Title
People vs. Villanueva y Marquez
Case
G.R. No. 172697
Decision Date
Sep 25, 2007
Appellant with schizophrenia killed niece, injured nephews; insanity defense rejected, schizophrenia deemed mitigating; guilty of murder, frustrated/attempted murder.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 183543)

Key Dates

  • Incident Date: January 21, 2000
  • Initial Trial Court Decision: March 11, 2002
  • Court of Appeals Decision: February 21, 2006
  • Supreme Court Resolution: September 25, 2007

Applicable Law

The case primarily references the 1987 Philippine Constitution and the Revised Penal Code, specifically Article 248 and the mitigating circumstances under Article 13(9).

Facts of the Case

On January 21, 2000, during a fit of rage exacerbated by alcohol consumption, the Appellant violently attacked three children: his niece Angelica (8 years old), who was killed, and his nephews Rexie (5 years old) and Enrique Jr. (2 years old), who sustained serious injuries. The case proceeded through legal channels as the Appellant faced charges resulting in multiple Informations filed for the specific offenses.

Defense Argument

Appellant pleaded insanity, contending he was unaware of his actions due to mental illness. A psychiatric evaluation diagnosed him with schizophrenia, characterized by intermittent psychotic episodes. His defense emphasized the need to assess the extent of his mental faculties during the commission of the crimes.

Trial Court Decision

The Regional Trial Court found the Appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt for murder, frustrated murder, and attempted murder. The court dismissed the claim of insanity, citing substantial evidence that the Appellant was not deprived of reason at the time of the crimes. The court's judgment included severe penalties and indemnifications for the victims’ families.

Court of Appeals Decision

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision but modified the penalties and the awards for moral damages. It recognized the Appellant's mental disorder as a mitigating circumstance while still affirming his guilt.

Supreme Court Findings

The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the lower courts, emphasizing that the Appellant failed to overcome the presumption of sanity inherent in criminal law. The Court highlighted that while the Appellant had a history of mental illness, he retained a clear consciousness of his actions, as evidenced by his guilt and remorse for the crime committed.

Modification of Sentences

While agreeing with the mitigating circumstance of mental illness, the Su

...continue reading

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