaction but concluded Puno knew what he was doing and had only slight ego disturbance; Dr. Reynaldo Robles and Dr. Carlos Vicente likewise testified that Puno’s symptoms were not socially incapacitating and that he could adjust to his environment; Dr. Vicente opined that Puno could distinguish right from wrong and was not mentally deficient. The medical experts did not affirmatively find Puno legally insane at the time of the killing.
Institutional Psychiatric Report and Trial Court Inquiry
A multidisciplinary report dated December 14, 1970 from doctors at the National Mental Hospital (including Drs. Vicente, Robles and V. Manikan) noted Puno’s prior psychiatric history, observed that he was then “quiet and as usual manageable,” and concluded he was “presently free from any social incapacitating psychotic symptoms.” The report cautioned that residual symptoms could impair judgment without necessarily destroying discernment and expressly observed that persons recovered from acute schizophrenia may retain residual symptoms impairing judgment but not necessarily discernment of right from wrong. The trial judge also personally observed Puno’s conduct on the witness stand and found him sane.
Trial Court Findings and Reasoning
The trial court found Puno sane at the time of the killing, concluding he knew the act was wrong and that he would be punished for it. The court emphasized the threats Puno made to the witnesses after the killing as evidence of his appreciation of wrongdoing and potential punishment. The court also reasoned that if Puno had been a homicidal maniac who had gone berserk, he would have killed the other two witnesses as well; the fact he singled out Aling Kikay supported an intention directed at a perceived witch. The trial court convicted Puno of murder, imposed the death penalty, and ordered indemnity damages to the heirs.
Legal Standard on Insanity Applied by the Court
The court applied the established rule that insanity as an exempting circumstance must be proven with clear and positive evidence and must relate to the time immediately preceding or at the moment of the act. Insanity under Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code requires complete deprivation of reason or will (total lack of discernment or freedom of will). Mere abnormality or residual mental disease that impairs judgment but does not destroy discernment does not produce legal insanity.
Supreme Court Majority Analysis on Insanity and Liability
The Supreme Court majority (opinion by Justice Aquino) reviewed the psychiatric evidence and the totality of circumstances and concluded Puno was not legally insane at the time of the killing. The majority found that the psychiatrists’ testimonies and the National Mental Hospital report indicated that, although Puno had a history of schizophrenia, he was free of socially incapacitating psychotic symptoms at the relevant time and retained discernment. The court emphasized the threats to witnesses as proof that Puno appreciated the wrongfulness of his act and its consequences. Accordingly, the defense of insanity failed, and criminal responsibility attached.
Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances
The Court affirmed the characterization of the crime as murder and recognized abuse of superiority as a qualifying circumstance because Puno used a hammer against an unarmed elderly woman unable to defend herself. The Court found no sufficient evidence of evident premeditation because the requisites—time of resolution, overt acts showing persistence of the resolve, and a sufficient interval for reflection—were lacking. Disregard of sex was not established as an aggravating circum
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-33211)
Case Citation and Procedural Posture
- Reported at 192 Phil. 430, En Banc; G.R. No. L-33211; decided June 29, 1981.
- The case is a review of the death sentence imposed on Ernesto Puno y Filomeno for murder; the People of the Philippines is the plaintiff-appellee.
- Trial court: Circuit Criminal Court at Pasig, Rizal (Criminal Case No. 509).
- Indictment for murder filed October 21, 1970; accused waived the second stage of the preliminary investigation.
- The information alleged aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation, abuse of superiority and disregard of sex.
- The death sentence imposed by the trial court was subject to review by the Supreme Court en banc.
Facts — The Killing
- Date and time: About 2:00 p.m., September 8, 1970.
- Location: Bedroom in the house of Francisca Col (called Aling Kikay), age 72, a widow, dwelling in Little Baguio, Barrio Tinajeros, Malabon, Rizal.
- Accused: Ernesto Puno, 28, a jeepney driver and neighbor of the victim.
- Commission: Puno entered the bedroom, addressed the seated Aling Kikay with insulting words — "Mangkukulam ka, mambabarang, mayroon kang bubuyog" — then repeatedly slapped her and struck her several times on the head with a hammer until she was dead.
- Witnesses present: Hilaria de la Cruz, 23, who was in the bedroom with the victim, and Lina Pajes, 27, tenant of the adjoining room; both witnessed the assault.
- Description of accused at scene: Witnesses testified Puno’s eyes were reddish and his look was baleful and menacing.
- Post-offense statements: In Lina’s and Hilaria’s presence, Puno warned them not to call the police and instructed them to state they had left the house and did not know who killed the old woman; alternate reported threats included that if they called the police Puno would take vengeance on them.
- Flight: After the killing Puno fled first to his parents’ house at Barrio Tugatog, Malabon, and then to the house of his second cousin Teotimo Puno in Barrio San Jose, Calumpit, Bulacan, arriving there that evening; the record does not show how he reached the flooded Calumpit that day.
- Notification and police response: After Puno left, a person identified as "Una" notified the Malabon police; Corporal Daniel B. Cruz responded and found the victim sprawled on her bed, already dead, with a bloody head and bloodstained bedding; statements of Lina and Hilaria were taken at the police station identifying Puno as the killer.
- Turnover to authorities: Puno’s father surrendered him to the police; two Malabon policemen brought him to the National Mental Hospital in Mandaluyong, Rizal on September 10, 1970.
Forensic and Medical Findings on Cause of Death
- Autopsy: Conducted by a medico-legal officer of the National Bureau of Investigation.
- External and cranial injuries: Lacerated wounds on the victim’s right eyebrow and contusions on the head caused by a hard instrument.
- Neuropathology: On opening the skull there was extensive and generalized hemorrhage.
- Certified cause of death: Intracranial, traumatic hemorrhage (Exhibit A).
Accused’s Background and Conduct Surrounding the Event
- Personal background: Ernesto Puno a native of Macabebe, Pampanga; third child in a family of twelve; married with two children; completed third year high school; father was a welder; among his friends were drivers (Exhibit B).
- Accused’s own testimony: Months after the killing he professed not to remember having killed Aling Kikay and expressed beliefs that persons can be "mangkukulam", "mambabarang", and "mambubuyog", that such persons can cause physical afflictions requiring a quack doctor (herbolaryo), and that consequently it is necessary to kill witches and sorcerers.
- Behavior preceding and after the killing as reported by family and acquaintances:
- Wife Zenaida Gabriel (30) testified that on the night before the murder Puno’s eyes were reddish and he complained of a headache; the following day while feeding pigs he claimed a bumble bee was coming toward him though Zenaida did not see any bee.
- Zenaida testified that Puno took the cord of his mother’s religious habit intending to use it to tie his dog; when admonished he asked for another rope and then tied the dog by looping the rope through its mouth and over its head, repeatedly boxing the dog.
- Aida Gabriel, Zenaida’s elder sister, observed Puno boxing the dog and noted he had bloodshot eyes and a ferocious expression.
- Teotimo Puno testified Ernesto arrived at his house in Calumpit soaking wet, cuddling a puppy called "Diablo"; Ernesto refused to eat, sang an English song, refused to change wet clothes, tried on the clothes of Teotimo’s deceased father, emitted moaning sounds and slept; on waking he thought noises of persons wading were his fellow cursillistas.
Psychiatric History and Prior Treatment
- History of psychiatric treatment: Puno was treated as an out-patient at the Psychiatry Section of Dr. Jose R. Reyes Memorial Hospital and had been brought to the National Mental Hospital initially on July 28, 1962.
- Treatment span: He received psychiatric treatment and checkups on multiple occasions between July 28, 1962 and July 24, 1970 (records indicate numerous visits and repeated courses of treatment covering eight years prior to the offense).
- Prior recorded symptoms: Parents reported in 1962 that he laughed alone, exhibited eccentricities such as kneeling, praying, making his body rigid, with poor sleep and appetite; Puno himself then said he "could see God" and that a neighbor was bewitching him ("pinapakulam ako").
Psychiatric Evidence at Trial (Defense Experts and Reports)
- Experts presented by the defense: Three psychiatrists—Doctor Araceli Maravilla (Psychiatry Section, Dr. Jose R. Reyes Memorial Hospital), Doctor Reynaldo Robles (National Mental Hospital), and Doctor Carlos Vicente (National Mental Hospital).
- Dr. Araceli Maravilla:
- Treated Puno as an outpatient ten times between September 8, 1966 and July 24, 1970.
- Diagnosed as afflicted with "schizophrenic reaction" but observed that Puno could live with society and was an outpatient.
- Testified Puno knew what he was doing and had psychosis with a slight destruction of the ego.
- Noted Puno admitted financial problems contributed to restlessness, sleeplessness and irritability.
- Observed that as of July 24, 1970 Puno was already cured (7 TSN November 4, 1970).
- Dr. Reynaldo Robles:
- Testified Puno was first brought to the National Mental Hospital July 28, 1962 for symptoms such as laughing alone and other eccentricities.
- Noted that while Puno suffered from "schizophrenic reaction", his symptoms were "not socially incapacitating" and that he could adjust to his environment (4 TSN January 20, 1971).
- Agreed with Dr. Maravilla’s testimony.
- Dr. Carlos Vicente:
- Testified from his examination that Puno acted with discernment when he committed the killing and could distinguish between right and wrong (5 TSN January 11, 1971).
- Concluded Puno was not suffering from any delusion and was not mentally deficient, noting his attainment of third year high school as consistent with that view (8–19 TSN January 11, 1971).
- Joint psychiatric report (Exhibit B or 2), dated December 14, 1970, by Doctors Vicente, Robles and Victorina V. Manikan (National Mental Hospital):
- Noted prior psychiatric treatment and relapses for schizophrenia from 1962, with varying outcomes (recovered, improved, unimproved at different times); treatment continued at JRR Memorial Hospital up to July 1970 after which Puno was relieved of symptoms and discontinued medication.
- Observed that on September 8, 1970 Puno was able to kill an old woman (with particulars not given).
- Mental condition at examin